POWER INFANTRY

>The power infantry move in a wave across the board. Around turn 2 they move within 12" of the >enemy. Next turn close-assault the enemy unit. Beat them and do another activation (very unlikely >there is not another enemy within 12") beat them and do another activation, etc. (in one game we >were playing down a 6' table and my opponent reached the end with most of his troops before turn 2 >had ended.)

>Rules options.
>do not allow the second activation.

Do the rules allow you to make a third activation after that second one?  Is that what you were doing?  I'm not sure that there should be more than one extra activation.  Maybe the second activation should have a reduced movement rate--not allowed to double movement, for example.

The rule says they have to go through the captured position and on towards the nearest objective.  I guess only way to make that help you would be to stay away from the objectives, but that wouldn't be so good, either. 

Andy Skinner

>2. reduce power infantry move to 4" (why do power infantry move 6", in scale it is about 600m )

I don't have a real good feel for scales and movement rates, but these powered armor suits are assisting in running.  3 times faster than normal humans doesn't seem too bad, though when doubled for a close assault and adding another full activation, moving 4 times the normal rate and performing two close assaults seems a bit much. 

Andy Skinner

I'M A DIRTSIDE II NEWBIE AND THE FIRST VEHICLE I DESIGNED WAS A WAY-TOO-EXPENSIVE HUNTER-KILLER VTOL.  NONE THE LESS I WANT TO GIVE IT A TRY.  BUT THE RULES FOR VTOL MOVEMENT SEEM PRETTY SPARSE.  I'M SPECIFICALLY CONCERNED WITH RULES FOR HILLS OR FORESTS THAT BLOCK LINE-OF-SIGHT WHEN THE VTOL IS IN "LOW" MODE SO THAT IT CAN "POP-UP" BEHIND TREES OR RIDGELINES.  HOW HIGH ABOVE THE TABLE IS "LOW" MODE?  FOR EXAMPLE, IF MY VTOL IS SKIMMING OVER THE TREE-TOPS OF A LARGE FOREST TWENTY-FIVE INCHES IN DIAMETER, AND A TANK IS OUTSIDE THE FOREST, ONE INCH FROM HE FOREST'S EDGE, CAN THE TANK SEE THE VTOL OR ARE THE TREES BLOCKING ITS LINE OF SIGHT?

I was thinking of making the rule that a VTOL is considered one "level" (1/2 inch) above the terrain its following in low mode.  If the VTOL can make its entire movement without changing elevation that its movement is considered easy, but if it has to change elevation it's considered normal.  This way, I figured, if a VTOL was flying over woods, or over a hill, or something, it would be really easy to determine if an enemy unit could see it.  If the enemy unit were closer to the edge of the woods/ridgeline then the VTOL then the enemy couldn't see it, but if the enemy were further from the edge of the woods/ridgeline it could see it. I was satisfied with this idea until I realised that ground scale is 100 meters per inch, and the above assumes that the VTOL is flying 1/2 inch, i.e. 50 meters over whatever terrain its following.  That seems pretty high. How have other people dealt with this problem?

Charles Thumann

WHY CAN'T YOU DIRECT FIRE ARTILLERY, SINCE, FROM MY UNDERSTANDING, IT WAS DONE THROUGHOUT WWII & IS STILL BEING DONE TODAY?

Don't know - why don't you invent some rules and publish them on this list?

Mike Elliott

ARE BUILDINGS LITERAL REPRESENTATIONS OR SYMBOLIC REPRESENTATIONS? IF A UNIT IS WITHIN AN URBAN AREA, CAN IT FIRE BETWEEN 2 BUILDINGS OR IS IT ASSUMED TO BE GENERALLY BUILT UP & CAN'T FIRE FROM WITHIN THE AREA? (OH YEAH, I JUST REMEMBERED URBAN AREAS ARE TO BE TREATED LIKE WOODS)

That's right, treat 'em like woods. Isolated buildings are literal representations, Urban Areas are symbolic (its the area that matters).

Mike Elliott

IS THERE ANY WAY TO EFFECTIVELY DEFEND FROM A VTOL SITTING IN HIGH MODE 60" AWAY AND SNIPING AT YOUR AIR DEFENSE WITH HIGH-ENERGY LASERS?

Yes, use another VTOL (see answer to 5 above). The principle is you fight fire with fire....

Mike Elliott

>VTOLs rock.  1 Size 3 VTOL armed with an HEL/3 for sniping and a DFFG/3 >for close-in death costs less than a standard size 3 area defense vehicle, >which is the only thing that can take it on (I think).  Of course the Area >defense vehicle can hit more than one VTOL in a turn... Andrew Watt

Yeah.... of course, you can use a VTOL to attack the VTOL...

Mike Elliott

PRINTED AT 19/04/96


I'M A BIT CONFUSED ABOUT THE COMMAND UNIT IN DIRTSIDE II.  AT FIRST I THOUGHT THE OVERALL COMMAND VEHICLE NEEDED TO BE FITTED WITH A COMMAND/CONTROL CENTRE BUT THEN I REALIZED THESE ARE DESCRIBED UNDER CASEVAC ELEMENTS SECTION OF THE RULES.  ARE THESE COMMAND/CONTROL CENTRES JUST FOR CASEVAC OR FOR THE ENTIRE BATTLEFORCE?  THIS IS REALLY JUST A ROUNDABOUT WAY OF ASKING WHETHER THE COMMAND VEHICLE REQUIRES 8 CAPACITY RESERVED FOR THE COMMAND/COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEM, AND IF THAT SELF-SAME SYSTEM COSTS 100 POINTS.  IT SEEMS ODD THAT SOMETHING THAT TAKES THIS MUCH CAPACITY AND THESE MANY POINTS CAN ULTIMATELY BE DONE WITHOUT (ACCORDING TO THE RULES OF DESTROYED OVERALL COMMAND UNIT YOU ONLY LOSE ONE TURN OF EFFECTIVE ACTION) BUT IF THEM'S THE RULES THEM'S THE RULES.

