Re: [DS] Getting back to the game RE: Engineers

>G'day guys,
>
>Some more from Brian for a while (and sorry to Brian this didn't 
>come through sooner) I'm about to go overseas for work again.
>
>And on a side note can anyone identify "the little fig between 
>DF-S14 and DF-S-16 is?  I'd assume DF-S15, but there is no Df-S15 
>listed at GZG.com". Unfortunately I've run out of time to dig for 
>myself.

DF-S15 is a pack of little tracked tanks, about 10-11mm long, made a 
long time back by CMD; it'll serve as a tiny one-man tank or as an 
unmanned drone vehicle. They have a small turret with twin weapon 
apertures that could serve as lasers or missile tubes, to taste. I 
didn't actually realise it wasn't up on the store - I'll have to get 
Paul to fix that!

Jon (GZG)

>
>Thanks heaps
>
>Beth
>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Brian's message <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
>
>Ryan Gill wrote:
>
>>For a grav ARV, i'd suggest that you have the following constraints.
>
>*snip a bunch of pretty cool background flavor*
>
>All cool stuff, but basically PSB/Flavor, no real effect on game
mechanics.
>
>I'm goign to drop the recoverry issue, since recovery vehicles are
outside
>the game for now.
>
>>Capacity of 8 would represent a fairly big module, that means the
garage
>>module (not the vehicle carrying it, just the module) would be as big
as a
>>class 1 vehicle.  The problem is, that as John A points out, there are
>>varying amounts of equipment fielded at different levels.  I'm trying
to
>>come up with something that's fair without adding TOO much more to the
game.
>
>How big of a class is a 20' container? Is that size 2?
>
>I don't know.	Capacity is a pretty nebulous concept, isn't it?  It's
mostly
>volume, but is affected my mass.
>
>What it comes down to is, what's a fair amount of capacity to require
in
>order for a repair vehicle to be able to make field repairs throughout
one
>game?
>
>>>True, but in game terms, unless you want to add rules that tie the
amount of
>>>excavation work a vehicle can do in a turn to the size of its
equipment,
>>>it's easier to just come up with one standard-capacity package for
>>>excavation.
>>
>>Depends.
>
>Upon what?
>
>>A Blade is easy to tack on. The Abrams
>>can carry a blade no problem. ITs the bigger
>>stuff that costs more space. Screw auger,
>>backhoe, front end loader, etc.
>
>And those are the ones that are necessary to create all the
emplacements for
>an entire unit.
>
>>>>SEE trucks and the like with backhoes are
>>>>pretty small.
>>>
>>>A backhoe is still larger than an autocannon, right?  A turreted RFAC
2 is
>>
>>Depends. There are little tiny jobbies on little
>>1 men vehicles. The US Army fields a Short Wheel
>>Base Unimog with a Front loader and rear mounted
>>backhoe that can self deploy at higher speeds
>>(than a tractor) and handle most basic jobs.
>>Easily a class 2 truck with cargo space to spare.
>
>And again, how much work could such a configuration do within the
course of
>one game term?  Sure, there are varying sizes of enginnering equipment,
that
>can do varying amounts of work in a given time, but that's a bit too
>fine-grained for DS.
>
>>>capacity 6.	Even allowing that a backhoe arm & bucket IS smaller
than the
>>>next weapon up, that weapon's class 3, capacity 9.  Unless you
consoder a
>>>backhoe to be a fixed weapon, in which case I could see it being 4-5
>>>capacity.  But that still leaves out a dozer blade, etc.
>>
>>It can be fixed or turreted. I still think this
>>is too complex. Whats wrong with an AEV that has
>>an AEV package on it that takes 80% capacity. It
>>can dig a position per turn for it's size. Size 4
>>AEV can dig 4 class 4 tank scrape per turn or 8
>>class 2 scrapes in a turn.
>
>So now I have to calculate 80% of the vehicle, apply that capacity to
the
>vehicle, then remember that it can create 4 scrapes for vehicles of the
same
>class?  What about cross-class?  How many class 2 scrapes can a class 4
>vehicle dig in a turn?  How many class 5 can a class 1 vehicle?  What
about
>infantry cover?  In the end, isn't is simpler to say "Engineering
excavation
>gear takes up x amount of capacity, and a vehicle with said gear can
prepare
>Y emplacements of any class (including for infantry elements) per game
>turn"?
>
>>A Blade allows a fixed size scrape and only does
>>have the work. But also allows proofing of
>>minefields and clearing surface obstacles.
>
>Ugh.  I still think that's getting too complicated.  And the obstacles
--
