Jump to content

Caseck

Members
  • Content Count

    111
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Caseck

  • Rank
    Senior Member
  • Birthday 03/01/1973

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://MSN.com

Converted

  • Location
    Alabama
  • Interests
    Computers (Duh!)
  • Occupation
    Other
  1. So, if I have a couple units gang up on a BB, do they get simultaneous attacks in vs. the BB's one defense? Same with Air units? The real power of air units, and sub units to a lesser degree should be to gang up and divide defenses while delivering firepower to target. Hell, ground combat is the same way. But I only realistically see BB being able to sink a sub very limited amount of time--unlike in the game where it seems to be a default Sub-lost. Maybe the Sub can't sink or damage or keep up with the BB, but it shouldn't LOSE to the BB all the time. There should be a "DRAW" option instead of the LOSE result the Sub always seems to get. Perhaps the mechanics of the game aren't screwy with Aircraft (Except for TT that should really lose unescorted against Aircraft/DD/SS/SSN 90+% of the time.) but we aren't using correct tactics? (Should always have group attacks?) Planes definitely need a "Driven Away/Failed Attack" option, instead of the lose card they always seem to draw too!
  2. Caseck

    New units

    I would recommend something along the lines of light miniguns or automatic grenade launchers for the heavy infantry. That way they could carry a useful amount of ammunition. Why not a short range ATGM with 2 ready rounds and 4 reload rounds or so for the AT version? (Two ready tubes on one arm/shoulder, and the reloads slung) Plus maybe a light/medium machinegun secondary armament. Modern Dragon or Javelin only weighs 40lbs for a tube, and has a 2000m range. Granted, Dragon has a butt slow flight time. Javelin is pretty quick though.
  3. Caseck

    Wish List

    Multiple players in a vehicle. Boatz. Heavy Inf... Heavy Inf should NOT be able to occupy buildings! Take over, maybe. But not occupy. Rules, design sequence tables, volumes and weights vs. horsepower and firepower for designing vehicles. (AKA Traveller/Striker by GDW.) [ December 31, 2007, 12:04 PM: Message edited by: Caseck ]
  4. Caseck

    next steps for DT

    I need to draw my Gunship. All armor up front, vectored thrust, no windows on the front, small viewports on the sides. (Sensor fusion so no windows required.) I really have to figure out how to get the damn Zoo running so I can see all the different mods! Is there anywhere that has 3D pics of the vehicles from the Zoo? Very excited to hear about the Dragonfly. Next they need to figure out how to get more than one guy in a vehicle. Paves the way for an OGRE type game, as well as perhaps boatz...
  5. Caseck

    next steps for DT

    Never hover in the engagement area... P.S. Hiya' from sunny COB Speicher, MNF-I! Satellite internet, so no fun for me here!
  6. Caseck

    next steps for DT

    My only issue with aircraft is that the board is pretty small to manuever on in aviation terms.
  7. Sunday Sunday Sunday!
  8. What ever happened to teh pulse lasers?
  9. Gotta' love the media giving the bad guys a full AAR. [ May 13, 2007, 07:44 PM: Message edited by: Caseck ]
  10. Yeah, I'd like to see some sort of railgun. It'd have the drawback LASER weapons should have. (Capacitor recharge time.) Plus ammunition requirements, and reload time. High burst rate of fire, and the possibility for extreme velocity. It'd be interesting to have adjustable velocity that would dictate rate of fire. (Higher velocity=lower ROF.) Larger internal volume and power requirements. The ammo is relatively small though, so you get good capacity for ammo volume.
  11. Working on an idea... Like what specifically? MOD forums? Hmmmn... I'll look into that... [ November 21, 2006, 08:10 PM: Message edited by: Caseck ]
  12. A final note, design wise, you not only save a ton of weight [ha,ha,ha], but also cost and complexity by dropping the turret. The only thing you may trade off, is internal volume (read ammunition.) But to know that for sure you've gotta' calculate the volume of the chassis. With a slightly larger chassis with no turret, you wouldn't even lose much there. THAT is a tank destroyer! From the front I am confident that a "Prowler" WILL beat a "Thor". Low profile, high speed, semi-fixed mount. It would make sense to me, based on the power consumption of a Hover Chassis, that postulated Hover Tank-Destroyers would be projectile, and tracked variants would have the high wattage pulse-laser, when it becomes available. But I'm not sure what kind of trade-offs you folks make in design. It appears the "Hurricane" trades off a lot of weight for it's firepower at the expense of armour. But the Plasma-Cannon really acts like a 203mm low velocity gun. Don't know if it even has a power-consumption component, but I would expect it would. If you incorporated fuel consumption in this game, I would expect the "Hurricane" to have the worst range/endurance of all the vehicles. [ November 21, 2006, 02:05 PM: Message edited by: Caseck ]
  13. Really, why even have a 90mm gun, when for the savings of dropping the turret, and the associated weight, you could have a fixed 120mm with a higher rate of fire and still retain excellent protection on the front arc. I would call it a "Prowler". (Thankyou Damon Syle)
  14. Just been thinking about my idea of a tank destroyer, fixed gun with very small arc on the front, 90mm or bigger, fast with a low profile, well sloped front armor and an efficient autoloader feeding a semi-fixed gun for a very high rate of fire. This contrasts quite extremely with the "Apollo" which has weak armour and an MBT sized main gun, with identical rate of fire. Just like tank, but not as good as a tank... I just find it interesting because as it stands now, in the role of "Tank Destroyer" the Apollo is very close in description to the American M10 Wolverine or M18 Hellcat in WWII. Anyone who doesn't know the history of the American Tank Destroyer in WWII is missing out on a good example of failed doctrine. Much like the Battlecruiser concept on the high seas, the Tank Destroyers lacked the protection to stand up to MBTs in a fight. Their role was intended to allow them to manuever into the battlefield and ambush oncoming tanks. (Thank you GEN Patton.) Interestingly, TD Battalions had air assets integrated with them. But never achieved the mass on the battlefield they were intended to have according to doctrine. Operationally, it turned out to be nearly impossible to have a tank destroyer battalion deployed and ready in advance to engage an oncoming German Panzer unit. No tank destroyers battalions survived the end of the war, all being disbanded by 1946. Was it the tank destroyer which caused the doctrine to fail, or the doctrine which failed the tank destroyer?
  15. Sounds like a good job for a new support vehicle.
×
×
  • Create New...