Re: [ds] Ogres

On Wed, 11 Nov 1998, Andrew & Alex wrote:

> 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.
>

I assume this is for moderns-only DS2, and not M1a1 vs future tech
stuff.
If it's for moderns vs futuretech, then I think you're being way, way to
generous to modern western armour.

If it's for moderns-only, I still think you might be being too generous
-
it is possible to kill an M1, and they don't automatically kill anything
that comes into range. They're very very very tough, and very lethal,
but
I do think you're being too generous.

Brian (burger00@camosun.bc.ca)
-- http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Nebula/9774/ --DS2/SG2/games
webpage--
 
> 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
> >
> >
> >
> 
>