Ah, you're looking at p53. I see the confusion. No, Command/Control Centres have nothing to do with Casevac Elements, there should be another heading ("COMMAND & CONTROL") immediately after "ON-TABLE MEDICAL POST...150".

Yes, any command vehicle must have a C&C system (otherwise it can't claim to be a command vehicle!), and yes, it does cost 100pts if vehicle mounted.

Yes, the loss of a command unit does not have _that_ much effect (although I reckon the automatic loss of 1 level of confidence is not very pleasant), but this _is_ SF and it is assumed that the C&C system is backed up with additional systems - those command units are just too vulnerable.

Mike Elliott, GZG

In initially reading the rules, I also observed that losing the command vehicle appeared to be a minor inconvenience.  However, battle experience has convinced me otherwise.  In my experience, many DSII games are won or lost on morale checks.  Loss of the command vehicle not only reduces morale all around, but more importantly, no rally attempts may be made.  This results in the gradual decay of your force as more units begin to fall back.  In all of our games destruction of enemy C&C vehicles is a major priority.  We often dedicate air support and/or fast, heavily armed raider units to finding and destroying the CCV.  CCV's are then supported by Air Defense and anti-tank units.  I've even gone so far as to bring a second back-up CCV onto the board. So, don't discredit the importance of your CC vehicle.

Brian Cantwell

AFTER TRYING TO BUILD AN ATTACK CHOPPER ON THE DIRTSIDE II WEB PAGE AND DISCOVERING THAT THERE IT COST ONE-HUNDRED POINTS LESS THAN IT DOES IN MY GAMES, I BEGAN TO WONDER IF I'M USING THE DIRTSIDE II CONSTRUCTION RULES WRONG.  PAYING CLOSER ATTENTION TO THE VEHICLE EXAMPLES GIVEN IN THE DIRTSIDE II BOOK HAS ONLY CONFIRMED MY FEARS.  HERE'S SOME QUESTIONS:

EXAMPLE 1:  MEDIUM BATTLE TANK, TRACKED

THIS THING IS GIVEN HMT POWER.  WHY?  IT'S TRACKED, SO SHOULDN'T CFE POWER BE GOOD ENOUGH?  AND ITS WEAPONS ARE AN HKP AND RFAC--TWO NON-POWERED WEAPONS.

EXAMPLE 2:  LIGHT MICV (GEV)

THIS, TOO, IS GIVEN HMT POWER.  BUT IT IS A SIZE 2 VEHICLE ARMED WITH AN MDC/2.  ACCORDING TO PAGE 10 OF THE RULES, "HMT-POWERED VEHICLES MAY SUPPORT HEL OR MDC WEAPONS OF UP TO ONE SIZE CLASS LOWER THAN THE VEHICLE SIZE".  SO I WOULD THINK A SIZE 2 VEHICLE WOULD REQUIRE FGP POWER TO FIRE A SIZE 2 MDC.

EXAMPLE 5:  MEDIUM WHEELED APC

THIS IS A MEDIUM VEHICLE (15 CAPACITY).  IT HAS ONE MDC/1 IN A TURRET (3 CAPACITY).  THAT LEAVES TWELVE CAPACITY--ROOM FOR 3 INFANTRY TEAMS.  BUT IT LISTS ONLY ROOM FOR 2 INFANTRY TEAMS.  WHAT GIVES?

We've always considered the weapons/vehicle restriction a bit severe and thus are more lenient.  I think that the base capacity of the vehicle as well as the rules mechanics impose sufficient limitations.  Since you can only fire one weapons system each turn anyway and the mechanics (as in the reality) favor the use of one big weapon over several smaller ones, there has been no real abuse.  We would certainly never count infantry as weapon systems, they are pretty much cargo and generally eager to get out of their bullet-magnet (APC) as soon as possible.

Brian Cantwell

Example 1:  Medium Battle Tank, Tracked

Yes, but there is nothing that says you can't give a vehicle too much power if you want (you pays yer points...) A 4cyl 2litre engine may supply enough power for your car, but noones going to stop you putting in a 4litre V8 if you want... DS2 doesn't differentiate different performance or reliability levels.

Example 2:  Light MICV (GEV)

Yep, the example is wrong. It either must be fitted with an MDC/1 or have FGP power. Well spotted!

Example 5:  Medium Wheeled APC

There may be sufficient spare capacity for 3 teams, but you must apply the rule on p11 "No vehicle may be fitted with more weapon systems than its basic size class" In this case, carried infantry teams count as weapon systems (after all they do shoot, particularly if they've got IAVRs - ouch!). So a size 3 vehicle with an MDC/1 (or any other weapon for that matter) can only take 2 infantry teams.

Mike Elliott, GZG

Oh, interesting...I never realized Infantry teams were considered weapons systems...I'll have to go back and look at all my old APCs.  However, this does lead to another question.  How about if this APC was fitted with one Powered Infantry Team (Capacity 8) and one Line Infantry team (Capacity 4...perhaps a "special" team like an artillery observation element or GMS/L element).  Would these two teams still count as only 2 weapons systems?  I assume so.

