RE: (FT)-Defsats, and some other rambles
From: "Robertson, Brendan" <Brendan.Robertson@d...>
Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2000 15:45:46 +1100
Subject: RE: (FT)-Defsats, and some other rambles
I usually allocate a minimum of MD 0.5 for station keeping drives for
the
rotational capacity. In order to free up trained spacers, I sometime
allocate them as civilian crew levels. Can't fix anything that breaks,
but
they're an expendable asset anyway.
If you wanted to be nasty in a campaign game, you give your defsats a
3-arc
class-3, firecon and nothing else but hull & armour. Really
inefficient,
but will tie up the enemy fleet for a long time...
Neath Southern Skies -http://home.pacific.net.au/~southernskies/
[Pirates] Dame Captain Washalot
[MKW2] Admiral Peter Rollins - Task Force Zulu-Beta
[Firestorm] Battletech PBeM GM
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Scott Case [SMTP:tgunner@hotmail.com]
> Sent: Monday, December 04, 2000 3:17 PM
>
> In Full Thrust, I would deploy them close to a planet (calling it an
> orbit)
> and would purchase them as being immoble space craft... why immobile?
> Because their orbit speed would be way slower than that of mobile
craft.
> At
> best, I would let them 'turn' to present other aspects (weapons)...
For
> building them, I would use the rules for installations on p 27.
From - Mon Dec 04 11:30:27 2000
Return-Path: <owner-gzg-l@scotch.csua.berkeley.edu>
Received: from scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (scotch.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
[128.32.43.51])
by lilac.propagation.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id WAA06625;
Sun, 3 Dec 2000 22:48:22 -0600
Received: from localhost (daemon@localhost)
by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.0) with SMTP id
eB44lom46918;
Sun, 3 Dec 2000 20:47:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (bulk_mailer v1.12); Sun, 3 Dec
2000 20:47:49 -0800
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.0) id eB44lmw46897
for gzg-l-outgoing; Sun, 3 Dec 2000 20:47:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: from soda.csua.berkeley.edu
(IDENT:8ASF1hN8SajARLWdZEiJ6eVvlLESEzAm@soda.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
[128.32.43.52])
by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id
eB44lkP46892
for <gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU>; Sun, 3 Dec 2000 20:47:47
-0800 (PST)
Received: from avocet.prod.itd.earthlink.net
(avocet.prod.itd.earthlink.net [207.217.121.50])
by soda.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.1) with ESMTP id
eB44lkf79984
for <gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu>; Sun, 3 Dec 2000 20:47:46 -0800
(PST)
(envelope-from chuckparrott@earthlink.net)
Received: from home (sdn-ar-003gasavaP242.dialsprint.net [158.252.83.4])
by avocet.prod.itd.earthlink.net (EL-8_9_3_3/8.9.3) with SMTP id
UAA29048
for <gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu>; Sun, 3 Dec 2000 20:47:44 -0800
(PST)
Message-ID: <004501c05dad$402d2640$3153fc9e@home>
From: "Chuck Parrott" <chuckparrott@earthlink.net>
To: <gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu>
References:
<417DEC289A05D4118408000102362E0A34CFA8@host-253.bitheads.com>
Subject: Re: [DS2] Fire restriction
Date: Sun, 3 Dec 2000 23:46:13 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400
Sender: owner-gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
Reply-To: gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu
Delivered-To: gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu
Status:
X-Mozilla-Status: 0000
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
X-UIDL: 39d245de000006b6
I came upon this in my first DS2 game recently, and the mates I played
with
ignored the fire restrictions. We had a situation of a MBT rolling
through
an infantry position attempting to run down 2 elements, firing the APSW
at a
third element, and firing a MDC at an APC approx. 600 meters away. On
reflection, this seemed a bit over the top to me but I may be biased
seeing
as how my sides infantry/APC was on the receiving end. It's been my
impression that tank warfare at this level is certainly chaotic, and
generally not quite as free wheeling as many gamers would like to
believe.
>From talking with officers and crew actively serving in armor units
around
the world, I come away with the feeling that if you can engage 2 or 3
targets in about a 30 second time frame, you are doing most wonderfully.
But on the other hand, if you are looking at doing a HS universe
setting,
the novels do talk about things like combat AI and other techie goodies
that
take a lot of the load off of a crew, so a really advanced tank would be
able to identify, track, and engage multiple hostiles in it's vincinity.
In
the end I guess it's all up to how you want the game to portray the
setting
you are using.
Maybe adding additional cost to units for different levels of
multi-targeting would play well and balance out nicely.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Barclay, Tom" <tomb@bitheads.com>
To: "Gzg Digest (E-mail)" <GZG-L@csua.berkeley.edu>
Sent: Sunday, December 03, 2000 4:56 PM
Subject: [DS2] Fire restriction
> In DS2, I notice (not having played it yet, just working on
assimilating
the
> rules) that a fire action is allowed only with one weapon system (if
I'm
not
> mistaken) _but_ you can fire a multiple mount.
>
> Let us see if I have this straight:
> I can fire my quad APSW or my dual HKP/3 mount on my AFV, but I can't
fire
a
> mixed mount (something like an MDC/4 with a coaxial mounted DFFG/1).
>
> I can see a *seemingly half_assed*[1] PSB for this: That the dynamics
of
the
> shot from each weapons system aren't identical, so the fire control
system
> is handling either one or the other weapon's parameters, and not both.
>
> I can also see a game justification (different range bands, chit
validities,
> etc. for the various weapons therefore more rolling required to
complete
one
> fire action).
>
> Has anyone considered ignoring this? If so, were the results
apocalyptic?
>
> Further, let us assume I have this situation come up: My MBT is 300m
from
an
> enemy infantry element (let's say they just hopped up from a concealed
> trench with a buzzbomb) and the enemy MBT I was focused on is 900m
away
and
> it seems to be lining up a shot. My MBT has a DFFG/1 in a cupola for
> anti-infantry work, and an MDC/4 centreline in the turret for
anti-armour
> engagements. I take an activation - is there a good reason why the
commander
> can't order the gunner to take out the enemy armour with the MDC,
while he
> sprays the infantry with the DFFG? It seems contra-indicated by the
current
> rules, but this strikes me as one of the shortcomings in the rules.
>
> I have this complaint in SG2. Let me draw another example: A Hammer's
> slammers combat car with 3 turret mounted APSWs (or SAWs or RFAC/1s
> depending on how you figure it - powerguns in the slammers universe!).
I
> have targets front, left and right. Can I only engage one of these
with
one
> gun? What about my wing gunners if the commander is assumed to be
engaging
> the front target? Are they snoozing?
