Hey gang!
I need some help with a House Rule for ZAD in DSII. Most of the rules I've
worked out, it's the last one that is my sticking point. I would like to run
the entire set of rules past the group, get their feedback, and also some
suggestions for the last rule.
These are intended as stopgap rules, ignore them
if/when DS3 ever comes out:
these rules are intended to allow the player to design ZADs systems with a bit
more oomph than normal, as well as to simulate different system concepts. The
numbers for capacity are extrapolated from current rules regarding ZADS (treat
as a RFAC 2 when not in AD mode):
ZADFC: Zone Air Defence FireCon can be added to any Direct Fire weapon in a
full 360 turret. It replaces the normal Firecon system, and takes up extra
capacity but not an extra weapon slot. The capacity requirements are: BZADFC:
4 capacity EZADFC: 9 Capacity SZADFC: 14 Capacity
Cost (I don't have my books here. Take the cost of each ZADS, subtract the
cost of a turreted RFAC2, the result is the cost of a ZADFC)
ZADFC in Anti-air mode: Vs. VTOLS and Aerospace,
resolve as per normal direct fire rules: Roll the ZADFC die based on Firecon
as adjusted for weapon range, roll for aircraft based on signature. For
Aerospace craft (NOT for slower VTOL'S), roll a secondary die for pilot
quality. If a hit is achieved, roll for damage based on weapon class and size.
Anti-air mode and multiple mount main weapons: each
barrel may engage the target. Thus an ADFC mated to twin MDC 3's would get
2shots at an aircraft, etc.
ZADFC in Anti-Missile mode:
This is where I'm a bit stuck. How do you combine the modification of ADS die
quality for numbers of missiles engaged AND the adjustment for range if you're
using multiple range bands, and how does multiple mounts affect this?
Thoughts?
1. Going to antimissile mode is the vehicles activation (active sensor
marker). 2. Use PSB to simplify. Targets beyond ZAD range have too much delay
on
the tracking/projectile flight times etc for the system to effectively
target them. Multiple mounts wouldn't affect this (a hit is a hit when you get
a missile; just gives more "ammo" on target).
Brendan 'Neath Southern Skies
> -----Original Message-----
IMPORTANT: Notice to be read with this E-mail
1. Before opening any attachments, please check them for
viruses and defects. 2. This e-mail (including any
attachments) may contain confidential information for the use of the intended
recipient. 3. If you are not the intended recipient, please: contact the
sender by return
e-mail, to notify the misdirection; do not copy, print,
re-transmit, store or act in reliance on this e-mail; and
delete and destroy all copies of this e-mail. 4. Any views
expressed in this e-mail are those of the sender and are not
a statement of Australian Government policy unless otherwise stated. 5.
Finally, please do not remove this notice, so that any other readers are aware
of these restrictions.
--- "Robertson, Brendan"
> <Brendan.Robertson@dva.gov.au> wrote:
That doesn't change, of course.
> 2. Use PSB to simplify. Targets beyond ZAD range
Hmmm.... maybe only allow ZAD within short range.... That would work....
Multiple mounts wouldn't affect this
> (a hit is a hit when you
See, I disagree, and WANT multiple mounts to affect the ADs rolls. The idea is
because you're throwing more lead in the general direction of the passing
missiles, you don't have to aim at it as long, can move on to the next target
quicker, and can therefore engage more targets.
G'day,
> See, I disagree, and WANT multiple mounts to affect
Maybe the multiple mount can engage without penalty as many missiles as it has
mounts and after that step DOWN1 for each extra missile engaged?
Cheers
> --- Beth.Fulton@csiro.au wrote:
> Maybe the multiple mount can engage without penalty
.... See, now, that makes too much sense.... ;-)
Seriously, that seemed the intuitive way to go, but I was concerned that it
might be wrong. So far that makes two votes for that option....
> Brian wrote:
Thoughts?
I came up with an alternative design sequence for ZAD/ADS and different
method of applying ZAD/ADS against Aerospace which seems to get around
this problem. Perhap it might be helpful?
Other Weapons for Area Defense Systems
======================================
To use another direct fire weapon system (other than RFAC/2, HVC/3 and
HVC/4
equivalents), mount your chosen twin weapons in a turret, and work out the
cost for the twin weapons. Multiply the cost by ten and that is the price of
the system in points.
The range of the system is equal to long range of the individual weapon
systems. To make this system consistent with the current ADS, the DSII basic
ADS/ZAD should only have range of 24" (RFAC/2 max. range), and the DSII
enhanced ADS/ZAD should only have a range of 32" (HVC/3 max. range).
The ADS quality die is based on the size of the weapon: size 1 to size 5 is D4
to D12 respectively. Draw damage chits equal to size class of weapon. Even
though *two* weapon systems are fitted, only *one* set of damage chits are
drawn. Damage validities as per existing ADS damage validities, i.e. all chits
count.
