RE: DS2 --> SG2 harmonization

I did not mean for my previous comments to be disparaging.

I think that there does need to be some harmonization of DS2 and SG2.

Systems from each need to be available in the other (PDS, GMS/P, etc.)
DS2 FCS needs to be much more accurate in SG2.

I began to take a stab at this a little earlier, and stopped, because I 
could not find a way to bring the results of combat closer together
without
damaging one or the other game
    - Slowing one of the games down too far
    - Changing the balance of power (Infantry vs Vehicles)
    - Changing the nature of one of the games (Making DS2 fully FMA)

Part of the problem is a differing design philosophy between the two
games. DS2 emphasizes equipment/technology and SG2 emphisizes
Human experience and skill.

In SG2 range bands (small arms) is based on the soldier's quality
as the difference in range between the various weapons falls below
the granularity of SG2. Although one could argue that different 
small arms' effective range could differ by more than 10m, opening
the door for the equipment to effect the range as well as the
soldier quality.

In DS2 range bands are based on the equipment used. This could be
explained away using PSB about automated FCS and weapons
(relegating the crew of a vehicle to backseat driver). Crew quality
is such a small factor that it falls below the granularity of DS2.

Some harmonization should be done. But it needs to go BOTH WAYS.
AFVs are too weak in SG2. Infantry need to be more flexible in DS2.

And we need to keep in mind that the average SG2 table (30x96") would 
fit in a 6x10" strip on a DS2 table. It would be interesting to have a 
game of DS2 where any time an infantry group is with 10" of 
opposing forces, those forces are "mapped" to a SG2 game. I would
think that AFVs would tend to keep out of that range, as SG2 is 
deadly to AFVs, and infantry would attempt to close within those
ranges. Somehow this seems right.

-----
Brian Bell
bkb@beol.net   
-----