Re: Tech Levels and Quality was Re: DS3 design (long)

What is meant by the tech levels.  Ihe human brain is an antiquated,
inferior, obsolete system, yet we still use them (I do anyway).  
 
Also, the governments of the world say that the older technology like
the M1903 0.30 cal bolt action rifle is antiquated and obsolete though I
can shoot twice as far as the modern 5.56 NATO, however, we still use
the same technology. And the US military in their infinite wisdom, gets
rid of working technology in favor of newer, not necessarily better,
technology.  I have visited many US Navy ships, living near Norfolk VA,
and over the past 20 years ships have seen the "obosolete" backwriting
boards replaced with modern computers. God save us when the computers
crash!
 
My biggest gripe with DS2 is that the milita weapons are assumed to be
inferior to the regular army weapons, yet I have been in National Guard
armories that still have M1 Garands from WW2 and Korea, which IMHO are
better weapons than the POS M16 series.
 
Laser range finders and all the techno gimicks are good tools, but they
break more than the older stuff.  the optic coincidental and split
imaging targeting systems are off by a few percent which is generally
better than the laser range finder than can variate due to humidity,
jostling of the electronics, and user error.  Everybody assumes that the
LRF is great, but in reality I have seen LRFs off by as much as 20+% due
solely to being misaligned by the bumps in normal operation (even within
the protected case).  the best way to accurately measure the range to
target is to measure it out as in land surveying, but that is
impracticale under combat conditions, unless you have fanitical or
suicidal troops.
 
Are we all going to Windows based combat with the "superior" computer is
asking are we really sure we want to fire the main gun as it is aimed?
 
Tech levels I generally think are an artificial divide on technology. 
The 5-in naval shell from WW2 still hurts as bad as a 5-in naval shell
from today; sucks to be the APC or MICV that is hit by the 75mm or 90 mm
HE shell; and even worse to be the PBI hit by the 50 lb. stone from a
terbuchet.  DS2 didn't divide all the type of ammo into modern and
obsolete but rather the apt reflection that modern tanks generally, but
not always, will get better tools to find the enemy, hence the FCS
option.
 
Full auto only means that your buddies won't get your ammo when you die.

J L Hilal <jlhilal@yahoo.com> wrote:
--- John K Lerchey wrote:
> On Tue, 21 Sep 2004, J L Hilal wrote:
> > 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?

That depends. If your force is Inferior Tech level, then the only
bonus you would get would be if you are costing the vehicles with the
optional points system. Otherwise it lies in the scenario set-up. If,
on the other hand, you are a Standard Tech Force, and you equip your
vehicles with Antiquated Systems, then you will also realize a (small)
savings in capacity on each vehicle.

> Is there no option 
> for upgrades in design during a campaign? If I'm running with 
> essentiall[y] 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? :) 

Advancing your Tech Level is part of the Dirtside Campaign System
(TBA), and is beyond the scope of this post :)

However, you can always build more capability into your vehicle, just
pay more capacity (see below).

For reference, it took the USSR 2 years of intense effort to build a
B-29ski by reverse engineering three interned B-29's. The odds of you
reverse engineering a Martian Mk. 2465464 Fire Control System are nil.

> 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.
> 

So MBT-2150 is Enhanced (d10), MBT-2120 has systems filling identical
capacity but produce d8, and MBT-2080 uses d6. IFV-2150 is also d10,
but APC-2150 has intentionally less capable (and smaller) d8 systems,
leaving extra capacity for troops. (see below)

> > 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.
> 

Thanks

J

		
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
vote.yahoo.com - Register online to vote today!