If you want, you can use a single weapon instead. Just install it in a turret,
and multiply the points cost by 10. But, only *red* chits are valid. If you
want *all* chits valid, multiply the points cost by 20 instead of 10.
Or you can install quad weapons. Just install them in a turret, and multiply
the points cost by 5. *All* chits will be valid.
You could install three weapons in turret, multiply by 5, but you will only
get *red* and *yellow* chits valid.
Zone Area Defence against Aerospace units
=========================================
If the projected aerospace element's flight path goes through a Zone Area
Defence (ZAD) envelope of fire, roll for the nerve of the aerospace element's
pilot as usual. Failure means that the pilot has lost his nerve and failed to
complete the attack run. If the flight path will go through two or more ZAD
envelopes of fire, make multiple bravery rolls. The reasoning behind this, is
that the more defences the aerospace unit has to go through, the higher the
likelihood that this pilot won't be coming back alive!
These rolls are made after the path of the aerospace unit has been declared,
but before the aerospace unit comes on the table. Those elements failing their
bravery check lose their activation this turn. They claim to their commander
that they have some minor malfunction which should clear up in a while and
they return to orbiting the battlefield in a more safer place.
> --- A J Martin <AJMartin@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
> I came up with an alternative design sequence for
Why these specific equivalents? The original rules equated ALL ZADS' to RFAC
2's. Did youtr house rules line up the three listed above with B, E, & S
ZADS'?
mount your chosen twin weapons in a
> turret, and work out the
How'd you come up with this cost formula?
> The range of the system is equal to long range of
I prefer the option of giving ADS rangebands, based on
the weapons - not just make the long range of the
weapon an all-encompassing range.
To make this system consistent with the
> current ADS, the DSII basic
My HR's would eliminate the separate ADS, all ADS would be built using the HR
construction rules.
> The ADS quality die is based on the size of the
Hmmm.... why? Shouldn't that be determined by the quality of Firecon?
Draw damage chits equal to
> size class of weapon.
Makes perfect sense.
> Even though *two* weapon systems are fitted, only
Porque? I also don't advocate increasing damage, but that's because I am for
resolving a separate To Hit Roll for each barrel..... The system you've
described doesn't seem to give any advantage to multiple barreled systems.....
Damage validities as per existing ADS
> damage validities, i.e. all
Damage validities should be as per weapon type.
> If you want, you can use a single weapon instead.
The above section seemed really complicated to me, and unnecessary if I apply
the other rules I've come up with so far....
> Zone Area Defence against Aerospace units
All of the above makes sense, although I'm considering how the new rules will
affect threat levels for the pilot's Nerve roll..... we'll see....
For the most part, I'm ready to roll with the new rules, thanks to the input
of the group. More on that in a separate post.
> > To use another direct fire weapon system (other than RFAC/2, HVC/3
> Why these specific equivalents? The original rules equated ALL ZADS'
to RFAC 2's. Did your house rules line up the three listed above with B,
E, &
S ZADS'?
That's what the existing rules for ZAD/ADS equated to in points cost and
volume, as I discovered. The only difference was in range, which was a small
enough change.
> > Multiply the cost by ten and that is the price of the system in
> How'd you come up with this cost formula?
That's what it works out as in the design system for the original rules. I
reverse engineered the original ADS/ZAD into the DSII design system for
weapons. The "multiply by 10" works out as well.
> > The ADS quality die is based on the size of the weapon: size 1 to
> Hmmm.... why? Shouldn't that be determined by the quality of Firecon?
Because that's what the existing ADS/ZAD uses, IIRC. I just expanded the
range.
> > Even though *two* weapon systems are fitted, only *one* set of
> Porque? I also don't advocate increasing damage, but that's because I
It does. One just has to read further, and see the differences in
single-barrelled, tri-barrel and quad-barrel, in relation to chit
damage.
> > You could install three weapons in turret, multiply by 5, but you
It fits with the existing rules... :-/
> > The ADS quality die is based on the size of the weapon: size 1 to
> Hmmm.... why? Shouldn't that be determined by the quality of Firecon?
Again, it fits with the existing rules for ADS/ZAD. :-\
Of course, I'm always open to new and better approaches.
> --- A J Martin <AJMartin@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
*snip*
> That's what the existing rules for ZAD/ADS equated
No, the other difference was in how they act in Direct
Fire mode - they're all treated as RFAC 2's.
> > > Multiply the cost by ten and that is the price
Ok, that would make sense then. I haven't looked over costs yet.
> > > The ADS quality die is based on the size of the
Well, not exactly. The existing ADS/ZAD quality are
based on the size of the entire SYSTEM, so I would argue that it would be as
much a function of the
size/quality of the Firecon as of the actual weapon
part of the system.
> > > Even though *two* weapon systems are fitted,
*snip*
> > > You could install three weapons in turret,
Ah, but that's not exactly my goal.... I'm taking the existing rule as a
launching point to take things in a new direction....
> > > The ADS quality die is based on the size of the
Again, see above for a different approach to the size rationale....