Re: DSII for the 2020s

Don Greenfield wrote:

> Huh, a while ago I posted (what I thought was) a new weapons system 
> for DSII, but got no response. 

Sorry, missed it last time :-(

> Here it is again:
> 
> =========================
> I've been mulling over my Free State background lately, working up
some
> TOE's and designing vehicles, and it seems that there is something of
a > gap in the weapons provided in the rules. They all seem to be
optimized > for putting holes in thick chunks of metal. While this may
be all well and 
> good for those Great Powers that have the industrial and financial 
> wherewithall to build, deploy, and replace the heavy metal, those of
us 
> out on the frontiers don't have those luxuries, or those kinds of
enemies. 
> We spend most of our time trying to deal with the scads of infantry 
> running around with the Twenty Second century versions of AK-47's and
> RPG's. Hence the following weapon:
> 
> Low Velocity Cannons (LVC):
>   The LVC operates on the same principles as the HVC, however, the 
> LVC is optimized for firing chemical energy warheads at moderate 
> velocities. The emphasis on a good Anti-Personel capability, with 
> secondary Anti-Armour performance.
> A useful twentieth century comparision would be the 76 to 90
> mm low pressure cannon, or the 81 mm gun-mortars primarily found in >
Third World militaries.  

Add in the 120mm turret-mounted mortars coming into use now too -
primarily intended for indirect fire, but quite capable of direct fire
as well.

>   The LVC comes only in size classes 3 and 4. 

You could build it as size 5 as well, but (realistically) they'd
probably cost more than you gain over an LVC/4. Ammo size in particular
would cause problems.

> Range Table:	   Close Range	    Medium Range      Long Range
> LVC/3 		    12 "		     20"		
       28"
> LVC/4 		    14" 		     23"		
       32"
> 
> Damage
> LVC:	      Against Reactive Armour: Yellow Chits
>		   Against all other armours:  Red Chits

See my comments to the rationales below. I'd use the same chit
validities as the GMSs.

>		   Against Infantry:		 :  Red Chits
>
> Costs: 6 x Size of weapon. 

> Since the antiarmour effect comes from a
> chemical warhead like those on the GMS systems, but since the 
> warhead is lighter than on those systems, I reduced the effects. 

I don't agree that the LVC warheads would need to be significantly
smaller than missile warheads - not for the GMS/L at least, and the
GMS/H draws 5 chits to the 4 for an LVC/4 already.

In addition, GMSs should probably be OTA (ie, hit the top armour) -
virtually all the new GMSs under development or recently deployed today
are, and it'll be tricky to reinforce the roof significantly. (It is
possible to build OTA cannon projectiles as well, but then you *would*
get significant reductions in warhead size so I'm not sure you'd gain
much from it.) Of course, the high number of chits for GMSs may be
considered to reflect OTA capability already if you feel like it <g>

The big drawback for CE warheads compared to KE in the future  is
likely to be point defences. CE rounds tend to be slow (due to the
shape limitations imposed by the shape of the warhead ) - Mach 2 or
thereabouts, which is roughly the claimed upper limit for what the PDS
systems deployed today can engage with at least some success. Future
PDSs are likely to be able to engage faster threats, but unless the
laws of aerodynamics change I don't think we'll be able to fire CE
rounds at much higher velocities :-/

I don't think ADS would be that useful against direct-fire rounds fired
against other vehicles than the ADS one - unless the rounds are OTA
they'd usually go too low to give the ADS lines of sight against them.

A relatively simple game mechanic for PDS defence vs gun-fired CE
rounds could be to give the target a secondary die based on its PDS
quality - Basic 1D6, Enhanced 1D8, Superior 1D10, shifted up by one die
if the target is also in cover. ADS mounted on the target vehicle could
give the same level of protection as a PDS of the same quality, but
that'd count as one anti-"GMS" for ADS overload purposes.

> Since the whole point
> of the weapon was to have an effective anit- infantry effect, I gave
it the
> best AP capability I could find on the DF weapons chart. This was the

> DFFG, and I can justify this by saying the LVC has a special AP shell
that > only a low velocity weapon can fire (sensitive fuzing, greater
HE load, 
> whatever).

Sensitive fuzing sounds pretty much like the Bofors 40mm 3P round, but
that one is fired from a high-pressure weapon (the Bofors 40mm/70
cannon; RFAC/2 in DSII terms).

The greater HE loads explanation works very well compared to railguns,
but HVCs would be able to fire the same types of rounds as if they were
LVC (by using less propellant than normal HVC rounds do, so you get the
same pressures and accelerations). The difference between HVC and LVC
would then be that HVC can use KE against armour, so ignores the
target's  PDS.

> I'm not real sure about the points, just looking at it it seems less
useful
> than a standard HVC, but somewhat more than RFAC's. I gave it 6 x the
> size, but I'm open to discussion.

Sounds reasonable.

Best wishes,

Oerjan Ohlson
oerjan.ohlson@telia.com

"Life is like a sewer.
  What you get out of it, depends on what you put into it."
- Hen3ry