Re: UBW Tech

On Thu, 4 Feb 1999, John M. Atkinson fumed :-):

> DracSpy@aol.com wrote:
> 
> Before I get myself in trouble, this is 100% intended as constructive
> criticism--I think everyone playing with the DSII construction system
> has made these mistakes at least once.  Take it in the spirit
> intended--I know it gets a little. . . pushy at the end.

just a tad, but that's just part of the atkinson magic :-). what john
says
is basically right, although there are a few points where different 
opinions may be valid.

> > Mauler Tank:			    Mass	    Cost
> > 1x MDC/3 (Primary Turret)		    9		    30	    50
> > 1x HEL/1 (Turrets)			    2		    12	    62
> > 1x GSM/H (VLS) (Superior Guideance)     4		    60	    122
> 
> Three weapons systems?  Why?	You can only shoot one at a time.

a general rule with vehicles is to try and get them to do exactly one
job
very well. you can give your force flexibility by including an
appropriate
mix of units. note that this gives you more flexibility: you can't
change 
your vehicles much once you've built them, but you can reorganise your 
forces.

i see your comments on basing your PDS on recent US army proposals. this
is all very well, but unless you can work these proposals into the rules
under which these vehicles will be operating, these designs do not make
sense. under vanilla DS2, your HEL/1s are futile.

> > 1x FGP				    -		    23	    600
> > 1x Grav				    -		    38	    638
> > 1x Armor 4 Reactive 		    -		    18	    656
> > 3x Superior Fire Control System	    -		    18	    674
> 
> Get rid of the crap and add APFCs and a spare APSW or three.

APFCs are a must on big tanks, otherwise they're just screaming out for
infantry assault. multiple APSW is nice, too - three APSWs on one squad
will usually be a pretty short story.

> > 1x Armor 4 Reactive 		    -		    18	    571
> 
> You shouldn't need reactive armor on an APC.

i disagree. an APC - especially a big chunky APC like this one, with PA
on
board - is as much a target as an MBT, and is maybe more likely to face
missile attack, from other APCs and AFVs which wouldn't dare face a real
tank. reactive armour gets you bonuses against a bundle of annoying
attacks, including buzzbombs. making armour reactive doesn't add that
much
cost, anyway.

> Against GMS/Hs it won't
> matter anyway, and against buzzbombs, you've fscked up royally if your
> power armor can't keep the evemy infantry away.

so why would you need reactive armour on, say, MBTs? only if your
infantry
have failed to properly screen them. no, given that these tanks have
armour 4, the edge gained from reactive armour is useful against GMS/H.

> > Missile Support version of the Mauler Tank:
> > 1x Size 4				    -		    20
> > 4x GSM/H (VLS) (Superior Guideance)     16		    240     260
> 
> More than two GMS/Hs are overkill. And with 2xGMS/H, you can go for a
> size 2 chassis, which saves you a lot of points.

this is very true - missiles are very much a light forces weapon,
whereas
big massdrivers are a heavy forces weapon. there is no bonus defence 
against a massdriver, whereas missiles are vulnerable to ADS, ECM, PDS
and
reactive armour.

> My favorite Tank Destroyer is the Romanus
> Lecapenus, at 201 points.  Let me assure you the sight of a platoon of
> these on the board (5xTD, 1xAPC) is enough to send some of my regular
> opponents into twitching fits.

your regular opponents will soon learn to pull constant twitching fits
to
keep you guessing ("who're you playing tonight?", "john a.", "oh,
right. i've got some amphetamines you can borrow ...").

> > MRLS version of the Mauler Tank:
> 
> Actually, it's not.  MRLS is artillery system,

actually, it's not. MRL is a generic term, and MLRS is an artillery
system. you have to love that army word-ordering. anyway, i think
Stephen
can call his tanks whatever he likes - this vehicle does indeed have a
system for launching multiple rockets.

> > Command Version of the Mauler Tank:
> > 1x Size 4				    -		    20
> > 1x MDC/2 (Primary Turret)		    6		    20	    40
> > 1x HEL/1 (Turrets)			    2		    12	    52
> 
> Why?	Are you going to kiss the enemy, or kick his ass?

i believe strongly that a command tank has no business possessing 
offensive weapons - it is enough of a target that it needs all the
defence 
it can get.

> > Area Defence Version of the Mauler Tank:
> > 1x Size 4				    -		    20
> > 1x MDC/2 (Primary Turret)		    6		    20	    40
> > 1x Arty Observer			    -		    50	    90
> 
> No and HELL NO.  This thing has ONE, rpt, ONE function in life.

completely and utterly. you need ADS as long as there are missiles and
flyers around, and you won't have time to shoot at surface targets.
besides, an ADS in ground mode fires as an RFAC/2, which isn't much
worse
than an MDC/2 in terms of range, and it's as good against infantry. if
you
use andrew martin's rules for advanced ADS, you can even have an ADS
based
on an MDC/2.

you might also want to get rid of ADVs and use the points to beef up air
defence on individual vehicles. you lose the AA capability, but i think
you can get PD to be just as good by beefing up armour, ECM and PDS.
this
is just a thought - has anyone tried this?

> > Mech Inf Platoon:
> > 6x Heavy Grav APC
> > 6x Power Armour
> 
> Kinda light on the Crunchies, but that's your call.

if you're going to do infantry, do it properly, either get two squads of
ground-pounders in each APC, or make sure it has the right firepower mix
to effectively support infantry missions. what you don't want to do is
have the APCs "playing at tanks" and getting battered by real cav whilst
your infantry are dying for lack of fire support.

> > SLAM Battery:
> > 4x SLAM Carriers
> > 2x Air Defence Tanks
> 
> What is the tactical function of this unit?  IOW, what can it do that
an
> MDC-armed platoon couldn't?

it's better against infantry and massed light vehicles? i seem to recall
SLAMs having some sort of area effect. i could be wrong here. if i am,
get
shot of this vehicle.

i hope this helps,
Tom