Re: [DS2] Handling interface vehicle design

>I was just looking at the VT-40 Boxcar, and the VT-51 Super Boxcar
VTOLs. I
>figure these are either respectively a class 2 & 3 or class 3 & 4
(depends
>on how they scale next to tanks, etc) interface-capable landers. 
>
>Now, I know DS2 suggests that interface landing capability is only a %
added
>to the cost of forces. That seems unsatisfying though. If all the
landers
>were doing was "in, drop the troops, out", then I'd buy that. But some
>landers could be armed. And the even with strictly landing models, ECM
>levels, etc. could vary. So costing them as a flat percentage seems
odd. 
>
>But, OTOH, if you go to buy them as vehicles, how do you purchase them?
>Interface landers like these boxcars appear to perhaps be (cross
between
>VTOL and rocket lander - kind of like an aliens dropship?) - would you
buy
>them as Aerospace craft mobility or VTOL? If bought as VTOL, do you
then
>tack on the interface capable percentage? If they are used as
"transport"
>but have no weapons, you can end up with some pretty expensive taxis
that
>don't give you a lot of battlefield oomph for the number of points
involved.
>
>
>Yet buying them as vehicles feels right, because then you have the
choice of
>buying cheap landers (eggshell armour, no ECM or PDS) designed to get
lots
>of troops down quickly but to take brutal casualties in a contested LZ,
or
>you buy better high-ECM, high-PDS, high (as you can) armour models
designed
>to offer your forces maximum survivability - you want your expensive
troops
>to arrive on the battlefield. <I suppose strategy depends on force
>composition - elites need better protection than hordes of rabble for
whose
>leaders some fair casualties are "acceptable losses">. 
>
>I'm just curious how other people have handled this - presumably
orbital
>assault landings have been run by others. What did you do? How did it
work
>out? 
 
The options you describe make perfect sense to me.
Here's a scaling exercise I went through using the
US space shuttle as a reference point. This does not
use DSII factors; instead, I wanted to do a basic
sanity check to see what made sense. Your numbers
may vary, but it's an interesting exercise.
 
   Take a space shuttle. Assume this is a size-3 vehicle.
(Personally, I think it would be size-4, but if I start
with that, I end up with no personnel space left over!).
   Assume personnel capacity drops to 60% with basic combat kit
(no camp gear; it's on a different vehicle) or to 40% with full
kit, including camp gear (doesn't mean the soldiers are actually
carrying the camp gear, of course). For a commercial shuttle,
think commercial  aircraft packing levels! Capacity numbers
below are shown for basic combat kit (60%).
   Replace the shuttle cargo bay with personnel space.
Capacity might be 20 commercial or 12 with basic combat kit.
The vehicle has no ECM, no weapons, and no return-to-orbit
capability.
 
Factors:
   Scale the shuttle up to size-5. Capacity increases 5/3
(i.e., by ratio of size ratings).
   Add return-to-orbit capability (i.e., turn it into a DSII
aerospace vehicle); assume modest fuel requirements/advanced
engine technology. Drop capacity by 50%.
   Add dual APSW (external turret) for low-mode LZ suppression.
Reduce capacity by 2 for ammo space. Capacity = 7.
   Add dual class-2 laser, turretted (external) for high-mode
LZ suppression; reduce capacity by 2 to allow for (*very*
efficient!) additional power requirments and mount volume.
   Add armor; reduce capacity by 1 for each level of armor.
(I.e., assume advanced armor is *very light* for its effectiveness
compared to modern armor.)
   Add ECM/ECCM; reduce capacity by 2.
   Add stealth. Assume this does not impinge in a major way
on internal space (instead, it increases the vehicle envelope
while reducing its sensor return. Drop capacity by 1 per
stealth level (I'm being optimistic!).
 
So, for a class-5 dropship for hot LZ drops, a rough sanity
check yields:
 
   Element		  Capacity (basic combat kit)
   --------------------   ---------------------------
   (size-3 shuttle)	  12
   Scale to size-5	  * 5/3
   Dual APSW		  - 2
   Dual class-2 laser	  - 2
   Armor (2 levels)	  - 2
   ECM/ECCM		  - 2
   Stealth (2 levels)	  - 2
   --------------------------------------------------
   Net capacity = 10.
 
So a size-5 combat dropship as shown could hold about
one squad. Ugh. Okay, assume we use separate "cover"
vehicles on the way down, and go for an eggshell with
ECM protection only. Remove armor (2), stealth (2),
and laser (2), keep the APSWs, and add ECM (2 becomes 4).
Now we can drop 14 troopers with combat kit. Looks like
2 fire teams and a command team (assuming command team
is a fire team plus commander and commo officer or some
such).
 
I think when I used the DSII vehicle design rules for
a size-5 dropship similar to the above, I had a capacity
of either 8 or 12 (I can't find my notes just now), which
is in the same ballpark.
 
I hope this doesn't muddy the water too much.
 
- Sam
 
>------------------------------------------
>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.
>------------------------------------------

________________________________________
Samuel Reynolds
Spinward Stars: http://www.spinwardstars.com/
Reynolds Virtual Workshop: http://www.primenet.com/~reynol
reynol@primenet.com
samuel_reynolds@csgsystems.com
From - Wed Dec 13 16:38:46 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 LAA06824;
	Sun, 10 Dec 2000 11:40:02 -0600
Received: from localhost (daemon@localhost)
	by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.0) with SMTP id
eBAHdO299302;
	Sun, 10 Dec 2000 09:39:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (bulk_mailer v1.12); Sun, 10 Dec
2000 09:39:23 -0800
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
	by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.0) id eBAHdMb99281
	for gzg-l-outgoing; Sun, 10 Dec 2000 09:39:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: from soda.csua.berkeley.edu
(IDENT:rrsrfZJV4oBQtiTK7Kxb2HXLEUxEW0mm@soda.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
[128.32.43.52])
	by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id
eBAHdKP99276
	for <gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU>; Sun, 10 Dec 2000 09:39:20
-0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp05.mail.onemain.com (SMTP-OUT003.ONEMAIN.COM
[63.208.208.73])
	by soda.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.1) with SMTP id
eBAHdKf75657
	for <gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu>; Sun, 10 Dec 2000 09:39:20 -0800
(PST)
	(envelope-from nsweer@ice.net)
Received: (qmail 939 invoked from network); 10 Dec 2000 17:39:14 -0000
Received: from maxbloom1-85.fgi.net (HELO ice.net) ([204.120.168.85])
(envelope-sender <nsweer@ice.net>)
	  by 10.209.20.35 (qmail-ldap-1.03) with SMTP
	  for <gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu>; 10 Dec 2000 17:39:14 -0000
Message-ID: <3A33BE86.6020607@ice.net>
Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2000 11:33:58 -0600
From: Noel Weer <nsweer@ice.net>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Win98; en-US; m18) Gecko/20001108
Netscape6/6.0
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: Uplift FT (was Re: Am I a Republic revisionist?)
References: <20001129195105.28051.cpmta@c008.sfo.cp.net>
<3A2C222B.ABB975C8@brewer.to> <3A2D868C.1B256632@sympatico.ca>
<3.0.5.32.20001205212355.00a17a70@mail.HICom.net>
<004301c05f62$e743fc40$0100a8c0@brodm1.vic.optushome.com.au>
<001e01c06041$aafcaa40$4c468bca@avis> <3A3017AD.20202@ice.net>
<00e801c062a3$f8c7aa40$97478bca@avis>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
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: 39d245de00000822

Alan and Carmel Brain wrote:

> From: "Noel Weer" <nsweer@ice.net>
> 
>> That sounds like a great figure for a Brin fan and someone that
paints
>> 25mm figs just for fun. Anyone know of where any pics could be found?
> 
> The Eureka 100 club requires orders for 100 minis before they start
> designing them.
> If you want one, just put down the quantity and your contact details.

Yep, thanks. Put my request in for one yesterday. :)

BTW, anyone else in America find it scary that it is a tad cheaper to 
order GZG stuff from Eureka in Aussie-land and pay the shipping then it 
is to order from GeoHex with free shipping?
-- 
The Middle Ages were a great time to be alive,
because if you weren't wiped out by the Plague
or impaled by some marauding barbarian, then yippee.
      "chocolate covered musings"
      (http://www.amused.com/nick.html)
From - Wed Dec 13 16:38:46 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 NAA27094;
	Sun, 10 Dec 2000 13:06:43 -0600
Received: from localhost (daemon@localhost)
	by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.0) with SMTP id
eBAJ6JX01441;
	Sun, 10 Dec 2000 11:06:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (bulk_mailer v1.12); Sun, 10 Dec
2000 11:06:17 -0800
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
	by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.0) id eBAJ6GP01412
	for gzg-l-outgoing; Sun, 10 Dec 2000 11:06:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: from soda.csua.berkeley.edu
(IDENT:Xeb1chjsVI4K/3HtrQD/e/ZX46y9bvw7@soda.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
[128.32.43.52])
	by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id
eBAJ6EP01403
	for <gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU>; Sun, 10 Dec 2000 11:06:15
-0800 (PST)
Received: from mta6-svc.virgin.net (mta6-win.server.ntli.net
[62.253.164.46])
	by soda.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.1) with ESMTP id
eBAJ6Ef86115
	for <gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu>; Sun, 10 Dec 2000 11:06:14 -0800
(PST)
	(envelope-from david.pullen3@virgin.net)
Received: from david.pullen3 ([62.253.36.31]) by mta6-svc.virgin.net
	  (InterMail vM.4.01.02.27 201-229-119-110) with SMTP
	  id <20001210190611.WPTK292.mta6-svc.virgin.net@david.pullen3>
	  for <gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu>; Sun, 10 Dec 2000 19:06:11 +0000
Message-ID: <001501c062db$54539ea0$1f24fd3e@pullen3>
From: "Dave Pullen" <david.pullen3@virgin.net>
To: <gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu>
References:
<20001129195105.28051.cpmta@c008.sfo.cp.net><3A2C222B.ABB975C8@brewer.to
><3A2D868C.1B256632@sympatico.ca><3.0.5.32.20001205212355.00a17a70@mail.
HICom.net><004301c05f62$e743fc40$0100a8c0@brodm1.vic.optushome.com.au><0
01e01c06041$aafcaa40$4c468bca@avis><3A3017AD.20202@ice.net>
<3.0.5.32.20001210094742.009c52f0@mail.HICom.net>
Subject: Re: Uplift FT (was Re: Am I a Republic revisionist?)
Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2000 18:59:29 -0000
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 5.00.2314.1300
X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300
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: 39d245de00000824

