Re: [ds] Ogres

Thomas Anderson wrote:
>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
(if
>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?

    Well, I've been thinking about 120mm guns. And, even though in
recent
posts, I've suggested that 120mm guns are size 5, I'm now thinking that
modern western 120mm guns are size 6 HVC with HKP range. I would put
Soviet
and Chinese guns as one step worse and with HVC range. I would also
suggest
that Western fire control is even better than Brilliant fire control
(1D12).
Perhaps even to the stage of allowing a secondary crew quality roll,
much
like SGII, to help in hitting the target. Or even allowing automatic
hits if
the crew are not underfire.
    So, we've got a size 6 gun in a turret (18CP) and one extra APSW
(1CP);
a total of 19CP with 6CP spare, assuming a size 5 hull. I would suggest
that
out of the remaining 6CP, 1CP is wasted. The vehicle hull has one or two
levels of stealth (assumed to be better manufacturing methods, rather
than
DSII's electronic stealth field) and the remaining 5CP could be used to
help
improve frontal armour to, say, level 6. Smoke dischargers don't count
for
capacity.
    I've assumed that you can spend spare capacity on improving armour
level. As a rough guide, using CP equal to front armour level increases
front armour level by one. This would cost about 1-2 points per CP used.
    Challengers and M1A2s are reputed to be quite tough. See Tom
Clancy's
book on the US armoured cavalry for more. Both the Challenger and the
M1A2
are very similar at this level of detail.

Andrew Martin
-------------
Shared email: Al.Bri@xtra.co.nz
Web Site: http://members.xoom.com/AndrewMartin/
Blind See-Saw Site: http://members.xoom.com/AndrewMartin/SEE-SAW/
Dirtside II Site: http://members.xoom.com/AndrewMartin/DSII/
Dirtside II FAQ: http://members.xoom.com/AndrewMartin/DSII/FAQ/
GZG E-Mail FAQ:
 http://members.xoom.com/AndrewMartin/DSII/FAQ/Ettiquette.html
FUDGE GM Site: http://members.xoom.com/AndrewMartin/FUDGE/
Usagi Yoyimbo Site: http://members.xoom.com/AndrewMartin/UY/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
1234567890123456789012345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890
	 1	   2	     3	       4	 5	   6	     7
----------------------------------------------------------------------

-----Original Message-----
From: Thomas Anderson <thomas.anderson@university-college.oxford.ac.uk>
To: FTGZG-L@bolton.ac.uk <FTGZG-L@bolton.ac.uk>
Date: Wednesday, 11 November 1998 9:42 AM
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
size
>> >6 vehicle? i don't think so.
>>     My rule of thumb indicates a size 6 vehicle. That's a good
starting
>> point for a design. I would feel free to modify the VSC +/- 1 to
better
>> 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
(if
>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
largest
>> >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 to
>> 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
units
>(size 5 100-tonners) only travel on motorways or cross-country you're
ok.
>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
line
>from now, so the M1A1 or challenger 2 gun is really a shorter-ranged
hvc,
>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
future
>> setting would be using HVC and basic firecontrol, would be of similar
sizes,
>> but would be slower to react - perhaps needing to make a threat test
before
>> moving or firing - due to poorer communications.
>
>sounds ok. the main problem i had was working out how to fill 15 cp,
given
>that a challenger does not have missiles or pds. that rule was just to
get
>out of a corner :-).
>
>Tom
>
>
>