>
> I guess part of this is a granularity issue: The crew and AI systems
aren't
> represented in a granular enough fashion to discriminate between a
situation
> where it IS appopriate for engagements with multiple weapon systems
and
> situations where it is inappropriate.
>
> Tomb
>
> [1] : Half assed because even nowadays our computerized firecon
systems
have
> three axis stabilization - a modern MBT can zip along at 50 kph over
uneven
> ground and the main gun tracks like it was a separate entity (it stays
> locked on target!). In 2183, if the firecons can't manage to adjust
and
fire
> two coaxial direct fire systems at the same target, the
hardware/software
> engineers working on fire controls must have been doing a profligate
amount
> of slacking when they should have been developing! Also, in separate
> turrets, for example, there is little or no justification for this.
And
> doubly so if you have multiple gunners...
>
> ------------------------------------------
> Thomas R. S. Barclay
> Voice: (613) 722-3232 ext 349
> e-mail: tomb@bitheads.com
>
> Now, now my good man, this is no time for making enemies.
>
> Voltaire (1694-1778), on his death bed in response to a priest asking
that
> he renounce Satan.
> ------------------------------------------
>
>
>
From - Mon Dec 04 11:30:29 2000
Return-Path: <owner-gzg-l@scotch.csua.berkeley.edu>
Received: from scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (scotch.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
[128.32.43.51])
by lilac.propagation.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id WAA08107;
Sun, 3 Dec 2000 22:55:52 -0600
Received: from localhost (daemon@localhost)
by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.0) with SMTP id
eB44tFJ47084;
Sun, 3 Dec 2000 20:55:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (bulk_mailer v1.12); Sun, 3 Dec
2000 20:55:14 -0800
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.0) id eB44tDL47063
for gzg-l-outgoing; Sun, 3 Dec 2000 20:55:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: from soda.csua.berkeley.edu
(IDENT:jQD+Y8E2SQFXIwCZgbw76fBQ4c4XUNb0@soda.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
[128.32.43.52])
by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id
eB44tCP47058
for <gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU>; Sun, 3 Dec 2000 20:55:12
-0800 (PST)
Received: from mail4.beol.net (IDENT:qmailr@mail.beol.net
[209.115.14.7])
by soda.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.1) with SMTP id
eB44tBf80947
for <gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu>; Sun, 3 Dec 2000 20:55:11 -0800
(PST)
(envelope-from bkb@beol.net)
Received: (qmail 13314 invoked from network); 4 Dec 2000 04:55:09 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO rlyehable.beol.net) (209.115.12.124)
by mail4.beol.net with SMTP; 4 Dec 2000 04:55:09 -0000
Message-Id: <5.0.0.25.0.20001203234821.02867140@mail.beol.net>
X-Sender: bkb@mail.beol.net
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.0
Date: Sun, 03 Dec 2000 23:49:46 -0500
To: gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu
From: Brian Bell <bkb@beol.net>
Subject: Re: [DS2] GMS/P and LPGs
In-Reply-To: <417DEC289A05D4118408000102362E0A34CFAE@host-253.bitheads.c
om>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Sender: owner-gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
Reply-To: gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu
Delivered-To: gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu
Status:
X-Mozilla-Status: 0000
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
X-UIDL: 39d245de000006b8
At 2000.12.03 -0500 21:50, you wrote:
>GMS/P
>=================
>
>Someone wrote some GMS/P rules for DS2 and I haven't seen them in my
>searches through the web pages.
>
>I assume it would use a guidance die reflecting its firecontrol (basic,
enh,
>superior) and it would have a max range of ??? (guess at 1200-2000m but
what
>is the max-range for Javelin or other GMS/P of today?). I assume it
would
>draw the same type of chit validity as GMS/L and GMS/H, but probably
only 1
>of them.
>
>And I have no clue what a system like this should cost in the hands of
a two
>man team. Less than a farther ranged, harder hitting GMS/L for sure.
Oerjan
>the number-wise? Other math crunchies?
>
>LPG
>================
>Any ideas on handling weapons like the 76mm and 90mm Low Pressure Guns
or
>the 165mm demolition gun? I was trying to design a cougar and a
scorpion and
>just didn't have the right weapon to mount.... someone must have
thought
>about this (or have thoughts). Oerjan? Others?
>
>
>Tom.
>
>------------------------------------------
>Thomas R. S. Barclay
>[snip]
I had posted some to the list earlier this year. They are
at http://www.ftsr.org/ds2/techlib/phw.asp
---
Brian Bell
bkb@beol.net
ICQ: 12848051
AIM: Rlyehable
The Full Thrust Ship Registry:
http://www.ftsr.org
---
From - Mon Dec 04 11:30:29 2000
Return-Path: <owner-gzg-l@scotch.csua.berkeley.edu>
Received: from scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (scotch.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
[128.32.43.51])
by lilac.propagation.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id AAA22107;
Mon, 4 Dec 2000 00:17:11 -0600
Received: from localhost (daemon@localhost)
by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.0) with SMTP id
eB46GSq48359;
Sun, 3 Dec 2000 22:16:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (bulk_mailer v1.12); Sun, 3 Dec
2000 22:16:26 -0800
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.0) id eB46GPS48337
for gzg-l-outgoing; Sun, 3 Dec 2000 22:16:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: from soda.csua.berkeley.edu
(IDENT:N4HROpe9xlwPBRLw08wbRP5rFS5XpiFI@soda.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
[128.32.43.52])
by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id
eB46GOP48332
for <gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU>; Sun, 3 Dec 2000 22:16:24
-0800 (PST)
Received: from d1o901.telia.com (d1o901.telia.com [62.20.252.241])
by soda.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.1) with ESMTP id
eB46GJf92734
for <gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu>; Sun, 3 Dec 2000 22:16:19 -0800
(PST)
(envelope-from oerjan.ohlson@telia.com)
Received: from default (t1o901p97.telia.com [62.20.252.97])
by d1o901.telia.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id HAA12479
for <gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu>; Mon, 4 Dec 2000 07:16:11 +0100
(CET)
Message-Id: <200012040616.HAA12479@d1o901.telia.com>
From: "Oerjan Ohlson" <oerjan.ohlson@telia.com>
To: <gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu>
Subject: Re: Sci-Fi Crossover after action report
Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2000 07:16:48 +0100
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Priority: 3
X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1157
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
Reply-To: gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu
Delivered-To: gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu
Status:
X-Mozilla-Status: 0000
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
X-UIDL: 39d245de000006b9
Tony Christney wrote:
>>>girls' ages 12 going on 21
>>
>>?? It's not polite to inquire about a girl's age... so I won't <g>
>
>Not entirely correct. It is not polite to ask about a woman's age,
>you dirty old man <g>.