Charles Thumann

HEY, WHAT DO PEOPLE GENERALLY CONSIDER A "PLATOON" OF POWERED INFANTRY? FOR LINE INFANTRY I TEND TO THINK OF EIGHT ELEMENTS AS A PLATOON, BUT GETTING EIGHT ELEMENTS OF POWERED INFANTRY INSIDE OF FEWER THAN EIGHT VEHICLES SEEMS DIFFICULT.  DO PEOPLE GENERALLY CONSIDER POWERED INFANTRY PLATOONS TO HAVE FEWER MEN THAN THOSE OF LINE INFANTRY?  THIS HAS NO BEARING ON GAME PLAY, REALLY, I'M JUST SORT OF CURIOUS.

Yep, that's right.

Well to quote from Stargrunt II (yes, it was out at Salute!!!):
"PA squads are formed the same way as normal infantry units, though they generally tend to have fewer personnel - an army using 8-man infantry squads would probably only have 5 or 6 man PA units"

So if you've got 8 elements in a platoon of normal infantry, then I suggest your PA platoon should be 5 or 6 elements.

Mike Elliott, GZG

I HAVE HEARD THAT THERE WAS A RULING ON THIS LIST THAT IF YOU BUY A 2ND APSW, YOU ALSO NEED TO BUY A FIRE CONTROL FOR IT. THIS SOUNDS A BIT ODD TO ME, BUT I WAS WONDERING IF THIS WAS TRUE.  ALSO, WOULD APSWS BE COUNTED AS WEAPONS SYSTEMS FOR THE NO-MORE-SYSTEMS-THAN-VEHICLE-CLASS RULING THAT MIKE E JUST POSTED?  QUAD-APSWS ARE A COMMON SIGHT ON OUR GAME TABLE, ESPECIALLY FOR CLASS 1 FO VEHICLES.

No, you do NOT need a Firecon for an APSW, either the "free" one or any others. Yes, APSWs _are_ counted as weapon systems for the "no-more-systems-than-vehicle-class ruling". Strictly speaking your Quad APSWs are not valid designs, but who am I to criticise if that's what you want to do?

Mike Elliott, GZG

I'VE VOLUNTEERED TO RUN A DEMONSTRATION OF DIRTSIDE II AT A LOCAL SHOP'S GAME NIGHT, AND NEED SOME HELP. I'M VERY NEW TO DSII -- HECK, PRETTY NEW TO MINIATURE GAMING -- AND NEED A GOOD BATTLE TO START OUT WITH. REALLY, I NEED IDEAS. WHAT WOULD BE A SIMPLE, FAST-PLAYING BATTLE? IS THAT POSSIBLE? :-)

Eliminate a lot of infantry stands, as this tends to slow things down.  As a suggestion, try a port evacuation scenario.  Have about three units of mixed armour attacking a perimeter defense.  The goal is for one side to lift off a transport ship before the perimeter collapses, and the goal of the other side is to prevent the liftoff.  Give the defenders hidden initial placement and a mix of light armour, maybe some light ATMs.  Ignore the arty rules, they slow the game down.

I've taught DSII with the scenario outlined above.  It seems to be reasonable for newbies.

Walt Drey

The simplest battle is a straight meeting engagement between two roughly equal forces.  That is how GeoHex ran their demo battles at GenCon last year, and I enjoyed it.

Assuming you have the miniatures, use this force (both sides take the same):

1 heavy tank platoon (3 to 5 vehicles)
1 medium or light tank platoon (same)
1 mech. inf. platoon (3 to 5 MICVs, each with one or two stands of line infantry)
4 fire missions of off-board artillery (we used 3 missions of HE and 1 of the anti-vehicle rounds)
1 command vehicle of course

One key point to this would be equivalent leaderships.  Give each side the same breakdown of leadership chits, and let them assign where they want their leaders.   We used an elite 2, a regular 1, a regular 2, and a green 2 (we had an extra tank platoon).

DS II plays pretty fast anyway, and this engagement is very simple to set up and run.

Have fun!

John Phelps

Now that's interesting John. No points values? But won't the game be unbalanced? Did you let the players choose their vehicles or did you assign them? Why did we bother putting a points system in DSII?

Mike Elliott, GZG

As the game was for novices, I would assume the troop mix was set.

Or perhaps this is over-subtle irony re. the points values debate? I can't see your expression from here to check :)

Stuart McIntyre

Not to mention the fact that I was on *his* side on the points debate (maybe he just didn't realize that).    :)

To respond - no, no points value.  The forces were identical on both sides, so by definition, it was the same amount of points, and was therefore balanced in that regard.

In the interest of speed, he had already designed the vehicles, and organized them into platoons.  It assumed no knowledge of the game, so he didn't want to teach the design rules.

John Phelps

Hmmmm... I don't have that many miniatures ready. Still, I like the idea. I solo-played out a few turns of a modified version of this, and have to ask: Is artillery _always_ that deadly? Are dug-in troops _always_ that hard to kill?

Here's the story: I one side was defending, and had four tanks dug-in. The attackers had the same design of tanks. On turn two, both sides managed to call in MAK barrages on each other's tanks. The defender's tanks suffered no damage, but the attacker lost one tank and had two damaged.

Is this normal?

It seemed to go pretty fast. It would have been much faster with an opponent, but still. :-)

DOES ARTILLERY SLOW DOWN THE GAME?

Yes, MAK fire is pretty deadly.  I've brought down a converged sheaf on heavy tanks and killed all but one tank in the platoon (OK, so the opponent had them kinda tightly packed and I drew well).

And being dug in makes the Yellow chits invalid (Green already are), so you are dropping from 75% valid to 50% valid.   That's a pretty big drop.

But, artillery has historically been the big killer of infantry.  Since current technology is just now beginning to use anti-tank rounds (DP-ICM, Copperheads, or arty dispersed mines), there is not as much ingrained caution (for the lack of a better way to put it) against placing your vehicles in harm's way of artillery.

