Re: DS3 design (long)

[Roger forwarding for Oerjan again]

********
Jared Hilal wrote: 

>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.

Much easier to make the capacity progression linear instead; otherwise
you're likely to make Size/4 vehicles and above *extremely* powerful.
Whether or not the base capacity should be 5xSize, 10xSize or 15xSize
depends both on how armour is treated and on how the mobility type is
handled - ie., if you have to pay capacity points for the engine and
transmission, then of course the vehicle's base capacity would have to
be
larger than if you just subsume the propulsion into the chassis. 

>E.g. #2:  CH-53 carries up to 55 troops.  If this is size 8-10, then
what size 
>is an LCAC? 

An LCAC is about 10' longer than the CH-53 fuselage and some 4-5 *times*
as
wide (~40' vs. ~9'; I'm not counting the helo's rotors or stub wings
here
though <g>), so if you make the CH-53 Size/8-10 the LCAC would be
somewhere
around Size/50-60 in a linear scale or Size/10-13 in an exponential
scale.
(This illustrates why I prefer a linear size scale to an exponential
one,
BTW.)

>6)  Three complaints all seem to me to have a single commonality:
>i) "Vehicle speeds are too slow." [for a 15 minute game turn]

So are infantry speeds. DS2 infantry appearently crawl on their bellies
even
during road marches.

>ii) "If my fire support roll fails, what is my arty battery doing for
>15 minutes?"

Probably serving some *other* section of the front, eg. the battalion
that's
covering your (off-table) flank... then again, it might be blanketted by
enemy EW efforts so it can't get any accurate target coordinates, or
even
under attack by enemy partisans.
 
>iii) "Fire rates are too slow.  Modern MBTs could take 50 aimed shots
>in a 15 minute game turn."

A bit exaggerated (most modern MBTs don't have as many as 50 main gun
rounds
on board), but basically yes.

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

Reduces the problem, but doesn't really solve it - eg., 4-minute turns
would
allow Fast Tracked vehicles to shoot without penalties while moving at
sustained speeds of 6 mph rather than the current 1.5 mph, but as you
wrote
in your reply to KHR today's real-world armoured units can fight at
sustained combat speeds of *20* mph (and occasionally more)... and the
speeds will no doubt increase even further in the future. (Renegade
Legion
grav tanks moving at 200+ mph during combat, anyone? <g>)

Unless you do something drastic about the structure of the game turn,
you'll
need to cut the game turn to around *1* minute to allow vehicles
reasonably
realistic combat movement and fire rates - and even then you'll
seriously
underestimate the movement rates of units out of contact with the enemy
(eg.
rear-area reserves or relocating artillery batteries).

FWIW the potential solution Indy hinted at some days back fits John
Lerchey's description pretty closely - it changes the game mechanics to
allow a "realistic" amount of action to occur during a 15-minute turn,
instead of shortening the turn to fit the amount of action the current
game
mechanics allow.

>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.

Which is why you pretty much have to assume that the to-hit roll
includes
*spotting* as well as the actual aiming and firing - ie., many of the
times
when you roll a "miss" the vehicle crew didn't see its target so it
never
actually pulled the trigger.

Baking spotting into the to-hit roll also helps explaining the massive
effects different target Signatures have on the hit probability - in
reality
it is only marginally harder for a tank gun with a modern FCS to hit a
jeep
as it is for it to hit a tank *once the target has been spotted*, but
thanks
to its smaller size the jeep is much easier to hide (and thus much
harder to
spot) than the tank is. (cf. one of David Brewer's posts.)

>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.

Yep. Unless of course there's some minor terrain feature blocking the
LOS -
and it doesn't take much: minor undulations of the ground, minor copses,
a
few scattered houses, hedges... none of which is big enough to show up
on
the DS2 gaming table, but they nevertheless influence the battle. 

>9)  Someone brought up that allowing players to select the values of
their 
>various armor locations in exchange for capacity would result in very
thin 
>top armor. This is true, but only because DS2 is seriously lacking in
top-
>attack weapons, even compared to modern systems (mid-1990s on).  I 
>believe this is due to a lack of general publicity for the
proliferation of top-
>attack weapons.

You're forgetting how old DS2 is. As you note below the proliferation
you're
talking about here (and not just for EFP weapons!) mostly took place in
the
last 10 years - ie. *after* DS2 was written and published.

