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

I think you miss many points about the increased use
of technology.	Yes the Navy got rid of backward
writing boards.  But now they can share tactical data
between all vessels and so each has a better picture
of the engagement.

As far as the M-16 being a POS (your words), I think
that you are still talking about the original version.
 I think that you would get much argument about the
current version esp. the M-4.  

As for Antiquated being inferior in all aspects I
agree.	The bolt action rifles of WW-II could shoot
further than the engagement ranges of todays battle
rifles.  So in certain circumstances they will be
better.  

Bob Makowsky

--- Thomas Westbrook <tom_westbrook@yahoo.com> wrote:

> 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 "obsolete" 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!