View Thread
 Ground warfare in PDS/NGCS phase II
|
|
| Ironwatsas |
Posted on 11-12-2005 03:43
|
 Posts: 856 Joined: October 21 2005 |
This thread is all about vehicles, vehicle related stuff, and vehicle tactics. Ground vehicles can be devided into several diffrent groups. Light combat/support units (jeeps, APCs, genrally fast wheeled attack units), Tanks/Armored units, Battlemechs/ASCAs, Support vehicles (non self propelled artillery, mobile command equipment, transport trucks, trailers, construction equipment, etc), and Naval/seagoing vessels. these units will further be divided up into classes and individual units. First we should discuss the role of each class and divide them up into various subclasses by armment and type. |
|
|
|
| Inert |
Posted on 11-12-2005 04:19
|
 Posts: 388 Joined: September 08 2005 |
I would like to point you to the fabulous function that I myself use, called search. There is an identical thread like this. But, since you've already brought this thread into existance, I hope you'll put it to use. |
|
|
|
| Ironwatsas |
Posted on 11-12-2005 08:41
|
|
Posts: 856 Joined: October 21 2005 |
This is phase 2, as in the second (the one that Tel made and the first one that I made are two parts of the same thread). I made this one to start off with a clean slate on a seprate but related topic, being that the first two were mostly about infantry and infantry by-products. And yes we will put it to good use, in due time... maybe... Edited by Ironwatsas on 11-12-2005 23:49 |
|
|
|
| TelQuessir |
Posted on 12-12-2005 00:09
|
 Posts: 2598 Joined: August 30 2005 |
In this case you will be wise to provide links to the earlier threads as well as a short synopsis on their content. As Relaxation/G, Daniel and I have worked extensively on ASCA material at various stages of PDS development, here is some background material for this unit class. ASCA Background: ASCAs are heavy-duty infantry powersuits weighing up to 3 tons in assault configuration. These units are distinguished from power armours used widely in space and in the planetary context, by their large size, high endurance and capacity for suit-integral heavy weapon systems. They represent a upper limit to the practicability of walking type combat units where a larger suit poses little advantage compared to other platforms for planetary operations. The size of ASCAs make them the equivalent of a light tank, but they also pay the price of vulnerability towards most long range direct fire weapon systems. However, the mobility and flexibility of the large suits make them highly suited for the deployment of artillery systems in impassable terrain in all planetary conditions. In addition they are highly prized in the mobile fire support, anti-vehicle and demolitions roles as well as seeing frequent use as motherships for replenishing lighter infantry armours with less endurance. However, the widespread proliferation of hovertanks or VTOL capable corvette class starships (Failaka class, for instance) may negate all advantages of ASCA operation as the hovercraft is a far more efficient support platform with a similar weight class, and additionally possess greater employability in atmospheric operations. On the other hand, these craft are much heavier than the ASCA and cannot practically accompany light infantry units on the ground in the close support role that the ASCA is designed for. ASCAs may be fitted with jump jets and winged booster packs for airborne mobility but their combat capability in that mode is very limited at best. This capability is used to rapidly transit heavy infantry suits from one location to another, but certain winged booster units may be fitted with hardpoints for lightweight aircraft armaments for close air support or the engagement of targets of opportunity. |
|
|
|
| revan |
Posted on 12-12-2005 05:41
|
 Posts: 44 Joined: September 21 2005 |
I would imagine that a hover craft would inherently have certain weight constraints such that would preclude it from being used as an MBT. Speed and maneuverability would seem to be a hovercraft's greatest asset, the trade off being a relative reduction in armor and weaponry in order to attain said gains. Certainly they would be able to field larger weapons than would be feasible on a powersuit but less than on a traditional tracked vehicle. |
|
|
|
| Inert |
Posted on 12-12-2005 05:49
|
|
Posts: 388 Joined: September 08 2005 |
This is the very first thread: http://www.pds.homeworldaccess.net./f...rowstart=0 Second: http://www.pds.homeworldaccess.net/fo...rowstart=0 My participation in these threads were limited to the first and some of the beginning of the second thread. In summary, I can not remember much aside from my own points, but I pointed out the use of mechanized armour (Relaxation shared a similar view, if I'm not speaking for him). Some got confused with my version of a mechanized armour and an ASCA, which I hear is similar. My opinion on a mechanized armour should be thus, a suit of armour that amplifies the strength of its wielder. Something like the Mjolnir armour in Halo, but much larger. This is all in the first thread I think. I ask someone who has participated in the second thread to surmise it to their best extent. Edited by Inert on 12-12-2005 05:50 |
|
|
|
| TelQuessir |
Posted on 12-12-2005 08:05
|
|
