DS Philosophy etc

Thought I'd unlurk and join in with a slightly different perspective...
 
I suspect that any effort to depict a "realistic" science fiction combat
environment is doomed to failure from the start.  I'd see it as highly
unlikely that future warfare will be fought using anything like the
forces depicted in DS2.  As JT mentions in the intro to SG2, it is quite
probable that future field of battle warfare will involve unmanned
strike drones; these are already in use and will naturally become more
sophisticated and capable.  And unsurprisingly, compulsive computer
gamers are proving to be among the most adapt at controlling such
systems, producing a new class of "soldier". 
 
Other technological developments point towards the real future of
warfare as involving weather control (there is a Pentagon statement of
intent to this effect), information and economic dominance, designer
biotech weapons, emotional and mental control via sonics and microwaves
etc etc.  Much of this stuff is in active research, and has probably
already developed much further than public press announcements depict.
 
The current design trends for force composition for the US and UK armies
appears to be heading towards rapid deployment forces which are
considerably lighter than those originally designed to fight Fulda Gap
style encounters against other MBTs.  Furthermore, the US has declared
its intent to develop and deploy a new generation of micro tac nukes. 
This suggests that unless nuclear dampers exist in the future there's
going to be no point building Bolos or Ogres or even having large
concentrations of conventional forces.	An unmanned disposable stealth
drone with a micro nuke will simply saunter along and blow them away...
 
As gamers we discuss points values and set up games with balanced points
systems.  This is not realistic.  AFAIK, US doctrine used to call for
achieving local odds of at least 6 to 1 for attacks.  In recent years
the US and UK have amply demonstrated the devastating effect of
unrestricted air power against an adversary without the technology and
means to adequately resist.  War isn't romantic, and it isn't about
points values.	It's about winning.  Preferably without the other guy
getting an opportunity to shoot back. 
 
However - while all this stuff may be a far more accurate and realistic
depiction of an actual hard sci fi future, it makes a really boring
game!!
 
There's also the argument that in fact the people and overall situation
aspects remain fairly similar anyway.  It's been suggested that the
rules are at fault because they reflect a Vietnam perspective.	Iraq
2003 may have lots of glitzy new high tech toys and may have crushed
those parts of the Iraqi army that stayed around  to take it - but the
reality of Iraq in 2004 is that the US actually IS fighting something
very similar to Vietnam all over again.  And despite the advanced
technology and the lavish affluence of US equipment, we still have young
kids out there getting their first taste of the reality of war, jumpy
because in that kind of bandit country they never know where and when
they'll come under fire, and tending to respond with seemingly
indiscriminate auto fire whenever something does happen.  And the
opposition forces, who have NO chance of success in a stand up
confrontation, are making good use of cunning, improvised and low tech
weaponry, their inherent adv!
 antages
 in homeland and people.  So how is this much different to Vietnam?  
 
Returning to DS2...  Any rules that have a generic element still end up
interpreting weapons systems in certain ways - for example is it reality
that lasers are long range but light hitters and DFFGs are short ranged
heavy hitters?	No, it's just Jon's interpretation.  Someone else may
write it differently.  For example the Traveller RPG viewed gauss guns
as auto firing lots of 4mm darts.  The Space Opera RPG saw gauss guns as
firing single 20mm projectiles very hard.  Which one is accurate and
realistic and correct?	
 
One of the things I enjoy most about DS2 is that the rules provide a
framework.  Because they are simple and fast playing, it is easy to
customise DS2 into new formats or simply rewrite aspects of the rules
for a particular game setting.	From a personal point of view, I'm not
sure the rules need all that much of an overhaul, because they are
flexible enough to be bent into new shapes.  For example if you don't
like DFFGs being short ranged, it is really easy to alter the stats and
field a weapon with different characteristics.	A lot of this stuff
looks like it can be "fixed" with local agreement and house rules.  JT
invites that approach (obviously with the agreement of one's playing
companions), and my gaming circle has always enjoyed taking that
approach.
 
I've regularly played DS2 with combat between formations up to Brigade
strength.  That only works because DS2 has simple and slightly abstract
mechanics.  Some of the options under discussion would add so much
complexity that we would no longer have a fast play rule set.  As
someone who started out on old "modern period" games, it would be like
the difference between WRG moderns armour rules and the TTG Challenger
rule set.  One set was abstract but produced an OK overall end result,
albeit with a slightly irritating abstraction of the armour differences
on MBTs (very similar to the complaints about DS2!).  The other set had
about 7 or 8 dice rolls for each shot, including a roll for the
percentage of a HEAT charge that actually jetted correctly.  End result
was that it could take several hours just to figure out what had
happened between a couple of tank platoons. The Challenger set ended up
with so much detail that it was virtually unplayable.
 
I've found DS2 to be highly customisable.  One example is Jon's
"Slammin' the Dirt" article, which introduced powerguns etc as a new
weapon system - demonstrating how easy it is to shape the DS2 mechanisms
into a specific universe.
 
I've also experimented with using the Adler "Dark Star" miniatures,
which are VERY high tech grav - orbital insertion vehicles and suchlike
- and again simply changing the DS2 rules to reflect a specific
universe.  In this case we made a distinction between the orbital grav
vehicles and the standard groundpounders and allowed orbital vehicles an
additional level of armour above the standard rules, heavier bottom
armour, and so forth .	We also traded off unused capacity points for
extra movement e.g. an unused point allows +2 inches to maximum speed. 
In this variant we had some vehicles with maximum movement rates of up
to 36 inches, and despite some very lethal weaponry, quite a lot of
manoeuvre.  I guess it helped that the units themselves were fairly
small, maybe 2 orbital grav tanks or 4-5 jeeps in a platoon (partly
prompted by the expense of Dark Star models!).	The effect was a
different flavour to conventional DS2 though, and we had vehicles which
WERE able to fly.  !
 Though it
 wasn't always desirable to parade yourself in high mode.  The tanks
could fly, but NOE and using cover was still a smart idea.  
 
Seems to me that some of the Traveller rules versions already offer most
of the levels of detail that are under discussion.  But my own
preference is definitely for a fast playing game that doesn't leave me
with a headache the way some of the supposedly ultra realistic rules
systems can do. In my long career as a gamer I've gone from simple to
complex and then back to simple again.	So my vote - just in case Jon is
taking notes on this for DS3! - is definitely for "simple". 
 
Maybe I'm in a minority about this, but our group has had most fun with
DS2 and SG2 when using the rules to explore some of the sociology and
scenarios - for example three way encounters with a peacekeeping force
attempting to pacify without using overwhelming force and earning moral
condemnation.  And of course the simplicity is an advantage for this
kind of purpose. 


		
---------------------------------
 ALL-NEW Yahoo! Messenger - all new features - even more fun!