First of all, thanks to those who provided input on the House Rules
modifications I'm developing for Zone
Air Defense/Area Defense in DS2. I've pretty much
hashed out the basic rules, although another glitch
has popped up -one I foresaw (thanks to Oerjan warning
me about it), but waited until now to bring up since I wanted to unkink the
other issues first.
So here's what I've come up with so far:
Construction: A ZADFC can be mounted to any vehicle that has a Full Traverse
Turret and a direct fire weapon system. The ZADFC replaces the standard
FireCon system in the vehicle. It does not take up a
weapon slot, but does take up capacity - 4 Points of
Capacity for a Basic ZADFC, 9 for an Enhanced, and 14 for a Superior. Cost for
each is the same as for the
original ZADS, less the cost of a turret-mounted
RFAC-2 (Too lazy to do the math right now). The
ZAD/AD function of the firecon can be applied to any
direct fire weapon system in the turret, but only to one system in any given
turn (remember multiple mounts of the same class & size count as one system).
This
means that a vehicle with an MDC-4 and an RFAC-2 could
use either in ZAD/AD mode, but must decide at the
beginning of the turn which system is being used in AD mode. If the ZADFC is
not activated, the weapons follow all rules for direct fire.
ZADFC and Aircraft:
Normal rules for activation of ZADS apply. the die class is based on the
quality of the ZADFC as modified for range per weapon type and class. Die
Class for the aircraft is based on signature. VTOL's in Low Flight and
Aerospace fighters roll a secondary die,
based on unit quality - d4 for Green, d6 for Regular,
D8 for veteran. VTOL's in High Flight do not get this
second die - they're too slow and exposed for evasive
manouvers to help much.
Damage and validities are per weapon Type/Class and
range band.
Multiple-Mount Systems and ZADFC: Resolve separately
for each barrel.
ZADFC and AD/Anti-Missile Mode:
Any GMS passing through the Short range of the system attached to the ZADFC
can be attacked as per normal
ADS rules, however, ADFC quality dice are 8/10/12
instead of the standard 6/8/10
Multiple mount systems:
Multiple mounts in Anti-GMS mode effectively improve
the FireCon class of the ZADFC by one level for each additional barrel beyond
one in the system. Any remaining barrels after firecon is improved to superior
(or all additional barrels in the case of an
already- superior system) increases by 1 the number of
missiles the system can engage at D12 before quality degradation begins.
Example: An enhanced ZADFC is mated to a
three-barreled weapon system. The second barrel
improves it to a superior system for Anti-GMS use
only, and the third barrel means the system can engage 2 missiles at D12, a
third at D10, a fourth at D8, a fifth at D6, and a sixth at D4.
I'm pretty happy so far, even though it does make
multi-barreled ZADS' frighteningly powerful.
The two concerns that are still raised in my mind are:
1. This makes HEL's incredibly powerful, especially in
Anti-GMS ADS mode, given their ranges. I'm
considering limiting the ADS range of HEL-Mated
ZADFC's, using the PSB that any missile beyond a certain range will be too
difficult for the ZADFC to process properly because of the complexity of
calculating how it determines legitimate threats. I'm probably going to give
the HEL's an ADS range that
matches the range for an MDC-5 in ADs mode, since
that's the longest range ballistic weapon, and if a computer can use it to
that range, it should be able to use a laser to the same range. Any alternate
suggestions?
2. It's been pointed out that High-Velocity and/or
high Rate of Fire weapons (MDC's, RFAC's, HEL's) should be more effective in
this role than lower
ROF/Velocity weapons. How should this be factored in
to the above system?
Thanks,
> At 12:34 PM -0800 12/1/03, Brian B wrote:
I'm a bit concerned that the system for a non-dedicated unit is
better than the dedicated whole vehicle system of ZADs which has a more
limited range.
It does fit PSB for some systems and stories (hammers slammers), however, it
seems that a class 5 HEL with a ZADFC should have some problems. One being
ability to traverse and train quickly for a very fast moving target. Further,
in order to elevate, you need a larger profile or some other mechanisms that
are fancy for the standard ground combat systems not normally present (why
doesn't a tank with a Class 5 HEL get to normally engage a flyer?).
There needs to be a size increase or a limit on the range more in keeping with
problems involved in the less than dedicated nature here. Additional rules for
limited arcs of engagement or single
target effectiveness for the non-dedicated ZADFC equipped heavy
weapons might mitigate the higher capability of the general system over a
dedicated ZAD vehicle.
> --- Ryan M Gill <rmgill@mindspring.com> wrote:
*SNIP a lot of logical stuff*
> There needs to be a size increase or a limit on the
Good point. The idea is not to make a non-dedicated
system, it's to separate the ZADFC from it's weapons to allow for different
types of weapons to be used as ZAD.
