Re: My own comments on Re: mixing technology force in Dirtside

> 
> Grant,
> 
> Yes, I agree with your logic, but IMHO, it makes for a sucky looking 
> transport. :)  They look like hover trucks, and not APCs.  If I can
manage 
> to put a covered box on the back, I think that I can justify the "A"
in 
> APC.
> 
> J
> 
    Ah, well you can just change "armored" to "armed" and they work
quite nice
  as is!  :-)
    I dunno, they appealed to my sense of how the infantry would work
with an
  all GEV force.  The foot infantry stick with the tracks and regular
APC's,
  and the PA ride in open top GEV's for max mobility and egress.  I
don't 
  remember all the particular's, but I do remember that I was going to
give the
  PA more options for fire and getting on and off, and that they were
not going
  to get any top cover from artillery fire.  I thought it balanced fine.

   grant


> 
> On Wed, 16 Jun 2004, Grant A. Ladue wrote:
> 
> >>
> >> I went with the APCs based on the model.  It's a large hover truck.
 I
> >> need to do some modifying to add an encloser to the back (I still
can't
> >> figure out why the designers made open backed APCs...), and I have
a
> >> limited number of them.  I agree that it causes an "all the eggs in
one
> >> basket" problem, but I'm willing to live with it.
> >>
> >> John
> >>
> >
> >   I was adapting my Ogre stuff to DS II as well, and I was thinking
of arguing
> > that the open backed GEV-PC's were special designed for PA troops. 
PA troops
> > could fire without modifier from the back of the APC as long as it
didn't move
> > to fast, and they could dismount and move easier from the open back.
 When you
> > think about it, the small amount of extra armor from an APC wouldn't
help PA
> > that much, but it would hinder their movement.
> >
> >
> >   grant
> >
> >
> >
>