----- Original Message -----
From: Aaron Teske <ateske@HICom.net>

> If you put down for 4, does that mean you'd get one of each variation?
> (And does he ship to the States?  I'm kinda assuming yes....)
>
> Aaron

Well I've ordered from him before and I'm in England, since you're
closer to
him than I am I assume he would.
From - Wed Dec 13 16:38:46 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 RAA22814;
	Sun, 10 Dec 2000 17:45:50 -0600
Received: from localhost (daemon@localhost)
	by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.0) with SMTP id
eBANj3F06383;
	Sun, 10 Dec 2000 15:45:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (bulk_mailer v1.12); Sun, 10 Dec
2000 15:44:56 -0800
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
	by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.0) id eBANiti06342
	for gzg-l-outgoing; Sun, 10 Dec 2000 15:44:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: from soda.csua.berkeley.edu
(IDENT:k8orR/pXWEwcdmWpNvY03uJL1WdQJCIy@soda.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
[128.32.43.52])
	by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id
eBANirP06335
	for <gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU>; Sun, 10 Dec 2000 15:44:53
-0800 (PST)
Received: from exsrv.bitheads.com (mail.bitheads.com [64.26.142.194])
	by soda.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.1) with ESMTP id
eBANipf20080
	for <GZG-L@csua.berkeley.edu>; Sun, 10 Dec 2000 15:44:51 -0800
(PST)
	(envelope-from tomb@bitheads.com)
Received: by host-253.bitheads.com with Internet Mail Service
(5.5.2448.0)
	id <YM7VRB14>; Sun, 10 Dec 2000 18:44:41 -0500
Message-ID:
<417DEC289A05D4118408000102362E0A34D0F2@host-253.bitheads.com>
From: "Barclay, Tom" <tomb@bitheads.com>
To: "Gzg Digest (E-mail)" <GZG-L@csua.berkeley.edu>
Subject: DS2 question
Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2000 18:44:40 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0)
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: 39d245de00000825

Interface drop capability costs 50%.  (IIRC)

Does anyone actually think that a bunch of vehicles arriving via
interface
drop (lets say even an uncontested one, let alone one where losses might
be
incurred) are 50% more potent? I suppose (to some extent) this would
depend
on your scenario. But if they are assaulting set points on the map, does
this "drop from the sky" offer them a 50% greater effectiveness? I have
my
doubts. I think one would much rather have 50% more conventional forces. 

It does, to some extent, eliminate defense in depth and forces one to
setup
kill zones around key locations, but since landers can't land within 12"
of
an enemy, you can actually thwart conventient landings with a few token
units and force people to deploy into your kill zones. 

I'm just curious if this seems more sensible to others. Am I missing
something? 

Also, oversized vehicles.... why doesn't PDS work for them? Do I not
recall
Ogres having PDS? Bolos? If I'm building a destroyer (I have a mini I
want
to use), it definitely is bigger than size 7. It is probably 5 or 6
centimeters long, suggesting a much larger vehicle. It would (I guess)
be
equipped with two gun turrets (HKPs/5s?) and two batteries (one facing
each
flank) of either MRLS equivalent or HAR equivalent guided ordinance. 
But
when I read the oversize vehicle can't have any secondary dice, I
thought
hasn't anyone ever heard of Phalanx? or Goalkeeper? or some of the new
laser
CIWS for ships? <I realize oversize vehicles rules were for supertanks,
but
even there this point would be valid). Considering you can't armour past
7
and that you can't deploy guns bigger than class 5 (so I take it that
Class
5's in FT are actually HEL/5? *wink*), wouldn't allowing the supertank
or
large ship or whatever to use CIWS/PDS to thwart the swarms of GMS it
will
attract be quite reasonable?

------------------------------------------
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.
------------------------------------------