Prev: RE: [FT] Simple cloaking system proposal Next: [DS] New ORBAT Was:TOE

Re: TOE was: Re: Mixed Tech forces

From: <Beth.Fulton@c...>
Date: Thu, 1 Jul 2004 09:50:34 +1000
Subject: Re: TOE was: Re: Mixed Tech forces


Brian's first message for the day ;)


By the way his response to my question about towing was "Technicaly yes,
although I think those rules are flawed, and I think that would be a
cheesy out."

So there goes that idea ;P

Ryan Gill wrote:

>>Attached to the command lance but autonomous, I assume?  One of the
>>problems with the DSII unit cohesion and morale rules is that they
>>do very well in situations where an element is best used in smaller
>>sub-units, or should be readily attachable and detachable from other
>>units -- ZADS and ARV's come to mind quite readily.

>It just depends. I've never seen a problem where an element (single
>vehicle) would operate alone or near a command unit. Usually the Coy
>SGT or some other senior NCO of a Coy would be running around with
>such an element riding herd. Or so I've read.

Ah, but in DS II this requires that you make it a single-element unit. 
suppose it's unavoidable.

>OK, so one lance of engineers:  two sublances of one AEV and one APC of
>foot engineers each?
>I'll have a pair or three of tracks (2 apcs, one specialist vehicle)
>if I have combat engineer support in a game. Usually one is a tank
>with a short barrel (AVRE) that is used for combat demolitions. There
>is another that has a raised superstructure on a typical tank that I
>postulate has the equivalent of other specialized demolition gear as
>well, plus the usual 2-3 tracks of APCs. It depends on the game as to
>how I'll allocate them. There's also a big class V AVLB that I run
>around sometimes for obstacle crossing.

I'm trying to keep the CasCav 4-element lance scheme going, but it
very similar to what I had in mind.  The AEV is a MBT variant with a
mine plough
and a DFFG instead of the standard MDC -- the DFFG serving as the
breaching gun.

>Then there are several ZADs and other elements that I run.
>1 ZAD is attached to the Brigade HQ.
>1 ZAD is semi-attached to the on-table artillery
>1 ZAD is allocated to the secondary Brigade HQ if it's on table
>(sometimes I'll run two Armored Command Vehicles)
>2-4 ZADs are semi-attached to the line companies. Usually they move
>forwards as support elements independent with their own command
>markers (usually blue or green 3s).

Similar to what I'll probably go with -- one ZADS in the Squadron HQ
and one AAA administrative lance with 4 ZADS spread

>Wing pods add SLAMs. No Wing Pods run a gun with a few weapons.

It's not the weapon configuration on the VTOL's that's stumping me, it's
the question of how to organize them in w away that doesn't look

I think it just came to me:

For the 4 flats with pods, it's easy (And not at all what I originallt
Class 3, 2 SLAM 3's and a MDC 1 in a chin turret.  the 2 slicks I'll
probably run as Casevac.
The 6 snakes, well, the 4 with podless wings will get pods, and they'll
class 2 with twin GMSH's.  The two with wing pods, the pods are too flat
for rocket
launchers, so they're lasers.  One is a targeting laser for Arty FO, 1
is a
forward-firing HEL.
Air Cav troop - 2 lances of 2 snakes, 2 lances of 2 Gunships, 1 lance of

>>I also had an idea for the light arty lance.	I was going to try to
>>some sort of tube turret or open-backed mortar carrier.  But instead,
>>came up with a RAM design that makes it look like a rocket launcher
>Take an APC, stick a tube on the back. The Tube is gimballed to fire
>vertically to nearly 45 degrees from an enclosed space inside.
>Magazine fed and automaticly loaded. The crew inside roll up, double
>check the barrel for obstructions and then hit "GO" for the fire
>mission that the Brigade or Btn TOC has assigned to them via the
>command net.

Basically what the design I've come up with does, except the tube is
in a box, and all you see is the mizzle.

>I run SLAMS as a basic multi shot ZUNI Rocket launcher. Not terribly
>useful on the table. I'd rather pay the points in a ground unit as a
>GMS/H launcher with a smaller hull and better point fire (lots of
>GMS/H are great for killing something you want dead dead dead).
>Anything that I'd run as a SLAM unit on the ground I postulate as
>artillery instead and run it as Rocklet artillery.

I decided against the SLAM's, for a couple reasons - including he fact
I miscalculated the capacity for an extra arty mission.  So the new
mortar carrier has a Light arty piece and two extra salvos (total of 5

>My APC's are made from plastic RenLeg TOG Aenas light tanks, with
>turrets from two different modern light AFV's.  The turrets are similar
>but not identical.  I'm trying to find a way to explain this without
>having to make them two different weapons turrets.
>One has a GMSH and RFAC2 and the other has a GMS/L and an RFAC2.

Neither has GMS's at all -- all Direct Fire weapons.  I was toying with
making one a HEL and the other a DFFG, but I'd prefer to run all MDC. 
I'm tempted to
just explain it as a Turret upgrade on some that has some advantage on
a level to fine grain to simulate in the game (and is thus rendered
nothing but flavor).

> (one is a MICV, one is a scout vehicle with more teeth for dealing
>Red Force Recce units)

They're all my APC's -- more battle taxi than MICV (a PDS, a class 1
fire weapon, and a PA element), and too big for my scout vehicles.

Prev: RE: [FT] Simple cloaking system proposal Next: [DS] New ORBAT Was:TOE