Modern artillery is becoming very effective against vehicles, and DS2 shows that via the MAK ammo type.

The other guy recommended against having arty, IMHO it doesn't detract that much, and with only 3 to 4 ammo chits, it is not that decisive either.  But, it's your choice.

Have fun!

John Phelps

My understanding has been that MAK doesn't rock at all.  At least not for light and medium artillery.  They way I read the rules is that even in a converged sheaf, you draw for each weapon /separately/ against the tanks. So if you have a 3-battery medium artillery converged MAK round sheaf, you only draw 2 chits three separate times against the vehicles caught in the beaten zone.  You have a good better chance for drawing "special" chits, but you're out and out chance of inflicting a lot of kills doesn't seem that great.  Then again, you are going after side armor, so maybe the chances of kills are better than I perceived them as.

I prefer deadfall ordnance, but then you have to worry about anti-aircraft fire.

Chad Thumann

Argh! I had forgotten about side armor!

I guess that should be "lost three tanks, had one damaged". Wow. I'll have to remember how deadly that can be.

Robert Crawford

IS THE LAD SYSTEM CONSIDERED A WEAPON IN THE SENSE THAT A SIZE 3 VEHICLE CAN ONLY HAVE 3 WEAPON SYSTEMS? ALSO, WHAT IS THIS CONSIDERED TO BE?  A MISSILE SYSTEM?

Almost all tank commander's MGs have high elevation mounts for AA use. It isn't expected to be that effective, but it might drive off an attacking plane (or at least force it to keep a distance).  Since the LAD can only fire at a target within 12" that is attacking you, it sounded like we were talking about a simple system, like an AA MG.

I guess I don't understand why the LAD and ADS systems are so damn expensive and large (in capacity points).  Has that ever been discussed on the list?   You have to have a large vehicle to mount the Enhanced ADS, and with sensors active, you are suddenly very easy to hit.  Since ECM and Stealth don't help you, I wanted a good PDS to save me, and that means I have to have a SIZE 4 vehicle for it and the Enh ADS.   My lift cavalry are all small vehicles, size 2 and 3 only, a size 4 vehicle for ADS purposes kinda sticks out.   In Striker terms, the size 3 tank had point defense fire control on the main gun, so it handled things that way.

In Stargrunt, multirole GMS and AA-capable fire control are allowed to fire at aerial targets, with reduced effectiveness.  Since you can force a confidence check on the pilot, that is all I'd really like to do - fire my SAW at him and hope he shears off.  If I get really lucky, I might even hurt him.

And another thing (since I'm rambling anyway).   Why doesn't ADS help you against artillery?  That was the main use for it in Striker, and was also noted in the _Hammer's Slammers_ - they used fast-firing plasma guns on the MBTs for artillery defense.

That's a rule that is missing from DS and SG both.

Guess that's enough for now...  :)

John Phelps 

Note that 12" is 1,200 meters. Better range than a .50 cal used by an otherwise-occupied tank commander. In my opinion, 1,200 is actually a reasonable range for a small SAM to successfully engage a well-defended, maneuverable aircraft.

The point values and capacity costs for everything are not cast in stone. You can rebalance everything with only the cost of compatibility with others.

I am currently working on a few special rules to allow for the Slammer's advanced equipment. One of my rules will be to pay the cost of PD or AD systems and hook it into the normal weapons systems. Powerguns will cost 20x weapon mass, and have the ranges of mass drivers with DFFG chits. I'll be modifying weapon point costs based on fire arc as well.

Michael Carter Llaneza

AFAIK "Seawolf" point-defence missiles have been demonstrated shooting down artillery shells.

AFAIR Dirtside (I and II) artillery represent "improved conventional munitions" (not a new idea... I have a print of a Leonardo da Vinci drawing showing the principle) scattering a massive number of bomblets or grenades relatively evenly over the beaten zone. This is both true to the trend of modern practice and simplifies the mechanics enormously. Bombs are similarly "cluster bombs".

The point is: it's going to be an awful lot more difficult to shoot down a few dozen little bomblets then a few big shells.

David Brewer

1)  You intercept the carrier vehicle _before_ it bursts and scatters bomblets hither and yon.

2) Anyone else remember reading a Colby book (small photo books of militaria meant for the younger audience) featuring an electromagnetic field that detonates shells in mid-flight ? I'd have to go revisit my gradeschool to get titles and ISBN number :-) However, any smart warhead (anything that takes *any* kind of input to a timing loop) is vulnerable to spoofing in this fashion. Its not the Slammer's kind of tech, but certainly an ECM field that has a chance to detonate incoming warheads is a possibility

Michael Carter Llaneza

True, but the bomblets are usually released over the target area (by proximity fuses).  The US Army currently uses ICM munitions, the carrier detonates as it is coming in (I don't remember the altitude, but it was in the 100 foot range).   The bomblets are not aerodynamic, the carrier is required for accuracy.

Airplane cluster bombs work the same way. I believe Rockeye clusters detonate a few hundred feet up, for example.  Although in the computer game A-10, they appear to separate as soon as you dump them, and the cluster container stays on your wing.  Don't know how realistic that is, and I usually trigger them at altitudes under 500 feet anyway.  :)

My point - I want to shoot down the carrier before it separates. Counterbattery radar can detect the rounds as soon as they cross my horizon, and point defense DEWs or rapid firing cannon can attempt to engage as soon as detected, with tracking solutions provided by the radar.

Once they've separated, yes, I agree with you, there is little chance to shoot them all down.

John Phelps

IS MOVING THE ONLY WAY TO REMOVE UNDER FIRE CHITS?  I COULDN'T FIND ANYWHERE THAT SAID THEY WERE REMOVED AFTER 1 TURN OF A UNIT NOT BEING FIRED UPON.