Posts: 2598 Joined: August 30 2005 |
Light and medium suits are similar to the Mjolnir, with personal mechanical and electronics (sensors, vision etc) augmentation and some vacuum capability. The mediums are just heavier outfitted versions of the lights, with armored faceplates (opaque) and capacity for suit-integral weapon systems like shoulder mortars and gun arms. ASCAs represent a self-contained unit designed more like a vehicle than a human-augmentation system but you still "walk" in it. Ironically, larger suits may be desirable so as to permit their operation like a vehicle from a cockpit installation. However a big 'bot would be vulnerable to conventional anti-tank and indirect fire weaponry... not to mention a large proportion of its payload is dedicated to power and motion systems. |
|
|
|
| revan |
Posted on 13-12-2005 05:02
|
|
Posts: 44 Joined: September 21 2005 |
So far as I can remember the second thread's contents ranged from the jump capability of a suit to the active defenses (armor, anti-missile defences) which would be present on a suit. Later the weapons that conventional infantry would use became part of the discussion with some contention over the effectiveness of beam weapons vs. missile and rocket systems. Suit weapons were also discussed but generaly fell into the debate over beam or missile systems. |
|
|
|
| mrWHO |
Posted on 13-12-2005 16:33
|
 Posts: 485 Joined: September 02 2005 |
Emm...I know that you don't want to create a Ground warfare mod but did anyone considered a PDS ground warfare mod for Operation Flashpoint? It would be fun to command a HGN hover tank platoon. Or be a commander of light (human size) mobile suits squad. Edit: it have a build in mission/campaign editor so it would be easy to create a campaing about planet siege. Edited by mrWHO on 13-12-2005 16:36 |
|
|
|
| Ironwatsas |
Posted on 13-12-2005 22:15
|
|
Posts: 856 Joined: October 21 2005 |
Better yet, make it a Battlefield2 or Ground Control2 mod. No offense, but Operation Flashpoint is a little out of date, but good idea none the less. |
|
|
|
| TelQuessir |
Posted on 13-12-2005 23:30
|
|
Posts: 2598 Joined: August 30 2005 |
I have already worked on GC2. The Halo and OP: Flashpoint engines will provide far superior gameplay mechanics than the above two options. |
|
|
|
| Ironwatsas |
Posted on 14-12-2005 04:27
|
|
Posts: 856 Joined: October 21 2005 |
Flashpoint would be good if we can fix that little three shots and your dead issue. Belive me, we have too many games that would work well to our advantage. With your permission, I will summon upon us a new thread to discuss spinoff mods (not including existing ones) of PDS/NGCS for other games, primarily for ground combat scenarios and such as well as a list of suitable games, I just need the greenlight, ok? |
|
|
|
| TelQuessir |
Posted on 14-12-2005 04:55
|
|
Posts: 2598 Joined: August 30 2005 |
Go ahead, your independent effort would be useful. |
|
|
|
| HappySacks |
Posted on 14-12-2005 07:30
|
|
Posts: 56 Joined: October 24 2005 |
The flashpoint engine is undergoing a major refit. A new game is being worked on by BI called Armed Assault and the team have resolved to try and keep all the original mods and addons compatible with the new game. Flashpoint may not be the prettiest but the scope that the engine offers is second to none. The development community is huge with tons of expertise available via forums. I'd check out armed assault at http://www.bistudio.com/presspages/Ar...pdate.html before commiting to a platform if this is the kind of gameplay you want to offer. As the team are commited to making sure today's mods work tomorrow, I'd say this is probably one of the best platforms out there longevity-wise The ease with which mere-mortals can edit missions is another factor to consider. The more people that can write scenarios for the game, the more potential for fresh content there is. This is what has kept flashpoint alive for so long. EDIT: I forgot. I'm sure you can customise the health of the units and the damage dealt by weapons (solving the '3 shots you're dead' issue) This turned into a bit of a rant, apologies! Edited by HappySacks on 14-12-2005 07:36 [i]"O Maker, help us to cover their smiling fields with the pale forms of their patriot dead; help us to drown the thunder of the guns with the shrieks of their wounded, help us to lay waste their humble homes with a rain of fire; help us to wring the hea
|
|
|
|
| TelQuessir |
Posted on 14-12-2005 07:43
|
|
Posts: 2598 Joined: August 30 2005 |
Not a problem. It is just this kind of analysis I want to read about. Warhammer: Dawn of War is another prospective engine but lacks a suitable wargaming playerbase (translation - standard RTS gameplay/discussion is not what I'm looking for). |
|
|
|
| Ironwatsas |
Posted on 10-03-2006 03:48
|
|
Posts: 856 Joined: October 21 2005 |