>Additionally, all of the examples brought up were of direct-attack type

>weapons.

No-one mentioned MAK-style artillery, then?

>A significant number of stand-off TA weapons using explosively forged 
>kinetic penetrators have entered service in the last 10 years, even for
MBT
>main cannon.

Virtually all of these EFP-armed TA weapons are either mines or
artillery
rounds. DS2's minefield rules are sadly out of date, but the rules for
"MAK"
artillery are a pretty good representation of today's EFP-armed smart
artillery rounds like SADARM and BONUS.

As for MBT main gun rounds using EFP warheads, I'm only aware of one
such
round (ATK's XM943 STAFF) - but AFAIK it hasn't entered service yet.

>10)  Additionally, several people have asserted that the widespread use
of 
>PDS systems will reduce the effectiveness of artillery and direct-fire 
>ballistic weapons.  The stand-off TA weapon makes such weapons 
>significantly less effective.

IIRC I've only seen one such assertion about *P*DS, and it was quickly
corrected for precisely the reason you describe... 

What has been asserted however is that advanced *A*DS systems will be
able
to destroy incoming artillery rounds before they can release their
submunitions; at least one such system is already under development.
(One
such *ground-based* system, that is; naval point-defence systems have
been
able to knock down incoming shells on at least a limited scale for quite
some time already.)

>10)  Artillery is understrength in DS2.  Specifically in:

[...]

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

No, that's actually a pretty safe assumption. Being able to fire on the
move
(as opposed to firing on the 30-second or one-minute halt, which today's
best SPGs can do) only makes you *more likely* to avoid the enemy
CBR-guided
smart-munitions counter-battery fire; it certainly doesn't *guarantee*
that
you'll avoid them.

>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.

For most purposes, "a sustained barrage" from modern artillery consists
of
around 3 shells per gun - after that the battery has to relocate if it
wants
to avoid enemy counter-battery fire, and after the first few rounds the
target will have taken cover anyway so any additional shells aren't
likely
to increase the damage much. TOT barrages can increase the number of
shells
that have an effect before the target can take cover, but TOT is only
really
possible at shorter ranges and it does nothing to help you avoid the
enemy
counter-battery effort.

IOW, if used for modern combat each DS artillery ammo marker would
represent
around 3 shells per gun in the battery. You'd need a fairly large
battery to
make a single marker last for "harrassing fire" for an entire game :-/
(I
agree that "harassing fire" should have a non-zero chance to inflict
damage,
though - the DS2 concept of "harassing fire" is very much based on
WW2-through-'Nam artillery practises with HE shells.)

>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.

Already covered by the DS2's large beaten zones (400 meters across).

*********************************************************************
KHR wrote:

>There are a lot of factors that stop tanks and other weapons from
>continuously moving or shooting at flat-out rates on the battlefield,
>thus the argument about the 50 shots or tank speeds is actually wrong.

No, it isn't *wrong*. It is a bit *exaggerated*, but it is far closer to
real combat mobility and rates of fire than the current DS2 is.

>Some points:
>- Barrel heating, loader fatigue and limited ammo stop high-rate
shooting 
>much earlier

The only one of these which is significant today is limited ammo
(today's
120mm-armed MBTs typically only have 40-45 main gun rounds on board).
Barrel
heating and loader fatigue are far less of a problem at this relatively
low
rate of fire - 50 rounds in 15 minutes is only about one-quarter of
today's
high-rate tank gun fire.

>- In a high-lethality battlefield, evrybody hides as far as possible.
Typically, >there will be rather less than 50 targets visible.

TYPICALLY, sure - but DS2 doesn't allow you to engage multiple targets
*even
when there are multiple targets available*.

>- Moving at full speed, observation is impaired, the driver can not use
terrain 
>for cover properly, and you don't know what's behind the hill you come 
>barreling around. Again, the typical movement pattern is of short
dashes 
>between spots of cover rather than a full-out dash.

Sure - but as Jared wrote, today's real-world *tracked* armoured
formations
can fight without any noticable reduction in combat power while moving
at an
average of 10-20 mph. DS2 currently allows "Fast Tracked" vehicles to
move
no faster than *3* mph if they want to shoot at all, and suffer
significant
combat penalties if they move any faster than *1.5* mph. (For GRAV and
FAST
GEV the corresponding values are 3.75 mph and 1.875 mph, respectively.)
Reasonable? Maybe for WW1, but not for SF.

