Re: DS3 design (long)

I thought I'd throw in a couple of comments.  Read below.

John K. Lerchey
Computer and Network Security Coordinator
Computing Services
Carnegie Mellon University

On Tue, 21 Sep 2004, J L Hilal wrote:

> Finally caught up on all of the posts I missed, and I thought I'd
throw
> in  some comments and ideas.
>
> First, some enthusiastic compliments:
>
> 1)  I like the idea of selecting Armor Level for each side of the
> vehicle in the design stage in place of the present fixed-relation
> system.  However, this will require an increase in the capacity of
each
> size of vehicle (assuming the armor takes up capacity).  As a
baseline,
> I'd say a size 1 vehicle should have 10 capacity: 6 sides of level 1
> armor plus either an infantry fireteam or a turreted class 1 weapon.
>

I too am in favor of more flexibility for armor ratings and values, but
I 
am against armor taking up capacity.  I don't think I've ever read of a 
case where armor took up *space* in a vehicle design.  What I've read 
leads me to believe that amror is *heavy* and thus impacts speed.  It's 
the weight, having to be moved by the engine (power plant) that causes
the 
problem.

>
> 2)  I like the doubling system for capacity (5, 10, 20, etc.), however
> if combined with buying armor (as above), maybe it should be 10, 20,
> 40, etc..  This system is especially needed for those that reference
> existing MBT size vehicles in the Size 3 range, because other existing
> vehicles then fall way outside the sequence were they "should" fall.
>
> E.g. #1: LVTP7/AAVP7 is about the size of a contemporary MBT but
> carries 25 troops plus two turreted (light) weapons.	E.g. #2:  CH-53
> carries up to 55 troops.  If this is size 8-10, then what size is an
> LCAC?  The doubling system would take care of these nicely.
>

I'm still not sure that I see why the class size comparison is an issue.

Someone earlier (sorry, I've forgotten who) said that the sizes should 
double from the previous size.	That's fine, if that's your assessment
of 
what "size" should be.	I'm just as happy with it being an arithmetic 
progression rather than a multiple.

Much of the issue seems to be driven by trying to address the difference

in sizes in real vehicles.  If my M-1 is Class 3, then my M2 Bradley has

to be Class II, 'cause they're smaller, but then they can't carry enough

infantry, or enough weapons to represent the real vehicle, and then how 
big is my Hummer?  Or my M-60?

If there is not enough differentiation in classes then perhaps there 
should be more classes.  Making each class bigger in relation to the 
previous one still won't readily reflect differences in vehicles which
are 
*close* to the same size.

>
> 3)  I like the idea of ammo for missile systems.  We use the
following:
>
> i) GMS takes up capacity like other weapons, i.e. 2x class fixed, 3x
> class turreted.
>
> ii) a GMS comes with a "basic load" equal to half its quality, i.e. a
> d8 GMS has 4 missiles, d10 GMS has 5 missiles.
>
> iii) an additional "basic load" can be purchased for capacity = size
> +1, e.g. a GMS/1(L) can get another basic load for 2 cap., and a
> GMS/2(H) for 3 cap.
>

I don't in most cases.	I can see a desire for one or two shot items
like 
a TOW on a Hummer, but in a sci-fi setting, I have problems with a
missile 
armed MBT (or support tank or whatever, like the missile tanks in OGRE
or 
the various missile armed tanks from GZG) not having sufficient loads to

fight through the battle.

I like keeping track of artillery ammo because a sustained barrage takes
a 
pile of ammo, and that makes sense to me to track it.  And this is
keeping 
in mind that I can still issue harassing fire if I'm out of "loads". 
Keeping track of how many missiles my missile tank fired would be 
annoying.  And if you're going to go that route, why not track IAVRs for

infantry? And shells for HVCs?	or for MDCs?

Along with the annoyance factor, I think it opens a wedge for too much 
tracking in what is supposed to be an easy to play game with little 
paperwork.

I would not mind an option for a lower cost launcher that has limited 
missiles *for those who think that it fits their genre and design 
options*, but I don't want to to lose the current model of the GSM
being, 
in effect, a direct fire weapon with a different resolution system 
(targeting system vs ECM instead of vs signature).