Alright, First we should flesh out the basic unit families and roles. ASCAs and infantry are the first thing to be brought into a combat environment. Infantry are usally deployed either Spectre class Dropship/Gunships (heavily armed sub corvette intra atmospheric assault vehicles) or atmospheric entry infantry deployment units (small, re-entry pods with room for one soldier and his gear). Anything Larger can de deployed by LiirHra class cruisers. LiirHras are built with a secondary troop carrier role and can haul up to 22 tanks and their crews or a full battalion of infantry and all their stuff in their stock configuration. Even more in the dedicated troop lander varient. LiirHras can also act as a fire support platform for ground troops. Light hovertanks and wheeled assault vehicles are deployed to act as a fast, light calvalry with an ASCA lance as heavy fire support, whereas heavier tread tanks are used to provide the punch in situations where survivablity and firepower outweigh speed and versatility. Artillery is just that, it fires from behind the lines and kills things that are out of reach of, or too dangerous to other units. Infantry remain the backbone of the ground force doing pretty much what they do here on earth. The biggest diffrence is their MREs are much, much better. Everything else we'll move on to later. And now the discussion truly begins... |
|
|
|
| TelQuessir |
Posted on 10-03-2006 03:55
|
|
Posts: 2598 Joined: August 30 2005 |
Hm - how would the LH cruiser land? Or would it function as a huge version of a jet transport, releasing atmospheric vehicles or freefall cargo? Before you want to bring out a rather stupid topic to discuss (that's for the veterans) we -still- have no capability to float a PoH size ship over New York without reducing the whole city to charred rubble. Worse, there are now no more programming excuses from me about inertial dampers and artificial gravity generators for 8.0/AS  But of course, the LH can fly (and recover on water) and I am a fan of aerial aircraft carriers. |
|
|
|
| Itharu |
Posted on 10-03-2006 05:40
|
 Posts: 363 Joined: September 23 2005 |
The best atmospheric and space worthy ship would be a frigate. Large enough to haul a few ASCAs and equipment. A LH could be used for very low orbital depolyment in the form of 'drop ships' that would not nesscessarly need recovering and at the same time be able to provide the units in transit cover fire while mostly being out of harms way. Maybe a special ops LH speciffically designed to do orbital insertions like that without alterting ground forces. Just musing... hee hee... -Fear the Might of the Imperial Cortharian Fleet
|
|
|
|
| TelQuessir |
Posted on 10-03-2006 06:02
|
|
Posts: 2598 Joined: August 30 2005 |
It isn't very advantageous to send a ship as large as a HW2 cruiser or destroyer into a planetary atmosphere, unless you'd like to do bulk insertions. For the case of planetary invasions, screw the collateral damage and construct massive division transporters just for that operation. The role of these super dropships are similar to that of LSTs in WW2 - bring in the heavy goods after infantry have secured the landing beaches. In "60th Century" technology, vehicular technology would possibly be like nothing we are familiar with today. Look at how much we have progressed in merely 1 millenia, or specifically, the past 150 years. So a "rotary winged aircraft" in the future just might be some transformable self-flying gizmo that you see in anime. Regardless, just like warfare today, its successful conduct is anchored on some very basic yet essential principles stemming from ancient times. |
|
|
|
| yasotay |
Posted on 10-03-2006 22:04
|
 Posts: 637 Joined: September 09 2005 |
hehe *rubs hands with glee* Ahem, I shall defer from the 'veteran discussion' mentioned above, as it has not been the preordained half a year since the last one. As for the planetary assault stuff. first I would expect if you are no kidding going to attack a planet with the intent to leave people and equipment you would do so with specifically designed ships, built to not only smash through the atmosphere, but take a beating on the way down. They would be large enough to place a rather significant force on the ground. You are attempting to subdue a planet? something no human organization has succeeded at yet. Current PDS?verse requires them to operate within the confines of aerodynamics and physics (no benign anti-grav). Now if you want to land them in the water where blazing quantities of water into steam might be acceptable till hull displacement takes over, fine; just remember you may make enough clouds to generate a thunderstorm. Artillery? I would do most of the heavy stuff from space for the interdiction missions to keep the enemy off balance. Short range artillery would be more like mini-cruise missiles flying very low altitude. Conventional ballistic arches will let the enemy know where you are very quickly (it does today). The artillery pieces would be more like what we think of attack helicopters today in that they launch the missiles while flying very low and as far from the enemy as possible. Tanks and such are fine targets for anything with a sensor and will spend a lot of time fending off the projectiles thrown at them. The infantry will stay away from these bullet magnets. Individually armored infantry with reach-back sensing and ability to shot anything from their personnel weapon to calling ?rods from the gods? from ships in orbit will be the order of the day. They would most likely be airmobile since they have worlds to move around. Mine have dedicated atmospheric bound VTOL aircraft. The real war will be the electronic war that will decide who sees and talks. Without both you will die in short order I think. |
|
|
|
| Jump to Forum |