If she's "going on 21", she's rapidly approaching the age where she
technically is a "woman" but will take offence if you call her that
since it suggests that she's getting old... thus "girl" <g>
Later,
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
From - Mon Dec 04 11:30:31 2000
Return-Path: <owner-gzg-l@scotch.csua.berkeley.edu>
Received: from scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (scotch.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
[128.32.43.51])
by lilac.propagation.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id CAA18493;
Mon, 4 Dec 2000 02:55:29 -0600
Received: from localhost (daemon@localhost)
by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.0) with SMTP id
eB48sNR53602;
Mon, 4 Dec 2000 00:54:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (bulk_mailer v1.12); Mon, 4 Dec
2000 00:54:21 -0800
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.0) id eB48sK653580
for gzg-l-outgoing; Mon, 4 Dec 2000 00:54:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: from soda.csua.berkeley.edu
(IDENT:0f5oYoyaFvL7/tWN9Gu2tW0TqvVSgjQz@soda.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
[128.32.43.52])
by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id
eB48sIP53575
for <gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU>; Mon, 4 Dec 2000 00:54:18
-0800 (PST)
Received: from mailout00.sul.t-online.com (mailout00.sul.t-online.com
[194.25.134.16])
by soda.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.1) with ESMTP id
eB48sHf16411
for <gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu>; Mon, 4 Dec 2000 00:54:17 -0800
(PST)
(envelope-from KH.Ranitzsch@t-online.de)
Received: from fwd02.sul.t-online.com
by mailout00.sul.t-online.com with smtp
id 142rO4-0002wx-07; Mon, 04 Dec 2000 09:54:16 +0100
Received: from webmail.t-online.de (320051779127-0001@[194.25.134.49])
by fwd02.sul.t-online.com
with smtp id 142rNy-0aUHMOC; Mon, 4 Dec 2000 09:54:10 +0100
Date: 04 Dec 2000 08:54 GMT
From: KH.Ranitzsch@t-online.de
Subject: Re: [FT] Vacuum-Head Help Required!
To: gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu
X-Mailer: T-Online WebMail 0.99
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Message-ID: <142rNy-0aUHMOC@fwd02.sul.t-online.com>
X-Sender: 320051779127-0001@t-dialin.net
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by
scotch.csua.berkeley.edu
id eB48sIP53576
Sender: owner-gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
Reply-To: gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu
Delivered-To: gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu
Status:
X-Mozilla-Status: 0000
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
X-UIDL: 39d245de000006bb
>Absender: nyrath@clark.net
> "Robert W. Hofrichter" wrote:
> > Not necessarily. The "Thor" idea is pretty good--a whole bunch of
> > really cheap very-low orbit satellites that consist of basically
> > masses of finned long-rod penetrators (with heat shields and basic
> > terminal guidance).
> They do require a bit of high tech though.
> I've heard arguments against the effectiveness of Thor.
> One problem is that as they re-enter, they will become encased
> in plasma sheaths so dense that they will neither be able to
> see their target, nor will they be able to hear any remote
> guidance radio signal.
The plasma is only there until the rods have been braked by the
athmosphere from orbital velocity down to several times the speed of
sound
(Don't know the exact value). Like re-entrant space capsules, they will
again have communication/sensor capability after that.
Greetings
Karl Heinz
From - Mon Dec 04 11:30:26 2000
Return-Path: <owner-gzg-l@scotch.csua.berkeley.edu>
Received: from scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (scotch.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
[128.32.43.51])
by lilac.propagation.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id WAA01183;
Sun, 3 Dec 2000 22:17:56 -0600
Received: from localhost (daemon@localhost)
by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.0) with SMTP id
eB44HLn46401;
Sun, 3 Dec 2000 20:17:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (bulk_mailer v1.12); Sun, 3 Dec
2000 20:17:18 -0800
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.0) id eB44HH046380
for gzg-l-outgoing; Sun, 3 Dec 2000 20:17:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: from soda.csua.berkeley.edu
(IDENT:YfJJPawhOV0Q+oX/gxZsghfynbFykJp5@soda.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
[128.32.43.52])
by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id
eB44HFP46375
for <gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU>; Sun, 3 Dec 2000 20:17:15
-0800 (PST)
Received: from hotmail.com (f107.law8.hotmail.com [216.33.241.107])
by soda.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.1) with ESMTP id
eB44HFf75514
for <gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu>; Sun, 3 Dec 2000 20:17:15 -0800
(PST)
(envelope-from tgunner@hotmail.com)
Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft
SMTPSVC;
Sun, 3 Dec 2000 20:17:06 -0800
Received: from 4.54.20.191 by lw8fd.law8.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP;
Mon, 04
Dec 2000 04:17:05 GMT
X-Originating-IP: [4.54.20.191]
From: "Scott Case" <tgunner@hotmail.com>
To: gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: (FT)-Defsats, and some other rambles
Date: Mon, 04 Dec 2000 04:17:05
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
Message-ID: <F107QWrBSXaD8z9tTx70000cdb3@hotmail.com>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 04 Dec 2000 04:17:06.0155 (UTC)
FILETIME=[0FC133B0:01C05DA9]
Sender: owner-gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
Reply-To: gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu
Delivered-To: gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu
Status:
X-Mozilla-Status: 0000
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
X-UIDL: 39d245de000006b3
These systems hit me as being a 'poor man's' space defense system,
because
they would be totally outclassed by mobile space/star ships- you know,
dropped into orbit to protect something worth protecting, but not really
worth keeping an actual battlegroup on station... or even used in
conjunction with more mobile defense systems- say like fixed ground
positions agumented by mobile forces (the concept being similar to the
German Westwall or Atlantic Wall of WWII).
In Full Thrust, I would deploy them close to a planet (calling it an
orbit)
and would purchase them as being immoble space craft... why immobile?
Because their orbit speed would be way slower than that of mobile craft.
At
best, I would let them 'turn' to present other aspects (weapons)... For
building them, I would use the rules for installations on p 27.
