Re: DS2 AAR and questions

On Mon, 16 Jul 2001 12:03:06 -0400 Ryan M Gill <rmgill@mindspring.com>
writes:
>At 8:08 AM -0400 7/16/01, MEFaircloth@aol.com wrote:
>>In a message dated 7/16/2001 2:01:00 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
>>owner-gzg-digest@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU writes:
>>
>><< High tech isn't quite worth what you pay
>>  for it, >>
>>One thing I did during my "World War- In the Balance Campaign is 
>slightly
>>modify the firecons as follows.
>>
>>Basic- one weapon, one target (as written)
>>Enhanced- All Weapons may fire at the same target.
>
>Not very practical against vehicles with a conventional weapon system 
>(ie one main gun) but great when suppressing infantry with massed 
>fire. All the APSWs and the main gun are firing at infantry in a tree 
>line. Ala the Cav units in Vietnam

When i first joined the list I asked some questions about some designs I
had been pencil and paper playing with (Say a double turret with a
DFFG-4
and a HEL-1 as coax (36" 2 chits versus infantry and a sniping weapon
against light recon stuff) and other mixed weapons [non-APSW] stuff. 
There was some *very* unofficial, not for the Canon answers (even from
Jon) that should or should not a second target be allowed in fixed
and/or
turreted mixed weapons configurations.)

My original thought was because I played a lot with designing
configuration consistent armies (favors multiple "whatever" in a turret
on a large vehicle; favors the "Big Gun" approach - the largest single
weapon one can fit  - i.e., a single size 5 in a turret on a size 3
frame;	Favors a particular technology;  Favors the mixed one relatively
big gun plus a complementary (HEL with DFFG,  HKP with DFFG, DFFG with
HEL) smaller (5/1, 4/1, 4/2, 3/2) coax weapon for back up and anti
infantry role instead of a coax APSW); Favors multiple 180 degree
turrets; favors fixed main gun plus secondary turreted direct fire
weapons (a la' the Early WW2 desert war GRANTs/LEEs); etc., etc., etc.)
then fit my campaign races/nations into those systems.	

I had considered that the multiple weapons systems would fire at least
at
the same azimuth, if not the same unit/target (Use the DFFG3/HEL2 combo
at the max range of the DFFG and there are two chances of damage/kill 
OR
use the HEL On the IFV's in a supported advance of dismounted infantry
while using the DFFG (3 chits) on the infantry.  Made more sense then
you
could use the main gun *or* the coax APSW but not both during fire at a
supported Infantry attack on a position...especially in light of
historical facts (Zumbro's book about armor in Vietnam) and DS2 Turn
lengths.) There was some surprise that someone would use mixed weaponry
in the same turret but it makes sense in my mind (and fit the campaign
setting) to allow that for certain nations/races.)

An example, my Pre-GW Space Marines (1970's rules) Klackon "Crustacean"
races loves dual weaponry in space and AFV's (There is a limit to
infantry weaponry even for horse sized 'crabs') so their AFV's sport
dual
mounts.  The Amphibian Nektons like lots of weapons but rely
predominately on the Biggest Main weapon that they can fit on an AFV. 
The Native People's Circle humans like GMS's including multiple mounts
despite the fact there is leftover capacity at large sizes (and that is
seldom why you see a 'pure Canon' NPC vehicle running at size 5 with 5
GMS/H's but it is likely you would see single size 1 GMS/H Scouts, Size
2
LBT's with 2 GMS/H, and Size 3 MBT's with 3 GMS/H - supported by Size 3
APC's carrying two fire teams and a GMS/H (plus something in a turret to
make up the capacity and occasionally Size 4 IFV's with two Fire Teams,
a
GMS/H and "a turreted weapon plus" [ (size 2) and a Basic PDS] or [Size
1
and a LAD/Enhanced PDS] .)  The last two design are anomalies (and not
particularly popular design with the foot sloggers) based on the NPC
design being 'filled in' to see what would happen when I min-Max'ed
their
love of GMS technology.

Yes, the conventional "one main gun in a turret setting doesn't take
such
configurations into mind but I was looking at all the possibilities for
a
campaign setting.  The Aliens especially shouldn't just be 'actors in a
rubber mask' but have their own quirks/personalities.	And there is
plenty of room in a sector of space for unconventional military designs
to take root and an army be built on such designs.  

And the idea that military lessons learned are not lost has of course
proven to be false - let an army go a generation with out a major war to
participate or at least observe and the corporate knowledge base is
diluted/corrupted significantly.  Further what is impractical now might
be practical if an army has been tested against a particular foe with
unconventional practices (non-human or cultural biased human based) but
prove less then ideal when a 'standard' army shows up to confront it. 
YMMV.

FWIW, those are my dos centavos.

Gracias,
Glenn/Triphibious
This is my Science Fiction Alter Ego E-mail address.

________________________________________________________________
GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO!
Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less!
Join Juno today!  For your FREE software, visit: