Prev: Re: HO/20MM grav vehicles etc... Next: Re: New List Admin ( was Re: A sad(?) announcement)

Re: [ds] Ogres

From: Thomas Anderson <thomas.anderson@u...>
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1998 20:06:45 +0000 (GMT)
Subject: Re: [ds] Ogres

On Tue, 10 Nov 1998, Andrew & Alex wrote:
> Thomas Anderson wrote:
> >Andrew wrote:
> >> I use this rule of thumb:
> >> Divide vehicle weight by 10 tons to get vehicle size class.
> >a challenger 2, the current british mbt, weighs in at 62.5 tonnes. a
> >6 vehicle? i don't think so.
>     My rule of thumb indicates a size 6 vehicle. That's a good
> point for a design. I would feel free to modify the VSC +/- 1 to
> simulate the real world vehicle.

i'd be interested to know what equipment you would give it. a challenger
has a 120 mm main gun, a coax 7.62 mm MG, a pintle 7.62 mm MG and some
smoke launchers.

size 6 is 30 cp. a turreted size 5 gun is 15 cp. an extra apsw is 1 cp
you think that an apsw is a 7.62 mm mg; i'd be tempted to say that both
together count as one). what takes up the rest of the room?

> >of course, the weight-to-size scale you use for using ds2 to simulate
> >modern warfare is not necessarily the same scale you use for future
> >warfare, since the largest modern vehicles are smaller than the
> >future vehicles. if a challenger 2 or m1a1 turned up in 2160, it
would be
> >size 3. in your modern-day rules, it might well be size 5.
>     Actually, they would probably be very similar sizes. Tanks do have
> fit onto trains, roads and, in future, space ship hulls. Transport is
more a
> limiting factor than near future, non-nanotech, tech level.

true. roads are already quite wide in places - if your heavy armour
(size 5 100-tonners) only travel on motorways or cross-country you're
rail may get wider as the need for rapid mass cargo transport increases.
as for the size of spacecraft, that's anyone's guess (except in the
official background).

i also refer you to mike eliott's post on ft-fb / ds2 interfacing, where
20 tonnes per cp was "SUGGESTED". not chapter and verse (in gzg, can
anything be?), but i still think it's right.

>     A HVC with the range of HKP is probably the best alternative.

probably fair enough. i have seen designs where M1A1s have HKP, though.
alternatively, you could say that the hvc is a gun 10 years down the
from now, so the M1A1 or challenger 2 gun is really a shorter-ranged
and the gun on the Long Drive (what are modern chinese tanks called?) is
even worse!

> >basically, a modern mbt of any make in the future setting is going to
be a
> >size 3, armour 2 (if chobham - not as good as future armour) or 1 (if
> >steel), CFE, slow (possibly fast) tracked, hvc/3 in turret, and three
> >wasted space due to lack of minaturisation.
>     I disagree. But each to his own. I think modern vehicles in a
> setting would be using HVC and basic firecontrol, would be of similar
> but would be slower to react - perhaps needing to make a threat test
> moving or firing - due to poorer communications.

sounds ok. the main problem i had was working out how to fill 15 cp,
that a challenger does not have missiles or pds. that rule was just to
out of a corner :-).


Prev: Re: HO/20MM grav vehicles etc... Next: Re: New List Admin ( was Re: A sad(?) announcement)