Re: DS2 AAR and questions

At 11:06 AM -0400 7/17/01, Glenn M Wilson wrote:
>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.)

Some of it bears on the principle of the firecon and how the vehicle 
is fought. A Bradly is a primary example of this. There is one gunner 
and one sight mechanism. The Commander can share what the gunner 
see's but his job is not to fire the gun, his job is to look for 
targets and direct the gunner and driver as to what to do. The Bradly 
has a 25mm gun, a 7.62mm MG and a 2 round TOW launcher as well as a 
set of smoke dischargers. Certainly 3 weapons. But one firecon/gunner.

How does a vehicle with one firecon and one turret engage two separate
targets?

I'm asking real mechanics here as that is the basis for the game 
mechanics. Or are we implying that both weapons are able to fire over 
the abstracted turn.

"Gunner, BRDM, 2 o'clock, AP!"
"Target Acquired!"
"Fire"
"On the WAY!"
"TANK, 3 o'clock, TOW!"
"Target Acquired, Elevating!....READY!"
"FIRE"
"Missile AWAY!"

If both weapons can fire, why can not the same weapon fire twice?

Such an issue in some cases doesn't involve changing settings. 
Turning the turret to fire the 25mm at another BRDM would take less 
time than elevating the Launch container to fire the TOW at that T-72 
would it?

>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.

But an M3 has two fire cons doesn't it? Two gunners, two loaders. One 
Commander right? Thats not an advanced fire con firing at different 
targets, its a different crewman operating a different weapon.

There's two things here. Design doctrine _and_ firecon/multiple 
weapon use over a single activation.

>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.)

Well in some cases it does make sense as one weapon has one function 
vs the other weapon's function. At the design stage for the M3 Grant 
tank, the 75mm was meant to fire HE shot for supporting infantry. The 
37mm was for anti-tank use. Both could do the other job, but each was 
better than the other until 75mm AP shot came in to use. Naturally 
the 75mm Howitzer was more effective as an infantry support weapon 
due to the higher HE content, but still you get the idea.

The question lies in how we move to change the game turn for an 
individual group of vehicles.

4 tanks with single turreted weapons targeting a group of opposing 
tanks would fire once each.

your proposed 4 IFVs would be able to fire twice each based on having 
an added weapon but no additional firecon. How does that work in a 
balanced game concept? At least fitting and mounting an added firecon 
system would redress the issue slightly. It'd make the space issue 
more correct too.

[snip]

>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.

Or in some cases they fixate on what worked 30 years ago and don't 
pay attention to the new lessons and technological changes.
-- 
--
----------------------------------------------------------------
- Ryan Montieth Gill		 ----------	      SW1025 H -
-   Internet Technologies  --  Data Center Manager (3N &10S)   -
- ryan.gill@turner.com			 rmgill@mindspring.com -
-		   www.mindspring.com/~rmgill		       -
-	      I speak not for CNN, nor they for me	       -
----------------------------------------------------------------
- C&R-FFL -	Toronto, Gun down some squeegee kids,	 - NRA -
-		 Then you can host the Olympics too!	       -