How useful would they be? Who knows, but hey... they are probably better
than nothing :)
________________________________________________________________________
_______
______
Get more from the Web. FREE MSN Explorer download :
http://explorer.msn.com
From - Mon Dec 04 11:30:31 2000
Return-Path: <owner-gzg-l@scotch.csua.berkeley.edu>
Received: from scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (scotch.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
[128.32.43.51])
by lilac.propagation.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id DAA26725;
Mon, 4 Dec 2000 03:45:00 -0600
Received: from localhost (daemon@localhost)
by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.0) with SMTP id
eB49iXd54314;
Mon, 4 Dec 2000 01:44:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (bulk_mailer v1.12); Mon, 4 Dec
2000 01:44:29 -0800
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.0) id eB49iR954293
for gzg-l-outgoing; Mon, 4 Dec 2000 01:44:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from cambr-exch1.adaptivebroadband.com
(berlin.adaptivebroadband.com [193.131.186.254])
by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id
eB49iPP54288
for <gzg-l@scotch.csua.berkeley.edu>; Mon, 4 Dec 2000 01:44:26
-0800 (PST)
Received: by cambr-exch1.cambridge.adaptivebroadband.com with Internet
Mail Service (5.5.2650.21)
id <W4S12N19>; Mon, 4 Dec 2000 09:44:18 -0000
Message-ID:
<35940AC31FFCD311AAF8009027D0D07D537B7A@cambr-exch1.cambridge.adaptivebr
oadband.com>
From: "Jones, Tim" <tjones@adaptivebroadband.com>
To: "'gzg-l@scotch.csua.berkeley.edu'" <gzg-l@scotch.csua.berkeley.edu>
Subject: [FT] Can't access FT Computer Core
Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2000 09:44:18 -0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21)
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Sender: owner-gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
Reply-To: gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu
Delivered-To: gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu
Status:
X-Mozilla-Status: 0000
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
X-UIDL: 39d245de000006bc
>However, without JavaScript enabled, I
>can't click on the e-mail button under Feedback.
A snappy version of the URL is:
http://www.geocities.com/fullthrustweb/
for the Core
and
http://www.geocities.com/fullthrustweb/faq-index.html
for the FAQ
There is no email 'button', the gif that should be displayed is AWOL
and has been replaced. That should fix the access problems
What you were seeing was a missing picture graphic displayed by the
browser
not an email button.
This site is javascript enabled to support yahoos annoying banner ads
and has been working OK for months AFAIK with javascript on. I am
looking
at it now with IE5 and all seems working also ok with NS6.
If yahoo have changed their banner ad code then that might cause
problems
but as the virgin page is plain text ( I add no jscript myself) I think
it
should
work with or without javascript.
Thankyou for reporting these issues its only be your feedback that
things get fixed.
--
Tim
From - Mon Dec 04 11:30:31 2000
Return-Path: <owner-gzg-l@scotch.csua.berkeley.edu>
Received: from scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (scotch.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
[128.32.43.51])
by lilac.propagation.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id EAA32265;
Mon, 4 Dec 2000 04:15:20 -0600
Received: from localhost (daemon@localhost)
by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.0) with SMTP id
eB4AERt55187;
Mon, 4 Dec 2000 02:14:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (bulk_mailer v1.12); Mon, 4 Dec
2000 02:14:26 -0800
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.0) id eB4AEPC55164
for gzg-l-outgoing; Mon, 4 Dec 2000 02:14:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: from soda.csua.berkeley.edu
(IDENT:eIQnDU2cGngYCwYSgJIx/GigyFjtqZXz@soda.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
[128.32.43.52])
by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id
eB4AENP55159
for <gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU>; Mon, 4 Dec 2000 02:14:23
-0800 (PST)
Received: from kuju.com ([212.134.167.6])
by soda.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.1) with SMTP id
eB4AELf27498
for <gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu>; Mon, 4 Dec 2000 02:14:22 -0800
(PST)
(envelope-from tony.francis@kuju.com)
Received: from kuju.com ([192.111.111.94]) by kuju.com ( IA Mail Server
Version: 3.2.2. Build: 1087 ) ) ; Mon, 04 Dec 2000 10:21:04 +0000
Message-ID: <3A2B6E4C.30D723B0@kuju.com>
Date: Mon, 04 Dec 2000 10:13:32 +0000
From: Tony Francis <tony.francis@kuju.com>
Organization: Kuju Entertainment
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.73 [en] (Win98; I)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: [FT] Can't access FT Computer Core
References:
<35940AC31FFCD311AAF8009027D0D07D537B7A@cambr-exch1.cambridge.adaptivebr
oadband.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
Reply-To: gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu
Delivered-To: gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu
Status:
X-Mozilla-Status: 0000
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
X-UIDL: 39d245de000006bd
"Jones, Tim" wrote:
>
> >However, without JavaScript enabled, I
> >can't click on the e-mail button under Feedback.
>
> A snappy version of the URL is:
>
> http://www.geocities.com/fullthrustweb/
>
This gives the following error
"The web page you are trying to access doesn't exist on Yahoo!
GeoCities.
http://www.geocities.com/fullthrustweb/STYLE.CSS"
using Netscape 4.7
> for the Core
> and
>
> http://www.geocities.com/fullthrustweb/faq-index.html
>
This works fine.
I've just checked my preferences and I have Java, Javascript and style
sheets enabled.
I tried downloading some of the CG models from Thrust Pack at the end of
last week and just got a bunch of 'file has expired' messages - any
chance of these being restored ?
Tony
From - Mon Dec 04 11:30:32 2000
Return-Path: <owner-gzg-l@scotch.csua.berkeley.edu>
Received: from scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (scotch.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
[128.32.43.51])
by lilac.propagation.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id EAA00479;
Mon, 4 Dec 2000 04:20:26 -0600
Received: from localhost (daemon@localhost)
by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.0) with SMTP id
eB4AJjQ55407;
Mon, 4 Dec 2000 02:19:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (bulk_mailer v1.12); Mon, 4 Dec
2000 02:19:44 -0800
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.0) id eB4AJh755386
for gzg-l-outgoing; Mon, 4 Dec 2000 02:19:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: from soda.csua.berkeley.edu
(IDENT:48iTY1nt40T2IftRu8txzL8afl0TMuuy@soda.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
[128.32.43.52])
by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id
eB4AJfP55381
for <gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU>; Mon, 4 Dec 2000 02:19:42
-0800 (PST)
Received: from kuju.com ([212.134.167.6])
by soda.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.1) with SMTP id
eB4AJef27995
for <gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu>; Mon, 4 Dec 2000 02:19:40 -0800
(PST)
(envelope-from tony.francis@kuju.com)
Received: from kuju.com ([192.111.111.94]) by kuju.com ( IA Mail Server
Version: 3.2.2. Build: 1087 ) ) ; Mon, 04 Dec 2000 10:24:29 +0000
Message-ID: <3A2B6F19.99AF4C66@kuju.com>
Date: Mon, 04 Dec 2000 10:16:57 +0000
From: Tony Francis <tony.francis@kuju.com>
Organization: Kuju Entertainment
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.73 [en] (Win98; I)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: [DS2] GMS/P and LPGs
References: <5.0.0.25.0.20001203234821.02867140@mail.beol.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
Reply-To: gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu
Delivered-To: gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu
Status:
X-Mozilla-Status: 0000
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
X-UIDL: 39d245de000006be
Brian Bell wrote:
>
> I had posted some to the list earlier this year. They are
> at http://www.ftsr.org/ds2/techlib/phw.asp
This comes out in almost unreadable black-on-dark-blue, which is a shame
'cos it looks interesting (I just can't afford to risk my eyesight) !
Tony
From - Mon Dec 04 11:30:32 2000
Return-Path: <owner-gzg-l@scotch.csua.berkeley.edu>
Received: from scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (scotch.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
[128.32.43.51])
by lilac.propagation.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id FAA07887;
Mon, 4 Dec 2000 05:02:01 -0600
Received: from localhost (daemon@localhost)
by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.0) with SMTP id
eB4B1Vm55968;
Mon, 4 Dec 2000 03:01:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (bulk_mailer v1.12); Mon, 4 Dec
2000 03:01:29 -0800
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.0) id eB4B1S755945
for gzg-l-outgoing; Mon, 4 Dec 2000 03:01:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: from soda.csua.berkeley.edu
(IDENT:rwgNVi6LxfG9sFsJYgL1Le0mqFaoqLTI@soda.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
[128.32.43.52])
by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id
eB4B1QP55940
for <gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU>; Mon, 4 Dec 2000 03:01:26
-0800 (PST)
Received: from mss.rdc2.nsw.optushome.com.au
(ha1.rdc2.nsw.optushome.com.au [203.164.2.50])
by soda.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.1) with ESMTP id
eB4B1Nf33242
for <gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu>; Mon, 4 Dec 2000 03:01:25 -0800
(PST)
(envelope-from morgan@optushome.com.au)
Received: from matrix ([203.164.4.32]) by mss.rdc2.nsw.optushome.com.au
(InterMail vM.4.01.03.00 201-229-121) with SMTP
id
<20001204110112.MAVT28304.mss.rdc2.nsw.optushome.com.au@matrix>
for <gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu>; Mon, 4 Dec 2000 22:01:12 +1100
From: "Morgan Vening" <morgan@optushome.com.au>
To: gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu
Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2000 22:04:13 +1100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Subject: Unofficial Official Lists?
In-reply-to: <000b01c0579e$4e3ddbe0$6ab5893e@auser>
X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.11)
Message-Id:
<20001204110112.MAVT28304.mss.rdc2.nsw.optushome.com.au@matrix>
Sender: owner-gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
Reply-To: gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu
Delivered-To: gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu
Status:
X-Mozilla-Status: 0000
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
X-UIDL: 39d245de000006bf
I'm looking for fairly comprehensive, and fairly navigatable and
printable (the FT Ship Registry wasn't) copies of quasi official fleet
listings for the following fleets. - Islamic Federation, Oceanic Union,
UNSC.
A friend is getting into FT tomorrow(first purchase), and is
interested in playing a fleet noone else at the club has (all are
currently covered). He is willing to make up his own stats, but
well... lets just say I'd rather he didn't. He has a propensity for
minmaxing, and well, I don't want to have to argue with him.
Morgan Vening
From - Mon Dec 04 11:30:33 2000
Return-Path: <owner-gzg-l@scotch.csua.berkeley.edu>
Received: from scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (scotch.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
[128.32.43.51])
by lilac.propagation.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id FAA14728;
Mon, 4 Dec 2000 05:42:36 -0600
Received: from localhost (daemon@localhost)
by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.0) with SMTP id
eB4Bg2Y56659;
Mon, 4 Dec 2000 03:42:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (bulk_mailer v1.12); Mon, 4 Dec
2000 03:41:52 -0800
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.0) id eB4BfpI56637
for gzg-l-outgoing; Mon, 4 Dec 2000 03:41:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: from soda.csua.berkeley.edu
(IDENT:ol4j/2nv7n88pY1l02gA9BeeK56huG7O@soda.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
[128.32.43.52])
by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id
eB4BfnP56632
for <gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU>; Mon, 4 Dec 2000 03:41:49
-0800 (PST)
Received: from exchange01.dscc.dla.mil (exchange01.dscc.dla.mil
[131.74.160.11])
by soda.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.1) with ESMTP id
eB4Bfnf37883
for <gzg-l@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU>; Mon, 4 Dec 2000 03:41:49 -0800
(PST)
(envelope-from Brian_Bell@dscc.dla.mil)
Received: by exchange01.dscc.dla.mil with Internet Mail Service
(5.5.2653.19)
id <W6J8M5B1>; Mon, 4 Dec 2000 06:41:34 -0500
Message-ID:
<9DB05BB477A8D111AF3F00805F5730100D1006B5@exchange01.dscc.dla.mil>
From: "Bell, Brian K" <Brian_Bell@dscc.dla.mil>
To: "'Tony Francis'" <tony.francis@kuju.com>
Cc: "Gzg-L (E-mail)" <gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu>
Subject: RE: [DS2] GMS/P and LPGs
Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2000 06:41:26 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19)
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Sender: owner-gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
Reply-To: gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu
Delivered-To: gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu
Status:
X-Mozilla-Status: 0000
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
X-UIDL: 39d245de000006c0
Hmmm. That's strange.
If you could let me know what browser you are using (off-list), I will
try
to track
down the problem. I did check the page with IE 5.0, NN 4.7, and Kmeleon
2.1.
Anyway, here is the info:
Portable Heavy Weapons (xxx/P and PHW) Teams
Treated as a Class-1 weapon except:
Use infantry unit quality in place of the FCS/Guidance:
Green: Close: d6 Medium: d4
Regular: Basic
Veteran: Enhanced
Elite: Superior
RFAC/Ps, MDC/Ps, and DFFG/Ps have a maximum range of Medium.
HEL/Ps and GSM/Ps have a maximum range of 16" (since there is only 1
range
band).
HVCs, HKPs, and SLAMs do not have a portable variant (minimum size is
3).
PHWs are good for a limited number of shots in DS2. The power packs used
to
power the weapons run out in the case of HEL/P and MDC/P. The element
can
only carry a limited number of reloads for RFAC/P, DFFG/P, and GSM/P.
Borrowing from SG2, I suggest providing counters to indicate each of the
PHW
rounds.
Non-powered Infantry units may carry upto 2 PHW rounds.
PowerArmor Infantry units may carry upto 3 PHW rounds.
The element that carries these are treated as an Anti-Armor Infantry
Team
until the PHW rounds are used up. Infantry Rifle Teams (or standard
Power
Armor for the Power Armor Teams). The PHWs are assumed to be disposable.
A
PHW Team may volunteraly discard PHW rounds in order to conduct Infantry
Ranged Combat. However, PHW rounds are not recoverable if discarded.
Cost is the cost of an Infantry Rifle Team (Power Armor Team in case of
Power Armor) PLUS 1/2 (round up) the cost of a fixed mount Class-1
weapon
per PHW round.