>
> Next, some ideas to fix some of the other problems talked about:
>
> 4) I agree that a system needs to be developed where the triangle of
> capacity-armor-movement all come into consideration during vehicle
> design without resorting to points costs.  We have been experimenting
> with using the following:
>
> i) Treat movement values as die types.  Base move values of 15 are
> changed to 16 (=d8x2)
>
> ii) Movement types that have both a "Fast" and "Slow" option use the
> "Fast" value for vehicles size 2 or less, and the "Slow" value for
> vehicles size 3 and larger.
>

That's seems horribley arbitrary for a "generic" system which should be 
able to model more than the the Tuffleyverse.  My OGREs are NOT size 2, 
but I will insist that they be "fast".	Further, there are plenty of 
scenarios and genres where I want fast BIG vehicles.  Hammers Slammers 
hovertanks, the gzg grav tanks, and others.  Forcing them to be slow 
becaus it fits *your* worldview makes this a much less flexible system.

> iii) When designing a vehicle, it is assumed that the movement and
> capacity values represent a vehicle of a given size class with maximum
> armor level.	For each level of armor less than the maximum, the
player
> may either a) increase movement by 1 die type or b) increase capacity
> by the vehicle size.	E.g. a size 4 vehicle has level 2 armor and a
> base movement of 10.	It may have a) increase movement 2 "die types"
to
> 16, b) increase capacity by 2x(+4)= +8, or c) increase movement 1 "die
> type" to 12 and also increase capacity by +4.
>

I still fail to follow how armor values effect capacity points.

Let's take a "fictional real world example".  Say that my M113 APCs are 
armored at level 2 because they're smallish.  I decide that I want to
put 
in another infantry section.  How does reducing armor make that box any 
bigger?

OTOH, if I wanted to make it more heavily armored, I could easily weld 
armor plates all over the surface of it.  It would likey drop to about 5

mph max speed, but I could do it.  And if I did, I could *still carry a 
full squad of infantry*.

> 5)  I agree that the range of tech levels should be expanded.  We use
> the following:
> d4 = Inferior or Antiquated systems
> d6 = Basic, Poor, or Obsolescent systems
> d8 = Standard systems
> d10 = Enhanced systms
> d12 = Superior systems
>
> We assign a "Tech level" to a force, then carry that throughout the
> systems.
>

Is there anything beyond "cause I wanted to" to enforce that a force is 
consistant?  Do I get any kind of bonus in numbers or somewhere else for
a force of inferior/antiquated systems?  Is there no option for upgrades

in design during a campaign?  If I'm running with essentiall WWII 
vehicles, but come up with a more modern vehicle design with better 
targeting systems (Basic) due to my scavenging from my technologically 
advanced enemys losses, can I not field a few "brand spanking new super 
duper almost as good as theirs" tanks? :)  If so, great, but kind of 
invalidates the statement above.  If not, I'd sure like to hear some 
reaosning.

In the forces I field now, I vary the "tech level" of FCS in order to 
differentiate between my more modern combat vechiles, or between ones 
which have weapons, but are not MBTs or front line units.  I sure
wouldn't 
want to lose that option.

> In a revised construction system, I would like to see the capacity a
> system takes up tied to both the system's Quality as well as the tech
> level of the force it represents.  E.g. if Force A has Standard
Quality
> technology and Force B uses Enhanced Quality technology, then a system
> which takes up 2 capacity for Force A (having a d8 QD) should also
take
> up 2 capacity for Force B (but use a d10).  Force B's higher tech base
> allows them an advantage.  This does not prevent Force A from making a
> d10 quality system, but then it takes up more capacity than Force B's
> system with equivalent capabilities.
>
>

This is a cool idea.

> 6)  Three complaints all seem to me to have a single commonality:
> i) "Vehicle speeds are too slow." [for a 15 minute game turn]
> ii) "If my fire support roll fails, what is my arty battery doing for
> 15 minutes?"
> iii) "Fire rates are too slow.  Modern MBTs could take 50 aimed shots
> in a 15 minute game turn."
>
> Perhaps part of the problem is the assumption of the 15 min. game
turn.
> change it to 4-5 minutes and it reduces the problem substantially.