Under Fire markers are removed at the end of a unit's activation. See p.19 (top of col 1) "Once the whole unit has performed... then remove any UNDER FIRE markers".

Mike Elliott

DOES A REQUIRED RETREAT FROM A CLOSE ASSAULT COUNT AS THE ACTIVATION FOR THE RETREATING UNIT?  HOW DO YOU WORK DISMOUNTED INFANTRY GETTING BACK INTO THEIR VEHICLES TO RETREAT?  CAN AN ASSAULTING UNIT FOLLOW-UP, EVEN IF THE RETREATING UNIT IS NOW OUT OF THE 6" RANGE (MOUNTING IN VEHICLES & DASHING OFF)?

No on the first part.  Good question on the second!  ;)   And I think the rulebook mentioned the follow-up part - yes, you can pursue, but I'm pretty sure it limited how far you could pursue.

John Phelps

A retreat from a close assault does not count as an activation. Troops cannot mount up during such a retreat. They will have to wait for their own activation to do so.

Mike Elliott, GZG

For clarification, a retreat doesn't count as an activation, but since a unit that's close assaulted has to invert it's command marker, a retreating unit has already lost it's activation, correct?

Nils Hedglin

Yes.

Mike Elliott, GZG

CAN POWERED ARMOR ELEMENTS BE PURCHASED AS SPECIALTY TEAMS (I.E., A GMS/L PA ELEMENT)?

Yes. A PA element carrying a GMS/L would cost 40 points + cost of the GMS/L.

Mike Elliott, GZG

HOW DO YOU WORK IAVRS FIRING AT A VEHICLE WITH APFC & REACTIVE ARMOR? REACTIVE ARMOR ALLOWS ONLY RED CHITS & APFC ALLOWS ONLY YELLOW.

IAVRs are ineffective against such a defense (that's the way we played). Alternatively, you could draw the chits anyway, hoping for specialty chits.

John Phelps

The APFCs take precedence, so only Yellow chits count. (i.e. you don't get any bonus for having Reactive Armour as well).

Mike Elliott, GZG

FOR CLARIFICATION, DO ALL SPECIALTY CHITS COUNT AGAINST ARTILLERY TARGETS?

Yes, they do - pretty sure that was mentioned in the rules (but in a strange place, like an example or something.

John Phelps

Yes.

Mike Elliott, GZG

ON THE CHIT VALIDITY CHART, MOST VEHICLE WEAPONS ARE GIVEN CHIT VALIDITIES FOR INFANTRY TARGETS. THESE DO NOT CORRESPOND WITH THE VALIDITIES (OR EVEN NUMBER OR CHITS DRAWN) LISTED UNDER 'VEHICLE WEAPONS
AGAINST INFANTRY'. WHICH ONES DO I USE?

The "vehicle weapons fire against infantry" tells how many chits to draw, while the Valid Chits table tells which ones count

Paul A Neher

No. These two sections give contradictory info on chit validity - the VWFAI section claims that I should use the same validity as for infantry weapons. Which is correct?

Oerjan Ohlson

OK ... I've been looking over this and here's what I have come up with ... you tell me if I'm full of crap or not:

Take what I said before, but temper it with the following (see pg. 33,):
in the open:	red & Yellow
soft cover:	red
Dug in/urban:	yellow

I see your point. Personally, I would follow the weapons chart for validity,  follow the VWFAI for number of chits, and forget the "note"" that seams thrown in as an afterthought. Just a thought...

Paul A. Neher

This was answered by Mike Elliott a while ago, and he said it was the first erratum for DSII.  I can't find that message, though.  It was from a long time ago.  I think he pretty much said use the chart for everything the chart specifies.  Anything it doesn't cover, use the rules in the text.  Conflicts--use
the chart.  That meant when firing at infantry with weapons you don't take cover into account.  I think you usually use Yellow, though I think it depended on the weapon.  I don't have the rules with me, so I'm a bit vague, but I'm sure the chart was the correct version.  I kinda liked the text rules myself, especially using the cover rules.  He mainly didn't want vehicle weapons to very useful against infantry.

Andy Skinner

The text at the top of p.36 is in error, delete the words "Damage Validity and" thus it should read: "(Note that in all the above cases, the point totals necessary to kill infantry elements are the same as for INFANTRY FIREFIGHTS.)"

In other words you should use the chit validities from p.29.

Mike Elliott

DO SYSTEMS DOWN CHITS COUNT FOR ARTILLERY & ADS?  IF SO, CAN YOU BY BACKUP SYSTEMS FOR THEM?  SINCE THE EXAMPLE OF BACKUP SYSTEMS ARE FIRE CON, STEALTH, & ECM, HOW WOULD YOU WORK THAT WITH AN ADS VEHICLE OR ARTILLERY?  THERE'S A GOOD CHANCE THEY WON'T HAVE STEALTH, ECM, & FIRE CON.  A FRIEND PROPOSED THAT ADS & ARTILLERY BE CLASSIFIED AS SYSTEMS & THEIR COST BE INCLUDED IN BACKUP SYSTEMS COST.  WHAT DO YOU THINK?

My understanding is with a "systems down" that means all systems on the vehicle ... so it wouldn't matter what "extras" you bought. Yes then, it DOES effect artillery and ADS

Paul Neher

Anyways: Does 'Systems Down' knock out the stealth capability of a vehicle? I assume it does, since the back-up systems cost is based on (among other things) the stealth cost, but the description of the effect doesn't say it.

Oerjan Ohlson

It is my understanding that a "system down" chit is drawn that all the systems on a vehicle are down.

Paul Neher

Then is 'stealth' a system? It is described under a different header, paid for at a different time...

