Re: [DS2] Thoughts on tactics and design.

>From: Graeme Bradbury <graeme.bradbury@btinternet.com>
>Reply-To: gzg-l@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
>To: "'gzg-l'" <gzg-l@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU>
>Subject: [DS2]  Thoughts on tactics and design.
>Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2000 18:20:05 +0100
>
>Okay, none of what i am about to say is meant as insults or jibes at 
>anyone.
>
Now GI. Bubba can fire off 20 odd rounds
>without requiring him to let go of his bud light.

These seem like self-contradictory statements...

>The same is true with DS2. Lo-tech tanks are generally size 3/4 since
they 
>need
>the armour. High-tech is generally size 2/3 since they are now more
agile 
>and
>hence harder to hit. And faster so that their short ranged "hell aint
got 
>nothing on this"
>gun can be placed right up to a clunking tin can.

This seems more a reflection of your own personal taste in weapopnry
than an 
accurate evaluation of tech levels. There's something to be s aid for
class 
4 and  5 weapons of ANY type, which require larger vehicle platforms. As
for 
the more agile/harder to hit, this is true, when you're referring to 
GEV/Grav.  But in the large scope, any power who relies solely on these,

unless they have a hell of a budget,  are going to find themselves
seriously 
outnumbered.  There's merit in tempering your "High-tech" force with
other 
mobility types, depending on the job they're supposed to do.

>Guns are also smaller. a MDC that does equvalent damage to a HVC is 
>smaller.
>And the DFFG that does the same as the MDC is smaller still.

True, to a point, but...  Yes, an MDC 3 will do almost as much damage, 
relatively speaking, as a HVC 5, at medium range for both (not quite,
but 
almost). And have a better range. And be cheaper. However, the DFFG is a

different story.  The DFFG 1 will do more damage than either the HVC 5
or 
MDC 3, but it's range will be pitiful. You will HAVE to rely on fast
attack 
to get close enough to be effective, which means A: you're also
presenting 
yourself as an easier target and B: You're spending more on fewer
vehicles, 
exacerbating the number factor.

>Tanks started as a way of giving an infantry man the ability of
carrying a 
>great big
>gun without slowing his movement down to almost stationary.

That's a bit incomplete.  Protection from fire was as instrumental in 
prompting development of the tank as mobility was.

DS2 has guys that
>walk around in a suit of armour that allows him to move at a speed 50%
of 
>that of
>a tank, all the while carrying a weapon that can really ruin that tanks

>day. And he
>gets all these extras while being a size that means most tankers can't
even 
>see or
>engage him at the range he can see/engage.

A weapon which is also vulnerable to several forms of defense (ECM, PDS,

ADS, Reactive Armor).  Also, the infantryman carrying this around is 
sacrificing some of his effectiveness against other infantrymen, who are

actually quite good at killing him.  Again, we go back to the fact that
high 
tech forces had better rely HEAVILY on combined arms.

>I guess what i'm trying to say is, as far as high tech goes, bigger
equals 
>TARGET.

That's assuming A: Bigger without stealth and B: Bigger is stupid enough
to 
let smaller get close. See below.

>And that in my experience its lo-tech who need the boost, not high
tech. 
>High tech
>hit more often, have much higher damage and have a much better defence.

>Sure
>their points are higher, so what. In the games i play, the unit my 
>opponents fear
>the most is my infantry VTOL's (boxy GZG things) Armed with twin DFFG/1

>they
>can take out a size 4 tank on average and they have nasty little people

>dropping
>down and putting grenades/bullets into whatever they can find. MY most 
>memorable
>game moment is watching a Kra'Vak MBT run 30 inches away from a VTOL
that
>had just wasted the rest of his unit.

Somebody wasn't using his ADS right.

>I'll leave you with this thought. 5.56mm is standard rather than 7.62.
It 
>has a shorter
>range and slightly less stopping power. Why was it adopted. Because it
does 
>the
>job.
>Never use a Size 5 Tank when a size 3 will do.

5.56 is standard f or infantry grunts and their SAWs and AR's.	But not
for 
heavy support MG's, or for snipers. A size 4 or 5 tank has one advantage

over 3's:   They can carry class 5 weapons, especially the MDC 5, which 
delivers more pure hurt than any other weapon except the DFFG, at a
range 
rivaled only by the HEL.

Brian Bilderback

________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com