RE: Comments on Harmonization DS2/SG2 in reply to Tom

 
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Hi Tom,

1) I made the statement about DS2 being more deadly than SG2 mainly
from my experience. In DS2 vs vehicles, you usually get one of 3
results (Destroyed, Damaged, or Uneffected). Against Infantry, you
get one of 2 results (Dead or Under Fire). In SG2, suppression (not
killing) from range seems the rule. Then as the enemy is suppressed,
you advance units into killing range. Stargrunt is just as bloody,
but it takes longer to accomplish the killing. Thus the statement. On
the other hand, vehicles die much more quickly in SG2 than in DS2.

2) I will accept Oerjan's wisdom on this. I was trying to find the
correct niche for GMS/P. I was trying to find that center location of
justification. There needs to be reasons to:
 1 - Field a team with IVARs.
 2 - Field a team with GMS/Ps.
 3 - Field a team with a GMS/L.
In DS2 IVARs have a niche because they are uneffected by ECM/PDS.
So now it would be down to GMS/P and GMS/L. Is the range difference
sufficient to make it a toss-up in value of taking a special weapons
team of GMS/L instead of just an element with a GMS/P? This was where
I was trying to find that middle ground. In most of the suggestions
that I have seen, it is much more effecient to take a team with GMS/P
than a heavy weapons team with GMS/L. They need to be balanced.
After looking at it again, I would agree to a range of 24" and a draw
of 2 chits. But would make it use missile counters as in SG2 (cost
would be per missile counter). 
A GMS/L team only has close range (close assault) weapons for
fighting infantry. A GMS/P team would have normal weapons, but
limited firing agianst vehicles. GMS/P would do the same damage as an
IVAR, have longer range, but would be subject to ECM/PDS, and have
limited shots vs vehicles.

3) I had forgotten about that use. With that effect, I would suggest
that they be somewhat expensive and/or have limited range. Remember a
SG2 board is only about 6"x10" on a DS2 table. Otherwise every unit
on your side has a limited use ECM (worth quite a lot of points).
Perhaps it should be like ADS and have a range of 12"? I would also
suggest that the EW team/vehcile would have to have LOS to both the
protected vehicle and the launching vehicle/team (otherwise there
would not be time to use the EW on the missile -- if you only see the
missle 10' from the target, it is too late to start fiddleing with
the EW equipment).

Thank you for your well reasoned response.

- ---
Brian Bell
bbell1@insight.rr.com
ICQ: 12848051
AIM: Rlyehable
The Full Thrust Ship Registry:
http://www.ftsr.org
- ---


- -----Original Message-----
From: owner-gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
[mailto:owner-gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU]On Behalf Of Thomas
Barclay
Sent: Wednesday, May 09, 2001 1:06 PM
To: gzg-l@scotch.csua.berkeley.edu
Subject: Comments on Harmonization DS2/SG2 in reply to Brian

Brian, 

You make some points I agree with, others I'd 
have to question. 

1) You indicated DS2 is much more deadly than 
SG2. How so? I have seen plenty of SG2 
squads smashed by enemy fire and vehicles in 
SG2 seem to be fire magnets. Is this reflective 
of some aspect of the rules you believe makes 
DS2 more lethal or personal on-table experience 
(which may have something to do with how one 
plays the game in question moreso than the 
rules themselves)?

2) You mentioned GMS/P isn't as strong as 
GMS/L. I tried that on Oerjan recently and he 
tells me the warheads (in our world) are 
identical, the differences lie in propulsion and 
sighting. To me, this argues for a stronger 
impact (ie the same as GMS/L) but poorer range 
and perhaps poorer guidance dice (D4/D6/D8 
instead?). This isn't what the game says now I 
realize, but Oerjan is an SME in this area (at 
least insofar as near future tech goes). I was 
going to suggest perhaps 12" range and draw 2 
chits for GMS/P. That's still better than an IAVR 
but less than GMS/L. 

3) You mentioned that without command 
activation, the only purpose for EW would be to 
block artillery calls. In the games of SG I've 
played, the MOST frequent single use of EW 
(not counting counter-EW warfare) has been to 
block GMS shots against vehicles. In one game 
where EW was present fairly heavily, there were 
a total of 27 GMS/P launches, of which 3 hit 
(some just missed, but many were jammed by 
EW). This is a rather key use. I'm looking at 
porting the SG2 rules and will post a version 
once I do so. 

When you combine EW, ECM, PDS, and 
Armour, many vehicles will be fairly resistant to 
GMS attacks. But that's fine, given that you pay 
the point costs for EW, ECM, PDS and armour. 
The only trouble comes in that in SG2, an 
infantry EW soldier can use his EW to jam GMS 
shots at a nearby vehicle. In DS2, this translates 
to a low point cost unit protecting (quite 
effectively perhaps) a higher point cost unit. Talk 
about combined arms....

On a related note, the vulnerability of vehicles in 
SG2 due to lack of PDS and ADS can make 
them rather short lived. I think something you 
spend a few million NAC pounds on would be 
something you'd want to be quite resilient to 
enemy fire.... so I've got rules for vehiclular self 
defence charges. PDS and ADS I should 
probably add. 

Thanks for the input guys. :) 

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 7.0.3 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>

iQA/AwUBOvmtLdOVrCdNYgyBEQIfGgCfVVXD8xDdIUIWNHKr4yfWy51rOaEAoKfD
c67pgILE5tyPoB3bAZyaJcHp
=1x28
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----