Mike?

Oerjan Ohlson

Page 52, under "Defensive Systems", last on the list: stealth Systems

So, I guess the answer is yes. But like any other, if you wanted to buy a backup system, then that would increase your chance for recovery

Paul Neher

Good. It would have been better if this side effect was noted under 'Damage Effects', though - all that part of the rules say is that a 'systems down' vehicle may not take any Combat Action (i.e., fire any weapon).

Oerjan Ohlson

Yeah, I reckon Stealth is a system for the "Systems Down - Target" chit. For the "Systems Down - Firer" chit, though,  it is only the firecontrol system that is out.

Mike Elliott

IF AN ASSAULTING UNIT HAS AN UNDER FIRE MARKER, DOES IT NEED TO MAKE 2 REACTION TESTS, 1 CAUSED BY TRYING TO MOVE WITH AN UNDER FIRE MARKER & 1 FOR CLOSE ASSAULTING?

No, you only take ONE test, but the Threat Level will be the highest that applies. (i.e. +1 if Confident and Under Fire.)

Mike Elliott, GZG

OTHER THAN POSSIBLY AS NOTED ABOVE, DOES AN UNDER FIRE MARKER HAVE ANY OTHER AFFECT ON A CLOSE ASSAULT?  IT AFFECTS THE DIE FOR FIRE EFFECTIVENESS, BUT I CAN'T FIND ANY AFFECT IN CLOSE ASSAULTS.

No, Under Fire has no other effect in CA.

Mike Elliott, GZG

HOW DO CONFIDENCE TESTS IN CLOSE ASSAULT AFFECT TESTS OUTSIDE OF CLOSE ASSAULT?  FOR EXAMPLE, SINCE A UNIT THAT HAS TAKEN OVER 50% CASUALTIES HAS A +3 FOR THE FALL BACK CONFIDENCE TEST, DOES IT ALSO HAVE TO TAKE A GENERAL +2 CONFIDENCE TEST FOR TAKING MORE THAN 50% CASUALTIES?

Take a CL Test with a TL of +3 for the fall back test. The unit must then take a CL Test at a TL of +2 (for 50% casualties during battle) the next time it is activated and every activation thereafter. See also answer to Q6 below.

Mike Elliott, GZG

HOW DO YOU COUNT CASUALTY PERCENTAGES IN A MECHANIZED INFANTRY UNIT? IS EACH INFANTRY STAND/VEHICLE COUNTED AS 1 CASUALTY OUT OF THE TOTAL NUMBER?  OR SHOULD THERE BE A WEIGHTED PERCENTAGE ONE WAY OR THE OTHER? I HAD AN INFANTRY PLATOON THAT HAD ALL IT'S VEHICLES DESTROYED, BUT ALL OF IT'S INFANTRY WAS ALREADY DISMOUNTED & HAD TAKEN NO CASUALTIES.  THE VEHICLE:INFANTRY RATION WAS 1:2, SO ONLY 1/3 OF THE PLATOON'S TOTAL ELEMENTS WERE DESTROYED, BUT HAVING ALL OF A PLATOON'S VEHICLES DESTROYED SEEMS KIND OF SIGNIFICANT.  [I KNOW THIS WILL PROBABLY BE A JUDGMENT CALL, BUT I JUST THOUGHT I'D GET SOME INPUT.]

I would count each vehicle as 1 and each infantry stand as 1. The only time that you might not do this is during a CA when you should only count the vehicles actually involved in the CA. So if your mech. platoon dismounts, leaves its vehicles behind and then mounts a CA, only count the infantry stands.

Mike Elliott, GZG

DO YOU HAVE TO TAKE THE +2 CONFIDENCE TEST FOR TAKING 50% CASUALTIES ONLY ONCE WHEN YOU CROSS THE 50% THRESHOLD, OR FOR EVERY CASUALTY TAKEN AFTER THE 50% POINT?

P23. states that: "A CONFIDENCE TEST should be taken when any of the following apply:". Since the "50% casualties or more in the battle so far" is a persistent condition, then a unit to which this applies must take a CL test on every activation. The effect of this is that while suffering 50% losses is not immediately critical, it will not be very long before the unit has had enough - unless you keep rolling good dice!

Mike Elliott, GZG

1) The strength of artillery in our (admittedly few) games seems pretty overwhelming. Granted, we haven't got all the intricate relationships between ground forces, air forces, CBR, and artillery all worked out yet, but it does seem pretty tough. And while modern AFVs are designed specifically to help protect troops from artillery, it seems pretty damaged effective. (I realize that most modern vehicle don't offer much protection against cluster bomblets [MAK rounds], but these don't seem to cost enough by comparison to HEF.

2) Do SLAMs seem not to function as they are described (that is, rocket pods shooting clusters of unguided rockets)? It would seem reasonable to run them like artillery, with varying areas and strength of effect. It should be able to be used against both infantry and vehicles (as they have historically and are currently used).

3) Why are there no provisions for artillery direct fire? Modern Soviet doctrine still calls for the use of direct artillery HE fire on suspected enemy positions. This cannot be done under the rules currently. Indeed, should an artillery unit spot enemy forces (and no other observers can see the enemy), they cannot act in their own defense. Have others dealt with this, and if so, how?

4) Innovative "Chartless" combat system? Ha! Only because they provided no quick reference charts is it a chartless game. What a pain to constantly be looking up how many chits to draw and which types affect. Sure, if all you do is fight vehicle vs. vehicle direct fire weapons, then it's easy, but throw in artillery, infantry, aircraft, etc. and it becomes a great morass of searching for pertinent rules. For example, with artillery, you must refer to two separate places on p. 39 for the roll necessary to successfully call artillery and then to see how many chits are drawn per weapon, and then refer to p. 29 for the colors of effective chits.

