DS3 Weapons was Re: DS3 design (long)

--- John K Lerchey <lerchey@andrew.cmu.edu> wrote:
> On Tue, 21 Sep 2004, J L Hilal wrote:
> > 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.
> 

That is my understanding.  Apparantly US doctrine was to close on
targets farther then 4000m, but to engage those closer with cannon
fire, and the success, accuracy, and destruction surprised the crews
and unit commanders.  Further, there are reports of a Challenger
getting a hit with its 120mm at 5100-5500m (depending on source),
though its never mentioned how many tries it took, just that it hit and
the single hit got a catastrophic kill. 

> > 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).
> >

<snip>

> 
> 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.
> 

For a specific setting, I agree.  However, from setting to setting, I
don't agree.  A GZG-verse laser is a lot less effective than one in the
Centurion, BattleTech, B5, or 40k settings.  I don't want my Neutron
Cannon hamstrung because in the GZGverse they aren't powerful enough. 
The same carries on to other weapon types.

J