Weapon Close Medium Long
HEL/P 16" - -
RFAC/P 8" 12" -
MDC/P (GAC/P) 8" 16" -
DFFG/P 4" 8" -
GSM/P 16" - -
Infantry Heavy Weapons Teams (IHWT)
This is an extention of the Anti-Armor Team listed on p.13 of DS2. They
conform to this listing in all ways, but vary may carry any Class-1
weapon.
These are crew-served weapons. These teams carry only small arms for
self
defense in addition to the heavy weapon.
Differences from PHW Teams:
Uses Basic FCS for HEL, RFAC, MDC and DFFG
GSMs purchase the appropriate Guidance System.
Use normal Class-1 weapon ranges.
Does NOT use expendable ammo counters (may fire each round).
Treated as Anti-Armor Team as listed on p. 13 of DS2
Cost is for Infantry Rifle Team (or Power Armor Team) PLUS the cost of a
fixed mounted Class-1 weapon.
Valid heavy weapons for IHWTs are: HEL/1, RFAC/1, MDC/1, DFFG/1, and
GSM/L
PHWs are good for a limited number of shots in DS2. The power packs used
to
power the weapons run out in the case of HEL/P and MDC/P. The element
can
only carry a limited number of reloads for RFAC/P, DFFG/P, and GSM/P.
Borrowing from SG2, I suggest providing counters to indicate each of the
PHW
rounds.
Non-powered Infantry elements may carry upto 2 PHW rounds.
PowerArmor Infantry elements may carry upto 3 PHW rounds.
The element that carries these are treated as an Anti-Armor Infantry
Team
until the PHW rounds are used up. One the rounds are used up the team
reverts to an Infantry Rifle Team (or standard Power Armor for the Power
Armor Teams). The PHWs are assumed to be disposable. A PHW Team may
volunteraly discard PHW rounds in order to conduct Infantry Ranged
Combat.
However, PHW rounds are not recoverable if discarded.
Cost is the cost of an Infantry Rifle Team (Power Armor Team in case of
Power Armor) PLUS 1/2 (round up) the cost of a fixed mount Class-1
weapon
per PHW round.
Example 1: a Power Armor Team with a MDC/P and 3 rounds of ammo would
cost
55 (40 + ((10 / 2) * 3)).
Example 2: a Rifle Team with a MDC/P and 2 rounds of ammo would cost 30
(20
+ ((10/2) * 2)).
Weapon Range Chits vs. Armor & Validity Chits vs. Infantry &
Validity
HEL/P 16" 1 Red 3 Yellow
RFAC/P 8" 1 Red & Yellow 3 Yellow
MDC/P (GAC/P) 8" 1 All 3 Yellow
DFFG/P 4" 1 All (x2) 3 Red (x2)
GSM/P 16" 1 Red & Yellow 3 Yellow
Analyses:
PHWs are not as effective against armor as IVARs, but have a greater
range.
Teams with PHWs are more flexible than IHWT (see below), but have less
range.
Infantry Heavy Weapons Teams (IHWT)
This is an extention of the Anti-Armor Team listed on p.13 of DS2. They
conform to this listing in all ways, but vary may carry any Class-1
weapon.
These are crew-served weapons. These teams carry only small arms for
self
defense in addition to the heavy weapon.
Differences from PHW Teams:
Uses Basic FCS for HEL, RFAC, MDC and DFFG
GSMs purchase the appropriate Guidance System.
Use normal Class-1 weapon ranges.
Does NOT use expendable ammo counters (may fire each round).
Treated as Anti-Armor Team as listed on p. 13 of DS2
Cost is for Infantry Rifle Team (or Power Armor Team) PLUS the cost of a
fixed mounted Class-1 weapon.
Valid heavy weapons for IHWTs are:
HEL/1, RFAC/1, MDC/1, DFFG/1, and GSM/L
-----
Brian Bell
bkb@beol.net
http://www.ftsr.org
-----
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tony Francis [SMTP:tony.francis@kuju.com]
> Sent: Monday, December 04, 2000 5:17 AM
> To: gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu
> Subject: Re: [DS2] GMS/P and LPGs
>
> Brian Bell wrote:
> >
> > I had posted some to the list earlier this year. They are
> > at http://www.ftsr.org/ds2/techlib/phw.asp
>
> This comes out in almost unreadable black-on-dark-blue, which is a
shame
> 'cos it looks interesting (I just can't afford to risk my eyesight) !
>
> Tony
From - Mon Dec 04 11:30:34 2000
Return-Path: <owner-gzg-l@scotch.csua.berkeley.edu>
Received: from scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (scotch.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
[128.32.43.51])
by lilac.propagation.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id GAA18064;
Mon, 4 Dec 2000 06:01:03 -0600
Received: from localhost (daemon@localhost)
by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.0) with SMTP id
eB4C0hn57013;
Mon, 4 Dec 2000 04:00:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (bulk_mailer v1.12); Mon, 4 Dec
2000 04:00:41 -0800
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.0) id eB4C0es56992
for gzg-l-outgoing; Mon, 4 Dec 2000 04:00:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: from soda.csua.berkeley.edu
(IDENT:hkRGeov0s+D3+HZ9gFA07kTGwvkdwcXV@soda.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
[128.32.43.52])
by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id
eB4C0dP56987
for <gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU>; Mon, 4 Dec 2000 04:00:39
-0800 (PST)
Received: from m23.boston.juno.com (m23.boston.juno.com [63.211.172.86])
by soda.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.1) with ESMTP id
eB4C0cf40288
for <gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu>; Mon, 4 Dec 2000 04:00:38 -0800
(PST)
(envelope-from triphibious@juno.com)
Received: from cookie.juno.com by cookie.juno.com for
<"RB/cfsyM2/M1yrWiZvQCQbsj9+a8xE9RaFy2+RQeD+RAaA2UofDa/Q==">
Received: (from triphibious@juno.com)
by m23.boston.juno.com (queuemail) id FQFPLLSL; Mon, 04 Dec 2000
07:00:19 EST
To: gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: [DS2] Fire restriction
Message-ID: <20001205.055554.9079.0.triphibious@juno.com>
References:
<417DEC289A05D4118408000102362E0A34CFA8@host-253.bitheads.com>
X-Mailer: Juno 1.49
X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 1-2,8-11,16-19,24-25,28-29,34-41,43-135
From: Glenn m wilson <triphibious@juno.com>
Date: Mon, 04 Dec 2000 07:00:19 EST
Sender: owner-gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
Reply-To: gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu
Delivered-To: gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu
Status:
X-Mozilla-Status: 0000
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
X-UIDL: 39d245de000006c1
True, this is a simplification, especially in light of the turn scale
(15
minutes, IIRC) but this is the kind of thing best fixed by a house
rules.