Rob Smith

1) Amen. It's like that for a reason. Artillery is the "real killer" of modern warfare; infantry and armour just don't compare. The principle limitations for arty are their ammo capacity (generally three effective strikes) and the unreliable nature of calling down fire.

2) Hmmm. I suppose you could do it that way, but the limited area-effect rules seem to work for me.

3) Everyone I know allows arty to direct fire automatically with no spotter. We assume that if the enemy gets that close, the crew is going to stop listening to the C.O.'s support requests and start blasting those guys coming over the hill!

4) Not going to argue that one. I think someone posted a well-organized system of using colored dice? Anyone care to back me up on that one?

Christopher Lawrence

"No, I said arty on oh-one-one-oh, not oh-oh-one-oh! Uh oh."

How do you, or can you handle having the arty commander spot his own group's indirect fire? The way we played last weekend (my only time so far), the act of spotting and calling in is an activation. That unit's activation being spent, the arty cannot hit on the next activation, unless, there is a specific exception to the activation rules.

John Medway

Here's my reasoning behind all of this. The time delay for calling artillery fire is just that. You act as an FO (Forward Observer) calling in a grid reference, what the target is, and what mission you would like fired. The artillery COM (command) designates the fire, orders the fire, and eventually it is inbound with a spotter round fired for correction to the plot, then the firing for effect. The difference is artillery firing DIRECT can see their target, make their own decisions, and correct their own fire, no different than can a tank crew. Remember it this way: called fire/indirect fire is BLIND fire, while direct fire is LOS (line of sight) firing.

Does that make sense to anyone besides me?

Paul Neher

Sure, but if all other command stands can call in indirect fire, why can the arty's own commander not do it? It's a game-procedural problem, which disallows something which can and does happen in the real world.

John Medway

The point is, he doesn't have to call indirect fire unless he is separated from the unit. If a line of sight is traceable from the arty unit to the target, it is direct fire and therefore doesn't need to be called it.

Or am I missing the question?

Paul Neher

I guess I wasn't clear enough as to why this was an issue.

1. The mortars were behind obscuring woods, so they couldn't use direct fire.

2. Their commander was at the woods edge and could see the target.

3. The arty falls in the activation following the observation.

4. The act of observation counts as the activation for that unit, hence they do not have another activation to spend on delivering the munitions.

Ways of handling this problem:

1. Make observation not an action, so the chit can be placed in another unit's activation. (Feels odd, but may be workable)

2. Bring IF artillery called in by the unit's commander down immediately, rather than on the next activation. (Makes arty pretty butch)

John Medway

I guess knowing modern military, it has just never been an issue for me. The lag also is attributed to unit organization. If artillery is in support, it takes longer or maybe won't come at all. If it's attached, you get it when your in priority. But if it's INTEGRAL, it's on the way ASAFP.

I can see your dilemma though ... but I think I would still allow it.

Paul Neher

p. 39, under artillery:  "Any UNIT COMMAND element or a Specialised Observer Team...Requesting the fire counts as the COMBAT ACTION for that ELEMENT, although other elements of the unit may perform other actions."

Even according to the rules as written, therefore, one can make a case for artillery units spotting for themselves.  The Command element of an artillery battery uses his action to "spot", and then the rest of the elements can immediately lay down the artillery fire.

If the command element fails to call in the artillery due to poor leadership, well, maybe the artillery unit didn't lower the guns for direct fire fast enough or something.

I agree that it may make more sense for artillery to be able to direct fire their weapons more easily, but in the same breath everyone's talking about how powerful artillery is, and there should be some satisfaction involved in a commander managing to get his tanks close enough to take out that pesky artillery directly.

Here's another thing I suggest for dealing with artillery:  Aircraft. Particularly, VTOLs.  A VTOL armed with an HEL or GMS/H can sit in "high" mode outside of 36" of defending Area Defense Systems and pick-off on-board artillery all day long.  Maybe it's cheesy, but then your opponent starts arming himself with anti-VTOL VTOLs, which are a lot less expensive (because it takes a smaller gun to take out a poorly armored VTOL), and then you start arming yourself with anti-anti-VTOL VTOLs and you get this big aircraft battle in the middle of the ground action where everyone's trying to establish air superiority and the artillery's trying to get rid of all its ordnance before one side or the other wins air superiority and it's pretty cool.

Off-board artillery is an entirely different matter, however.

Chad Thumann

Now it sounds like the modern military ...   ;)

Paul Neher

May I suggest you pick up SG-II. It has a pretty damn good system for establishing air superiority and tracking incoming off board artillery. I think it would work well in DS-II. Perhaps 'High' mode could count as the loiter box and would make VTOLs at high mode subject to attack by off table AA assets (Air superiority fighters, Long range missiles etc.)?

Why not send your VTOLs down the opponents off table track to attack his off table units? 8-)

Adam Delafield

The main issue here, I think, is what do the rules say. We are just learning the rules and we want to play them as written until we better understand how all the different aspects interact. After that, we will likely begin to alter things to fit our perceptions of modern and future combat.

AS THE RULES STAND artillery cannot direct fire, nor can the commander of an artillery unit call in his own assets. As John noted, the act of calling the artillery uses its activation and thus it cannot fire. In other words, the effect is the opposite of what you noted; integral artillery cannot support its own units, because there is no direct fire provision and activation of the observer activates the tubes as well (which can't land until their next activation).