Yes, but it then changes the scope of the game.  It becomes much more 
tactical by design than it is now.  Any time that you change a scale 
(ground scale, time scale, figure scale - how many real vehicles a model

represnts, not the 15mm vs 6mm scale) you are changing what the game 
represents.  I'm not saying that it's a bad idea, but if such a thing
were 
implemented, only go there with a full understanding of what you're
doing.

My preference would be to change the mechanics so that the time scale
and 
ground scale stay the same as they are now, but so that speed/mobility
and 
combat resolution are a little more in line with at least current 
technology, and hopefully with projected future tech.

>
> Additionally: change the activation into 2 actions like SG2, allowing
a
> vehicle to FIRE-FIRE or MOVE-MOVE
>

If the system is changed to allow for a more rapidly resolved system
with 
faster movement and more viscious firefights, then the *tactical* SG2 
activation system should not be needed.

>
> 7)  Weapons.	Lots of problems here.
> i) The DS2 weapons which correspond to modern weapons are
significantly
> less capable than modern systems in the same class, particularly the
> HVC and GMS.	E.g. 1991 GW experience showed US and UK forces having
> very high hit rates at 3000-3500m (~80%+).  That can't be done in DS2.
>

In combat?  I'm only asking because history has also shown that proving 
ground ratings and "wargame" ratings tend to be far better than actual
combat ratings.

> ii) Lots of SF weapons have a variety of interpretations depending on
> the setting that you are playing in, and DS2 is difficult to tinker
> (unlike SG2).
>

I agree here.  And I'd like to see more variety of weapons.  Blasters,
EMP 
and Plasma rounds for artillery, better APERS rounds for most cannons 
(HVCs, HKPs), MVCs for lower tech units, more options for infantry
support 
weapons, both longer and shorter range missile and rocket systems, more 
ADS options (missiles, lasers, etc.) and... oh hell, I could go on for a

long time. :)

> iii) DS2 caps all ranges at 6000m because that is the sea level
horizon
> on Earth.  Why?  Not all battles are fought on a flat plain at sea
> level.  If I am on a hill, ridge or escarpment, I should be able to
> shoot at targets 7, 8, or more km away with a laser.	Even on terrain
> blocking ground level LOS, I should get a shot at VTOLs that would be
> beyond the horizon if they were grounded.  Additionally, as a SF game,
> not all planets will have a 6km horizon.  Some might be 5500m or less,
> others 7000m or more.
>

Yup.

> A solution is to have a system were the players design the weapons by
> selecting a few values, maybe have some special options for special
> abilities (like lasers/other beam types, etc.), instead of having them
> pre-set.  Eliminating the chit-drawing and altering the to-hit system
> slightly allow this to be quite easy.  This would also allow players
to
> make as many or as few weapon categories as they want (eg maybe I want
> EM and grav drivers as seperate categories while someone else lumps
> them together), and place capabilities as advanced or as limited as
> they prefer.	If anyone is interested, I can briefly outline the
> variant that we use.
>

I am somewhat less inclined to make the system completely free form like

this suggests.	Some players are simply better at min-maxing values than

others.  Keeping the weapons semi-generic is good enough for me, though 
again, I would like to see more options.  Once a laser is defined, 
however, I'd like a laser to be a laser.

> 10)  Artillery is understrength in DS2.  Specifically in:
> i) munition and submunition types and capabilities

Agreed.

> ii) lack of precision guided munition types; including those that need
> target designation, those that make course corrections to target
> coordinates, and those that seek targets autonomously.

But in this case, I would argue that the munitions should then have a
FCS 
value which is applied against the targets ECM capabilities.

> iii) assumption of vulnerability to counterbattery tracking.	A unit
> firing smart or brilliant munitions might not even have to stop to
> fire.

The kind of don't now.	Artillery units can move then fire or fire then 
move, just like tanks.	<shrug>

> iv) low ammunition capacity: with designated or autonomous munitions,
a
> single ammo-marker may account for enough shells to make single-target
> attacks for the entire game.

I like the artillery loads system. :)

> v) small area of effect/low fire rate: a single piece using designated
> or autonomous munitions or submunitions might be able to affect a much
> larger area when rapid-firing than one firing HE or dumb submunitions.
>

This points back to item "i" in this list.  With more variation in 
munitions types, you can pull this sort of thing off.

> J

J too. :)