Prev: RE: UNSC Ship costing Next: Re: UNSC Ship costing

Re: TOE was: Re: Mixed Tech forces

From: <Beth.Fulton@c...>
Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2004 09:19:54 +1000
Subject: Re: TOE was: Re: Mixed Tech forces


More from Brian ;)


John K Lerchey Wrote:

>The force commander isn't 
>*required* and only provides the ability to rally, and to cause a
>confidence test in the event of his demise.

I haven't had time to check out your HR's yet, but this actually touches
on a couple things that've been irking me:

1. I've read some archives in the past that addressed an interesting
question, but never saw an official or semi-official ruling.  

What happens if you field 2 or more dedicated c3 vehicles?  Does that
prevent the effects of losing one of them?

2. The flavor text for the game describes a very futuristic, advanced
tech level for C3, yet some very serious morale     repercussions for
the loss of a vehicle that, according to the fluff, doesn't even
necessarily carry the actual force commander. It seems to me that given
the level of advancement in the future, there are several possible
levels of C3 available, I'll break them down into the three most common,
using already established DS terms:
A. Basic C3:  The rules as they stand.
B. Enhanced C3: The C3 vehicle is only a mobile communications relay
vehicle, the actual CO is somewhere far from the battle.   Loss of the
vehicle will have an effect, but not as severe as the rules now.
C. Superior C3:  The C3 gear has become so miniaturized and powerful
that ever vehicle in the force can carry a full set of relays, and the
force serves as a net - no dedicated C3 vehicle is needed, the force
commander is far from the battle, and the loss of any vehicle has no
effect on the command ability.

3. In any situation where both sides field the same number of C3
vehicles and have the same level of C3, it doesn't seem that there's any
need to cost the C3 module itself, since both sides gain the same exact
advantage from it.  If you have different levels of opposing C3, the
cost should be a modifier to the overall force, not a cost for the
vehicle itself, unless you are fielding a force with basic or enhanced
C3, and a redundant C3 vehicle, in which case the extra vehicles should
have an extra cost.
John Atkinson Wrote:
>Offhand, 2 armored vehicles of same type as the unit,

Hmmm.... That could work, it would require a few more purchases, but I
could manage.  

>1 APC fitted out as an ambulance, 

I'll probably design an unarmed APC, maybe with a PDS, for this purpose.

and as an
>independant vehicle, a forward observer (so you don't
>have to waste a unit's activation calling for fire). 

Makes sense.

>The last can be omitted in the scout company where
>everyone can call fire.

Yup.  What about an ARV and a ZADS?

>Oooh, in that one it is easy to fix.  Add a troop of.
>. . err. . . Mounted Rifles.  Light APC/IFVs with
>(non-PA?) infantry.

Makes sense, I prefer the term "Light Horse Infantry".	

Also, garrison cavalry isn't as grav- intensive, vehicles vary according
to climate & terrain.

>> Maybe a whole Pioneer troop? 
>For cavalry, overkill.  If it were a main force
>maneuver BN, I would suggest it.

Hmmm.... Tough to find the happy medium between too many and not enough.

A troop seems fine, if you include all the jobs, and especially in
situations where the Cav is the main force.  
One Lance of APC's with boot engineers, one lance with ARV's, and one
lance with demo and mineplows?

>If there's that many ZADs, then you have to do
>something.  I hadn't thought about that.  My opponents
>don't usually field more than a couple ZADs.

All my play has been solitaire, so I don't know how many ZAD's most
people field.

Ryan Gill wrote:

>Actually, I like to attach an FO element to my 
>scout units for extra efforts. The Scouts make 
>their call for fire, pop their smoke and beat 
>feet when they find the red guys.

Not necessary to * attach * an FO to a Cascadian Cav Scout lance, all
CasCav scout vehicle crews are FO trained.

>How about one more element.
>Bison Counter Battery Vehicle
>Class 3, Anti-Grav
>Armor 3, Stelth 0, Superior ECM, Redundant Systems
>Counter Battery Radar System (Superior?), APSW
>Attach one to your artillery unit for counter battery support.

Almost identical to the vehicle I had in mind, as part of the command
lance of my arty troop.  The only problem is the name.	
Cascadian (Pacific Northwest of North America - BC, Oregon, WA, AK,
Northern CA, non-Tuffleyverse) vehicle naming protocol:
Bovine, equine, and Cervid (deer, elk, etc.) names for engineering and
transport vehicles.  
Line combat vehicles are all predators:
Ursine for tracked Tanks, canine for grav direct fire vehicles, feline
for APC's, rodent and other small predators for other fire support.
Artillery vehicles are named after PNW Native American mythical beasts
and versions of them from popular US culture:
Sasquatch, Bigfoot, etc.  The vehicle you've described is the Hamatsa.

Prev: RE: UNSC Ship costing Next: Re: UNSC Ship costing