Some other questions by another member of our group follow:

From Tom Primrose:
1.  RAM artillery.  The rules say they can be mounted on a vehicle, towed or man-packed.  If towed or mounted I assume the artillery is with the vehicle but where is the ammo stored for man-packed?  Are the ammo chits just placed next to the stand?  If the man-packed mortar moves how does the ammo move?  I assume the mortar is broken down for moving and if so, should it take one action to dismantle the weapon and one action to assemble it?  That is how towed artillery is handled.

2.  Are area defense or point defense systems allowed on VTOLs or other aircraft?  I can accept that a PDS can be allowed - it can be flares or chaff - but am unsure about ADS.

3.  The rules state every vehicle has smoke dischargers.  I assume that riverine, VTOLs and aerospace vehicles would not (any others?).  Also, the smoke is placed in front of the vehicle but why can't it be placed on whatever side the player wants, especially if the vehicle has a full traverse turret?

4.  If a GMS/L infantry stand draws a "systems down - firer" chit, should the missile not be able to fire until the problem is resolved?

5.  HEL, DFFG, and any type of artillery fire automatically sets fire to woods or buildings, does the fire spread in subsequent turns? If this is correct then smoke rounds will cause a fire.  Also, how big an area catches fire?  The rules state the area fired at catches on fire but what if artillery fires an open sheaf at a wood line or buildings, is the entire area under the sheaf on fire or just the area covered by the impact markers?

Well, that's all for now.  I'm sure we'll find other vague areas in the rules which need some clarification.

Tom

Rob Smith

wrt q2:
Here's a thought if you /do/ want to allow ADS on aircraft--maybe its an air-superiority fighter instead of a bomber.  In this case you wouldn't think of it as a tracking auto-cannon firing at aircraft but as a jet speeding across the battlefield launching missiles at VTOLs in High Mode or whatever.

I don't know how this would actually work since it's off the top of my head.  What happens if active ADS activated and moved within 36" of VTOLs in High Mode?  Do they have to make a reaction test and immediately drop?  Can they immediately drop if they've already been activated?  Are they simply immediately attacked by the ADS?  Thoughts?

If they are immediately attacked you could really clear a table full of VTOLs with one Aerospace fighter loaded up with an ADS.  That would be cool!

Chad Thumann

PRINTED AT 05/09/96

WHEN MAKING A DFO (DEADFALL ORDNANCE) ATTACK, EACH LOAD DRAWS TWO CHITS. P.41 CONTINUES TO SAY THAT IF, FOR EXAMPLE, TWO LOADS ARE DROPPED, "EACH ELEMENT IN THE ZONE DRAWS A TOTAL OF FOUR CHITS." AM I CORRECT IN READING THIS AS FOUR CHITS ADDED TOGETHER? THE ARTILLERY RULES EXPRESSLY STATE THAT MULTIPLE DRAWS ARE *NOT* ADDED TOGETHER (E.G., THREE MEDIUM GUNS HITTING A ZONE WOULD DRAW THREE SETS OF TWO CHITS, NOT SIX CHITS ON EACH TARGET). THE DFO RULES DO NOT SAY THIS. ASSUMING GROUND-ATTACK FIGHTERS DROP TWO OR THREE LOADS, THAT IS FOUR TO SIX CHITS ON EACH TARGET. THAT'S A WHOLE LOTTA HURT. TIME TO INVEST IN SOME ADS TANKS...

Yes indeed, those ground-attack bombing runs can be devastating!

Even the presence of ADS tanks will protect your forces -- the ground-attack fighters are VERY expensive, and the guy fielding them will NOT want to take a chance on losing them.

The other solution is to stay as dispersed as you can to minimize the effects of the bombing runs.

Rick Rutherford

THE RULES FOR DUG IN INFANTRY ARE A LITTLE CONFUSING. THEY ARE CLEAR WHEN IT COMES TO ARTILLERY FIRE AND INFANTRY FIRE, BUT WHAT ABOUT VEHICLES? I WOULD HOTLY DEBATE THAT AN AUTOCANNON IS LESS EFFECTIVE THAN A DFFG AGAINST A BUNKER/DUGING POSITION? A LARGER BALL OF SUPER HOT MATERIAL STRIKING THE GROUND WOULD CAUSE A RATHER LARGE EXPLOSION! MAYBE I AM CONFUSED?

I think the point is that the DFFG explosion is essentially in the vector away from the firer, makes a really nice spread but the infantry are already dug in behind berms, in trenches and in foxholes and so the primarily shrapnel damage the DFFG does is avoided.

Alex Williams

HOW MUCH FREE SPACE FOR AMMO DO YOU GET WHEN YOU BY  AN ARTILLERY WEAPON?

ARTY DESIGN ON PG. 12 SAYS YOU GET ROOM FOR AMMO.  ARTILLERY TAKES 4 SPACES PER LOAD.  I CAN'T FIND IT EXPLICITLY, BUT THE RULES SEEM TO ME TO INDICATE THAT YOU GET SPACE FOR 3 LOADS OF AMMO.  THAT'S 12 FREE SPACES OF AMMO IN MY CLASS 2 APC LUGGING AROUND A LIGHT RAM MORTAR. THAT SEEMS A LITTLE MUCH.  CAN SOMEONE CORRECT ME

TO ME, IT MAKES SENSE FOR THE ABOVE VEHICLE TO BE ABLE TO CARRY MORE THAN ONE EFFECTIVE ROUND OF AMMO, SO IT SEEMS RIGHT TO ALLOW 3; IT'S THE SPACE POINTS THAT ARE BOTHERING ME.

From my reading of the rules, I assume the /arty weapon itself/ has allowance for three rounds of ammo to be loaded into it at any one time, so there is no `extra space' per se, if you want to carry more than those three, however, you'll need to allow 4 spaces per shot.

Alex Williams


DSII QandA - Page 2