But your point about elevation remains valid. So here's what I've come up with
on the spur of the moment Ex Posteriori (Out of my A....):
First I'm basing all of these figures on the assumption that a classic ZADS as
described in the rules is actually a RFAC 2 mated to an ADFC. So I first
thought, "OK, multiply the weapon capacity times
a modifier based on ZADS/RFAC2 Mount." This came up
with hellacious numbers and math, as well as a
Superior ZADFC/Class 5 weapon combo taking up 50
capacity points.
So then I thought, "OK, so the RFAC is on a special mount with more
elevation."
Thus I came up with this:
Construction: When constructing a ZAD vehicle, you must equip it with a main
direct fire weapon which will be mated to the ZADFC. This weapon requires a
special
full-traverse turret with increased elevation ability,
so the main weapon takes up capacity equal to 4x it's class as well as one
weapon spot. In addition, the ZADFC itself takes up capacity, but no weapon
slot. Basic = Capacity 2, Enhanced = Capacity 7, Superior = Capacity 12.
Costing WILL be a multiple. Take the cost of each current ZADS, divide by the
cost of a RFAC 2 prior to
modification for mount/FireCon, and these are the new
cost multipliers for ZADFC's.
This will mean that the system is comparitively bigger and more expensive,
although the point at which it will SEEM "Broken" is when you construct with
an actual RFAC2.
However, this brings up a construction question for
multi-mounts -- do the extra mounts take up 2 capacity
as per normal rules, or 3, or maybe it'll be
4/3/2/2/2........
So the three choices are:
4/3/3....
4/2/2.....
4/3/2.....
Input?
> On Mon, 1 Dec 2003, Brian B wrote:
> --- Ryan M Gill <rmgill@mindspring.com> wrote:
*SNIP again for argument on size increase, though it is a good one*
> But your point about elevation remains valid. So
*SNIP on explanation of accounting for how it's being done...*
> So then I thought, "OK, so the RFAC is on a special
Ok, so my first question would be, "Why does the ZADFC take up capacity?"
Normal FCS do not, regardless of effectiveness (Basic, Enhanced, Superior). If
they don't and you're making the ADS have it's own fire control, why not just
apply a flat capacity for the extra system, and make the *cost* be based on
the effectivness.
> Costing WILL be a multiple. Take the cost of each
Ok. my head is being fuzzy. Provide an example of this?:)
> This will mean that the system is comparitively bigger
It should not see broken unless you are comparing it. If you are creating a
new system for ZADS, then it doesn't need to compare to the old one in all
respects.
> However, this brings up a construction question for
I could do it as 4/2/2/2/2....
You are already making the "turret" bigger by 1 in order to compensate for the
higher eleveation needed. Why would adding an extra barrel make that much
difference in this configuration if it doesn't in a ground fire config?
In regards to the comment about HELs being extremely effective, my take is,
"Ok, so why not?" HELs don't necessarily required a large, heavy,
counterweighted barrel so much as they need a hell of a power source. So,
IMHO, they would make better ZADS than slug throwers. In the OGRE universe
lasers were the primary reason that there were no combat aircraft
being used. Basically, if you flew above nap-of-the-earth, you were
burned down.
> At 1:10 PM -0800 12/1/03, Brian B wrote:
Which is a neat idea. It has all sorts of ideas that are valid. The
power gun based Air Defense or Anti-Lander configurations ala-the
Posleen books. (what's a She-va gun count as?)
> But your point about elevation remains valid. So
There's two things that increase your size. Sensor, computer, processing,
tracking systems and weapons space. Look at the size diff between the Basic,
enhanced and superior weapons systems, compare them to the PIVAD and Gepard. I
figure the PIVAD is a Basic and the Gepard is enhanced (search and tracking)
where as teh PIVAD requires help from other units for warning of impending
attack. Now granted, computers get smaller, antennas get more efficient but
then the missiles and aircraft get more stealthy and sneaker with their ECM as
time goes on (and they get faster).
> So then I thought, "OK, so the RFAC is on a special
Charge separate cost/space for the T&E gear and the fire control.
Make it so you can distribute the fire control from the weapon system
or put it in a Multi-section vehicle. A dedicated sensor vehicle and
a dedicated weapon vehicle isn't so far fetched. A meshed/networked
setup would be better at multiple targets and survival against sensor loss.
> Costing WILL be a multiple. Take the cost of each
I also have to wonder about an MDC 5 and it's true utility in downing an
aircraft. One slug (or however many you fire in a 15 minute 'turn') doesn't
seem so great for downing a fast moving mud mover, no matter how good the fire
con. There's just too much delay. The idea behind the small MDCs is lots of
small rounds. As you get bigger, rate of fire goes down and it becomes harder
to really hurt a target. HVCs of medium size (40mm up through 5") work because
you're dealing with period guns that even today are pretty good at downing an
aircraft. Burst effect weapons, proximity fuzes and some terminal guidance
will help. I get the impression that MDCs are more slugs and only slugs
thrown. Further, that the tank version has limits on what kind of rounds it
can fire...PSB questions here...
