Re: DS3 design (long)

On Tue, 28 Sep 2004 12:45:41 +0100, Oerjan Ohlson <roger@firedrake.org>
wrote:

> AFAIK the amount of time most infantry soldiers can keep up "combat
speed"
> is on the order of 1 DS2 turn (15 minutes) or less, so we only really
need
> "patrol speed" for sustained movements - short-term bursts of faster
> "combat" movement are either averaged out by halts during the same
game turn
> or covered by the extra moves allowed in Close Assaults. However,
DS2's
> current maximum infantry movement rates (using Travel Mode movement
along
> roads) are rather less even than real-world *patrol* speed!

Well, yes.  Those points are both true.

> This is a limitation in the *C4I* systems use however, not in the
vehicles'
> actual movement capabilities - and it is also precisely what the
current
> "military revolution" is intended to fix: reduce the time spent
"sitting
> around" by improving the units' situational awareness. To allow DS to
be
> generic, it should ideally model these C4I limitations via the
> command&control rules - *not* via the movement rules.

OK--although that would be a fairly complex operation IMHO to do so
other than in the most simplistic and arbitrary fashion.

> >Uh, that I have to disagree with.  Can road march in theory and can
> >road march safely are two seperate concepts.
> 
> Good point, but which of these two marching rates do you use when
you're
> rushing reserves to block a threatening break-through - the safe one,
or the
> maximum one? Same for artillery trying to get out of the beaten zone
of
> incoming counter-battery fire?

True--but then your formations get sloppy.  Something else to model
with the C4I system.

> Sure, but you pretty much have to write the rules for it yourself -
DS2
> doesn't have any rules for getting your troops to the battlefield. In
fact I
> don't know *any* DS2 player - including myself, or even you (John A.)
- who
> takes transportability into account when designing DS2 vehicles... yet
it
> has had a massive impact on the design of today's military vehicles.
(Just
> look at all the MBTs designed to fit through standard-width railway
tunnels,
> or all the lighter vehicles where the width and height were limited by
the
> need to fit inside a C-130 :-/ )

True.  That's because the means of delivery to the battlefield are not
defined enough to know what their limits are.  I mean, are shuttles
large enough to fit a size 4 tanks rare or common?

> Yep. (That's another advantage of gun-missile launchers over bolted-on
ones
> - the gun-launchers are much easier to reload under armour <g>)
'Course, if
> the unit is in a turret-down combat position it won't take it very
long to
> find that safe spot :-/

If you are willing to accept the tradeoff in missle diameter.

John