And this part of your argument collapses completely if you look at
movement
of reserve and logistics units behind the front line. These units are
moving
in secured territory; they don't need to use terrain for cover etc. and
therefore *can* (and often do) move at full speed - which in DS2 means
"up
to 15 mph if they're GRAV or FAST GEV, otherwise 10 or 12 mph". In
today's
real world rear-area HMWs can road-march at 60 mph, and FTR can
road-march
at 45-50 mph.

******************************************************************
John K Lerchey wrote:

>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.

In that case you haven't read any good books or articles about armoured
vehicle design. The front armours of modern MBTs are several feet thick,
so
if the vehicle's external dimensions are fixed (eg. because of transport
or
visibility considerations - in DS the latter are more likely than the
former
since transporting the troops to the battle isn't represented in the
game)
the only place you can find the volume needed to fit the armour is
inside
the vehicle. Looking at add-on armours for APCs should give you a few
more
hints about just how bulky armour is.

>>3)  I like the idea of ammo for missile systems.  We use the
following:
>
>I don't in most cases.  I can see a desire for one or two shot items
like a

>TOW on a Hummer, 

IIRC TOW-armed Hummers usually have 6 missiles available, but then they
can't fit very much else inside.

>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.

Those OGRE and GZG tanks which use missiles as their primary (or even
only)
weapon all have BIG launchers/racks/magazines - IOW, they devote (at
least)
as much of their internal capacity to missiles as the various gun tanks
devote to their big guns, and because they do these missile tanks are
very
unlikely to run out of missiles during a battle.

Those vehicles which have a secondary missile launcher latched onto a
gun
turret are very much akin to today's real-world vehicles with similar
armaments. For these vehicles the missiles are either last-resort
weapons or
opportunity weapons; they devote most of their internal space to other
types
of payload - and because they do, they *do* risk running out of missiles
during a 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.	

As discussed above, each ammo marker represents roughly 3 rounds per gun
in
the battery. That's not a very big pile, but you nevertheless track it.

>And if you're going to go that route, why not track IAVRs for 
infantry?  And 
>shells for HVCs?  or for MDCs?

Because MDC and HVC rounds, and even infantry IAVRs, are considerably
smaller than ATGMs (ie., what DS2 calls "GMSs").

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

Very easy: in spite of what you believe, armour intended to stop
anything
more powerful than a non-AP rifle bullet is quite bulky.

>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?

The armour on a basic M113 consists of up to 44mm thick aluminium plate
(reasonably resistant but not completely proof to small arms fire, so
Armour/1 in SG terms or Armour/0-ish in DS terms - the two games don't
mean
the same thing with "Armour/0" and "Armour/1"...), so if you replace all
of
it by normal car-body plate and keep the external dimensions the same as
before you'll increase the width and length of the inside of your box by
approximately 80 mm (ie., +40mm on each side).

How does increasing the width and length of the box by 80mm NOT make it
any
bigger?

(That an extra 80mm isn't anywhere near enough to fit another 4-5 men
into
the vehicle is entirely your own fault, since you choose a rather
lightly
armoured vehicle as the basis for your example.)

>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*.

And since those extra armour plates are not infinitely thin, they will
increase your vehicle's external dimensions; if they're thick enough to
have
an effect that the DS damage system will notice, they'll also increase
the
vehicle's external dimensions quite noticably. If you increase a
vehicle's
external dimensions, then by definition you increase its size.

>>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?

The 1991 Gulf War is usually considered to be "combat", even though it
was
quite one-sided at times.

********
David Brewer wrote:

>How important is it that one vehicle is 3/4 the volume of another
>regarding targetting by ultramodern fire control? I'm guessing
>"not much".

Only because you treat *spotting* as automatic - which it very much is
not.
You'd be surprised by how much a few inches off the top of a vehicle
does
for its chances to avoid being spotted by the enemy.

>When Oerjan says that the armour of a typical modern MBT is
>something like 8:2:1 front:side:rear my brain reads it as
>2^3:2^1:2^0 or 2^(size):2^(size-2):2^(size-3)...

Then your brain is reading something that isn't there. Try 11:3:1 for
front:sides:rear instead, and see if you can fit that into some nice
exponential scheme <shrug>

Regards,

Oerjan
oerjan.ohlson@telia.com

"Life is like a sewer.
 What you get out of it, depends on what you put into it."
-Hen3ry