This is a secondary to a question about mixed turrets I asked before;
Jon suggested a house rule might be that I could fire a DFFG-5/HEL-1 at
the same target (using each weapon's range bands and etc. separately and
rolling one die for each weapon at the same target - I love mixed
turrets. But then I love low/mid tech forces with HKP's too.) This was
NOT an 'official ruling.'
I suggest that:
1) A mixed turret may fire at two targets in the same 180 (or 90 local
choice) degree arc (AFV and Infantry only) with the following reductions
- drop one die level for the AFV target, drop a second die level for
each
step below Superior for the turret FCS, drop one die level if targets
are
greater then 90 [or 60 or 45 local choice] degree arc.)
This to simulate degradation of the FCS solution for multiple targets.
2) A unit may fire freely at the infantry with the "free" APSW of the
vehicle but to use the Main turret at the AFV only [or if desired to try
a 'second' fire at the infantry with the turret secondary use an opposed
roll with the infantry getting a D4 for militia/PA, a D6 for line and if
the infantry wins the shot is a 'miss.'
As for multiple turrets/gunners I would require a seperate FCS for each
turret unless pintle mounted and then I would use a variant of the
suggestions above.
For additional Pintle mounted, 'open irons sights' such as I believe you
are talking about in Hammer Slammer example - I would suggest a D6/D4/D4
(assumes center gunner is 'more experienced' ) for the weapons versus
vehicles and regular fire rules for anti-infantry. These are, IMO, in
these rules treated as non-FCS weapons.
Gracias, Triphibious/Glenn (first war game played 1959)
Triphibious Marines = Nektons.
Not all Frogs are French, or even Human!
Nektons, be all the Marine you can be!
Resistance is EVERYTHING! [And MANDATORY!]
On Sun, 3 Dec 2000 16:56:18 -0500 "Barclay, Tom" <tomb@bitheads.com>
writes:
>In DS2, I notice (not having played it yet, just working on
>assimilating the
>rules) that a fire action is allowed only with one weapon system (if
>I'm not
>mistaken) _but_ you can fire a multiple mount.
>
>Let us see if I have this straight:
>I can fire my quad APSW or my dual HKP/3 mount on my AFV, but I can't
>fire a
>mixed mount (something like an MDC/4 with a coaxial mounted DFFG/1).
>
>I can see a *seemingly half_assed*[1] PSB for this: That the dynamics
>of the
>shot from each weapons system aren't identical, so the fire control
>system
>is handling either one or the other weapon's parameters, and not both.
>
>
>I can also see a game justification (different range bands, chit
>validities,
>etc. for the various weapons therefore more rolling required to
>complete one
>fire action).
>
>Has anyone considered ignoring this? If so, were the results
>apocalyptic?
>
>Further, let us assume I have this situation come up: My MBT is 300m
>from an
>enemy infantry element (let's say they just hopped up from a concealed
>trench with a buzzbomb) and the enemy MBT I was focused on is 900m
>away and
>it seems to be lining up a shot. My MBT has a DFFG/1 in a cupola for
>anti-infantry work, and an MDC/4 centreline in the turret for
>anti-armour
>engagements. I take an activation - is there a good reason why the
>commander
>can't order the gunner to take out the enemy armour with the MDC,
>while he
>sprays the infantry with the DFFG? It seems contra-indicated by the
>current
>rules, but this strikes me as one of the shortcomings in the rules.
>
>I have this complaint in SG2. Let me draw another example: A Hammer's
>slammers combat car with 3 turret mounted APSWs (or SAWs or RFAC/1s
>depending on how you figure it - powerguns in the slammers universe!).
>I
>have targets front, left and right. Can I only engage one of these
>with one
>gun? What about my wing gunners if the commander is assumed to be
>engaging
>the front target? Are they snoozing?
>
>I guess part of this is a granularity issue: The crew and AI systems
>aren't
>represented in a granular enough fashion to discriminate between a
>situation
>where it IS appopriate for engagements with multiple weapon systems
>and
>situations where it is inappropriate.
>
>Tomb
>
>[1] : Half assed because even nowadays our computerized firecon
>systems have
>three axis stabilization - a modern MBT can zip along at 50 kph over
>uneven
>ground and the main gun tracks like it was a separate entity (it stays
>locked on target!). In 2183, if the firecons can't manage to adjust
>and fire
>two coaxial direct fire systems at the same target, the
>hardware/software
>engineers working on fire controls must have been doing a profligate
>amount
>of slacking when they should have been developing! Also, in separate
>turrets, for example, there is little or no justification for this.
>And
>doubly so if you have multiple gunners...
>
>------------------------------------------
>Thomas R. S. Barclay
>Voice: (613) 722-3232 ext 349
>e-mail: tomb@bitheads.com
>
>Now, now my good man, this is no time for making enemies.
>
>Voltaire (1694-1778), on his death bed in response to a priest asking
>that
>he renounce Satan.
>------------------------------------------
>
>
________________________________________________________________
GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO!
Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less!
Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit:
http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj.
From - Mon Dec 04 11:30:35 2000
Return-Path: <owner-gzg-l@scotch.csua.berkeley.edu>
Received: from scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (scotch.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
[128.32.43.51])
by lilac.propagation.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id GAA21741;
Mon, 4 Dec 2000 06:24:09 -0600
Received: from localhost (daemon@localhost)
by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.0) with SMTP id
eB4CMIx57248;
Mon, 4 Dec 2000 04:22:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (bulk_mailer v1.12); Mon, 4 Dec
2000 04:22:16 -0800
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.0) id eB4CMFQ57226
for gzg-l-outgoing; Mon, 4 Dec 2000 04:22:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: from soda.csua.berkeley.edu
(IDENT:TRhslLwSU1pxphJFfyma/NzkjT6iXga7@soda.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
[128.32.43.52])
by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id
eB4CMDP57221
for <gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU>; Mon, 4 Dec 2000 04:22:13
-0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp4s.retemail.es (smtp4.iddeo.es [62.81.31.73])
by soda.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.1) with ESMTP id
eB4CMCf42335
for <gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu>; Mon, 4 Dec 2000 04:22:13 -0800
(PST)
(envelope-from bob@retemail.es)
Received: from default ([62.174.91.101]) by smtp4s.retemail.es
(InterMail vM.4.01.03.00 201-229-121) with SMTP
id <20001204122209.LLNS116110.smtp4s.retemail.es@default>
for <gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu>; Mon, 4 Dec 2000 13:22:09 +0100
Message-ID: <008001c05dec$cb22e2a0$655bae3e@default>
From: "chubbybob" <bob@retemail.es>
To: <gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu>
References:
<417DEC289A05D4118408000102362E0A34CFA8@host-253.bitheads.com>
<20001205.055554.9079.0.triphibious@juno.com>
Subject: [DS2] Fire restriction.. multiple weapons
Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2000 13:20:22 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400
Sender: owner-gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
Reply-To: gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu
Delivered-To: gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu
Status:
X-Mozilla-Status: 0000
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
X-UIDL: 39d245de000006c3
AHHHhhh!!!! the joys of reading through the archives.. having lots of
time
and the pleasure of exploring a new (to me) field, I have been working
my
way through the archives.. lots of this has been covered before and good
answers suggested. so heres histories and my take on the multitarget
idea..
