Well, too interesting to drop all of the posts in this thread...

On Mon, 26 Jul 2004 14:06:22 -0700 (PDT) Brian B
<greywanderer987@yahoo.com> writes:
>I haven't read Alan's comments yet, so if any of this
>overlaps, I apologize.
>
>I went to the trouble of jotting down some changes I'd
>like to see in DS 3, so here goes:
>
>1.  Semi-direct fire; ie., artillery-delivered attacks
>on specific vehicles instead of area effect.

I assume this would require F.O. skills as currently?  Are F.O. skills
os
rare?  I thought US/UK/ etc. trained troops in the general idea of
Artillery support.  The 11Bravos (basic Infantryman)  in our category 15
(of 15) USAR unit certainly had the skill in their list of things to
eventually learn.  Something us 76Yankees (Supply) didn't have.  would
this be a skill most infantry FT's might acquire or would this be F. O.
trained only?

>2. Allow for elements other than the firing element to
>designate targets for GMS.

Yea, Verily.

>3. Allow for a greater variety of armor levels on all
>sides of vehicles.

Sure, although this slightly complicates angle of attack since you now
have at least three values (top being only relevant for top attacking
systems.)

>4. GMS that can top-attack, at some increased
>vulnerability to ADS/PDS

Okay.

>5. PDS that can engage incoming MDC/HKP/HVC/SLAM
>attacks.

Should this be everybody or should low tech/Basic PDS (whatever Low tech
means) be limited in this?

>6. Expansion of GMS classes to 1-5 (call them P, L, M,
>H, and SH if you like)

Sure, then they could be costed like 'guns'.

>7.  Expanded CBR rules, including a modifier for the
>mobility type of off-board arty.

How much 'expanded'?

>8. Expanded C3 rules that allow for greater and/or
>less reliance on on-board C3 element.

Depends on implementation.

>9. Expanded AI rules

Where players could set level of AI, yes.

>10. Mast-mounted Firecon for VTOLS to allow for
>"Hull-down" protection while firing.

Their own weapons like GMS or others (relates to #2)?

>11.  Expanded rules for Biped Vs. Quadruped+ walkers,
>walker speeds independent from "Infantry walker/combat
>walker/transport walker" designations

Well that could be done for all modes of movement.

>12. Allow GMS to engage VTOL & Aerospace units

Sure, dual purpose (triple purpose for fast mover Aerospace units)
should
be higher cost (or maybe require Basic/Enhanced/Superior GCS)?

>13. Allow direct fire weapons to engage High Mode
>VTOL's

HEL's Yes, MDCs seems Logical, HKP maybe.... DFFG Maybe not?

>14. Make ZAD a Firecon system attachable to any direct
>fire weapon

Hmm, maybe.

>15. 5 classes of PDS and ZAD

Why not if we do this for GMS?

>16. Fire-on-the-fly; allow vehicles to fire at any
>point before, during, or after movement.

Okay, might make more complicated direct fire but if done right...

>17. Remove rule permitting fire of only 1 weapon
>system per turn

Fer Sure.

>18. Permit better Firecons to engage multiple targets
>per turn

Yes.

>19. Expand opportunity & Defensive fire rules

Agreed

>20. 5 levels of firecon for single-range weapons like
>GMS, CBR, and HEL's

Interesting.

>21. Allow arty to self-spot.
>

Do you mean via drones (which should be in some form of ADE/CADE
(counter
ADE) factor like ADE in SG 2?) or something different?

Gracias,
Glenn

________________________________________________________________
The best thing to hit the Internet in years - Juno SpeedBand!
Surf the Web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER!
Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today!