>what about reinforced obstacles, not piddly earthen berms?  Should a
blade
>clear those?	What about pop-up mines?  Will they still jump when
disrupted
>by the blade, and will that pose a threat to the vehicle? Again,
separate
>the excavation, mine clearing, and demolition functions, but
standardize
>each.
>
>>>Actually, I would too.  Based on the rules, it seems that DFFG's make
>>>perfect Demo Guns within the DS 2 framework.  But the rules say that
an
>>>engineering element that spends its combat action adjacet to a target
can
>>>demolish it -- the rules don't distinguish between an engineering
vehicle
>>>and foot engineers.	That seemed odd.
>>
>>Not really. Demo guns are really short ranged
>>(Really effin short) and have a bloody huge HE
>>explosion that's not so good for armor. I'd just
>>make it part of the "blow a building in 1 turn"
>>kit.
>
>Really sort range is still ranged, and that means "Farther than
ajacent."
>In addition, ask Mr atkinson if a Demo gun could be used against
infantry.
>So the rules do seem more geared towards replicating the effect of 
placed
>demo charges as opposed to a gun.  And in game terms, for clearing
buildings
>and obstacles, given the rules, I'd rather have a DFFG than an
engineering
>package.
>
>>>The problem is, that as the rules stand, I can deck that vehicle out
with
>>>all the weapons and systems of a regular MBT of the same class, then
make it
>>>capable of all the functions of an ARV AND an AEV, just by paying the
>>>points -- the engineering stuff takes up no capacity.  Doesn't that
strike
>>>you as cheesy?
>>
>>Don't. Its cheesy. Don't.
>
>I KNOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!  THAT'S MY POINT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  The
problem
>is, if you don't assign a specific capacity to the equipment, you'll
run
>into trouble with two types of players:
>
>1.  Cheeseheads who will do just what I warned of above.
>2.  Honest players who don't want to engage in such Stiltonesque
practices,
>but can't agree on the degree by which such a package will reduce the
>capacity of the vehicle.
>
>In the end, it just seems a lot simpler to assign a specific capacity
to the
>different functions?
>
>>Look at modern examples
>>and how far they have or have not come with
>>technology.
>
>OK
>
>>The Brits (basically the fore fathers
>>of the Armored Engineer Vehicle) still have a
>>basic set of classes:
>>
>>ARV Tank chassis without turret and kit for
>>recovering a given class of vehicle.	Able to
>>recover classes of vehicles smaller than itself.
>>Usually has an MG or two for defense. Can seat a
>>handy number of crew above a normal MBT in a big
>>roomy compartment that usually has the winch
>>built into it for protection and servicing.
>
>So if you assume 4 capacity for the crews being rescued (that's equal
to an
>infantry element) and one extra APSW, that's a heck of a lot of
capacity
>being taken up by the recovery & towing gear, especially if you allow
it to
>only tow smaller vehicles.  That's 5 capacity to tow a class 1, 10 to
tow a
>class 2 or smaller, 15 for a class 3 or smaller, etc.... in essence,
(Class
>towed x 5).  That's what I proposed, IIRC.
>
>>AEV: A tank w/ a turreted demolition gun and
>>attachments for mission specific bits. Be they a
>>fascine, dozer blade, Mine Clearing Line Charges,
>>Carrot, and a number of other things.
>
>I'll get to this below.
>
>>AVLB: a tank chassis with turret removed and
>>perhaps an MG with the ability to launch and
>>recover a bridge of the same class as itself.
>>
>>Now a class 2 AVLB is able to launch a class 2
>>Bridge. A Class 4 AVLB is able to launch a class
>>4 bridge. The bridge is able to support what size
>>it is or smaller.
>
>IOW, The bridge takes up capacity equal to the max class of vehicle it
can
>support x 5.  Again, wasn't that what I proposed earlier?
>
>>>  I'm not so concerned with the exact
>>>  physical details of the system as with its game effects.
>
>This ties in with your comments about an AEV above:
>
>>Same class or smaller. Standard packages cost
>>80-100% of size of vehicle with wiggle room for
>>extra bits like stowage of a power pack or spaces
>>for the tank crew to ride. Think sliding scale vs
>>fixed cost.
>
>Again, the problem with a sliding scale of capacity means a sliding
scale of
>capability.  I'd prefer a fixed capacity, and a fixed capability.   By
>giving separate capacities for excavation, demolition, recovery, and
mine
>clearing, you can equip a vehicle with all or some of those cpabilities
as
>the player sees fit.