Glen Wilson said
> 1) A mixed turret may fire at two targets in the same 180 (or 90 local
> choice) degree arc (AFV and Infantry only) with the following
reductions
> - drop one die level for the AFV target, drop a second die level for
each
> step below Superior for the turret FCS, drop one die level if targets
are
> greater then 90 [or 60 or 45 local choice] degree arc.)
I suggest a multi weaponed turret should allowed to fire at multiple
targets
but degrading the die roll a die level on EACH target change,
****************************
> 2) A unit may fire freely at the infantry with the "free" APSW of the
> vehicle but to use the Main turret at the AFV only [or if desired to
try
> a 'second' fire at the infantry with the turret secondary use an
opposed
> roll with the infantry getting a D4 for militia/PA, a D6 for line and
if
> the infantry wins the shot is a 'miss.'
Mike Elliot actually ruled on this in '97 saying the APSW can fire at a
different target without
penalty
********************************
>
> As for multiple turrets/gunners I would require a seperate FCS for
each
> turret unless pintle mounted and then I would use a variant of the
> suggestions above.
Again this was the solution in the distant past but providing separate
FCS
were paid for then no penalties for separate targets.
Hope this helps
Bob DeAngelis
From - Mon Dec 04 11:30:34 2000
Return-Path: <owner-gzg-l@scotch.csua.berkeley.edu>
Received: from scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (scotch.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
[128.32.43.51])
by lilac.propagation.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id GAA21603;
Mon, 4 Dec 2000 06:22:53 -0600
Received: from localhost (daemon@localhost)
by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.0) with SMTP id
eB4CMXs57311;
Mon, 4 Dec 2000 04:22:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (bulk_mailer v1.12); Mon, 4 Dec
2000 04:22:32 -0800
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.0) id eB4CMVV57289
for gzg-l-outgoing; Mon, 4 Dec 2000 04:22:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: from soda.csua.berkeley.edu
(IDENT:YPS75vtXhh5NDkQF/Ci98fKtqhpoNrXP@soda.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
[128.32.43.52])
by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id
eB4CMUP57284
for <gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU>; Mon, 4 Dec 2000 04:22:30
-0800 (PST)
Received: from exchange01.dscc.dla.mil (exchange01.dscc.dla.mil
[131.74.160.11])
by soda.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.1) with ESMTP id
eB4CMTf42347
for <gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu>; Mon, 4 Dec 2000 04:22:29 -0800
(PST)
(envelope-from Brian_Bell@dscc.dla.mil)
Received: by exchange01.dscc.dla.mil with Internet Mail Service
(5.5.2653.19)
id <W6J8M5FX>; Mon, 4 Dec 2000 07:22:23 -0500
Message-ID:
<9DB05BB477A8D111AF3F00805F5730100D1006B6@exchange01.dscc.dla.mil>
From: "Bell, Brian K" <Brian_Bell@dscc.dla.mil>
To: "'gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu'" <gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu>
Subject: RE: [DS2] Fire restriction
Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2000 07:22:19 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19)
Content-Type: text/plain
Sender: owner-gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
Reply-To: gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu
Delivered-To: gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu
Status:
X-Mozilla-Status: 0000
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
X-UIDL: 39d245de000006c2
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Barclay, Tom [SMTP:tomb@bitheads.com]
> Sent: Sunday, December 03, 2000 4:56 PM
> To: Gzg Digest (E-mail)
> Subject: [DS2] Fire restriction
>
> In DS2, I notice (not having played it yet, just working on
assimilating
> the
> rules) that a fire action is allowed only with one weapon system (if
I'm
> not
> mistaken) _but_ you can fire a multiple mount.
>
> Let us see if I have this straight:
> I can fire my quad APSW or my dual HKP/3 mount on my AFV, but I can't
fire
> a
> mixed mount (something like an MDC/4 with a coaxial mounted DFFG/1).
>
> I can see a *seemingly half_assed*[1] PSB for this: That the dynamics
of
> the
> shot from each weapons system aren't identical, so the fire control
system
> is handling either one or the other weapon's parameters, and not both.
>
> I can also see a game justification (different range bands, chit
> validities,
> etc. for the various weapons therefore more rolling required to
complete
> one
> fire action).
>
> Has anyone considered ignoring this? If so, were the results
apocalyptic?
>
[Bri] It would seem to change the balance of the game. Those with mixed
multiple mounts would have a great advantage over those who did not.
It allows more optimization of weapons mix. Currently, a designer must
decide the weapon they want by comparing the Range, Size, Validity,
and Anti-Infantry Capability. Allowing mixed multi-mount turrets allows
one to mount weapons that off-set the deficiencies of the other. Only
larger vehicles would be able to take advantage of this. And thus, I
believe that it would effect the game balance.
If you and your group agree, ignore the limitation. :-)
You may want to try some house rules:
1) Allow multiple weapons fire equal to the number of Fire Control
Systems installed.
2) If multiple turrets are paid for (i.e. 3x cost for weapon in turret),
multiple
targets may be engaged.
3) Combination of 1 & 2.
4) Allow multiple weapons to target the same target, but shift the
Fire control Quality Down 1 for each additional weapon type/size.
5) Combination of 2 & 4.
[snip]
> Can I only engage one of these with one
> gun? What about my wing gunners if the commander is assumed to be
engaging
> the front target? Are they snoozing?
>
[Bri] What wing gunners? You mean you waste space and training by
placing
multiple men into a single AFV?!?! What a waste of good training! <big
smile>
Seriously, with the advent of Power Armor and Walkers, I would see a
push
to lower the crew number in AFVs. I think that at most there would be a
driver and a weapons specialist. At minimum a single crewman and an
AI (or if you want bloodless, just an AI).
As in my comments above, I think that it could be fair to allow multiple
targets to be engaged if you pay for a separate turret and fire control
for
each attack.
[snip]
> Tomb
>
[snip]
> ------------------------------------------
> Thomas R. S. Barclay
[snip]
> -----End Original Message---
>
>
My comments above marked by [Bri]
-----
Brian Bell
bkb@beol.net
http://www.ftsr.org/ds2/
-----