> However, this brings up a construction question for
I'm not sure as my books are at home, but I seem to recall that the extra
weapons only take up x2 vs the initial x3 (for turreted) weapon for extra
mounts (coaxial I believe).
> At 4:23 PM -0500 12/1/03, John K Lerchey wrote:
Look at a Gepard. Search Radar, Tracking Radar, processing computers,
Antennas, Sights, controls for indicating the approach of bad aircraft, IFF
systems, etc. Sure they get smaller in the future, but why is a ZAD Superior a
Large vehicle only? It's what, 25 capacity for a ZAD Superior?
> [snip]
So,
> IMHO, they would make better ZADS than slug throwers. In the OGRE
Why aren't the existing ZADs HEL based? Insufficient ROF?
> On Mon, 1 Dec 2003, Ryan M Gill wrote:
> At 4:23 PM -0500 12/1/03, John K Lerchey wrote:
I sit corrected. In DSII the ADS actually does take more capacity based on
effectiveness (B=10, E=15, S=20), so I'm happy enough with both your
explanation and the rules support of it.:)
> >[snip]
So,
> >IMHO, they would make better ZADS than slug throwers. In the OGRE
Well, it appears that Jon actually didn't *base8 the ZADS on anything in
particular. He made them a completely generic system and gave them direct fire
as a way to do *something* against ground targets just as all tanks in Close
Assault fire at each other as an IARV regardless of what they carry.
As to the the lasers themselves, this is a quote from the rules:
"When engaging "hard" (armoured) targets, HELs use a single very high energy
pulse; when they need to engage infantry or other dispersed targets, a lower
power setting enables the weapon to "sweep" an area with
rapid-fire bursts of much lower intensity. Such area fire does,
however,
have a much shorter effective range as the lower-energy beam is much
more susceptable to the effects of atmospheric attenuation."
This is not reflected in the rules, as all HELs fire out to 60". The only
difference is in the chit validity against target types. <shrug>
I think that based on this, there is no good reason that HELs would not make
fine ADS.
:)
J
G'day,
> 1. This makes HEL's incredibly powerful, especially in
I take it the construction system cost alone won't potentially deter people
from such long range coverage? If it doesn't and you're afraid of blanket
coverage then limiting may be the way to go, might be worth sucking it and
seeing forst though.
> 2. It's been pointed out that High-Velocity and/or
Two possible ways to do this as I see it. Either say low ROF ones can only
fire at every other opportunity (but that is opening a pandora's box of what's
an opportunity and tracking who's done what, so its not what you're after I'd
say!) or modifying the dice involved. Try lowering low ROF weapons by a die
type or increasing high ROF weapons and see if it proves too much. It does
kinda make sense that if you want a low ROF ZAD you have to buy a better ADFC
to make the most of it (doesn't fire many off but they're pretty well all on
target etc).
Anotehr alternative is to link this to your thoughts for 1. Maybe high ROF
weapons have a longer maximum range than low ROF ones... I was thinking along
the lines of all can fire out to x range, but the hit rate for low rof out to
that spot is not so good as can't track the target so their range is
effectively shorter. I don't really know enough about weapon systems to know
if that's sensible though.
And onto the other question from Brian,
> However, this brings up a construction question for
I'd start with 4/2/2.... if that doesn't work then move to 3...
Cheers
> From a PSB p.o.v. it would not be unreasonable to limit ZADS to class-1
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.
> --- John K Lerchey <lerchey@andrew.cmu.edu> wrote:
> Ok, so my first question would be, "Why does the
Do you want the game mechanics reason, or an PSB justification also procured
from my gluteus?
If you mean the former and not the latter, I'll address it below:
> Normal FCS do not, regardless of effectiveness
That's originally what I proposed, if you'll skip back to the post Ryan
addressed.
First of all, let me preface this all by saying that I'm one of the leading
advocates of separating the cost and capacity systems, so this ZADFC system
I've
concocted is only a stopgap for use until/unless a
better construction system is put forth.
Having said that, and not wanting to get into that debate now, I'll answer a
little more clearly:
I am basing my figures on some exptrapolations taken from current rules
regarding ZADS, Namely the fact that a ZADS not being used in it's primary
role can be fired directly using the stats for a RFAC 2. From this I
extrapolated that we might assume a current ZADS *IS* a RFAC mated to a ZADFC.
Since there is a significant difference between a ZADS (even a Basic at cap.
10) and an RFAC (Even full traverse at Cap. 6), the natural assumption is that
the ifference in capacity has SOMETHING to do with the increased capabilities
of a ZAD System.
The question becomes, is the difference a function of: A) increased
traversability (faster servos for turret spin, increased range of elevation,
etc.); B) increased Firecon equipment (Big sensor dishes, etc.); or C) a
combination of both.
If the answer is:
A, then the increased capacity will be purely a multiplier: F'rinstance, since
a Basic ZADS takes up 15 capacity, and an RFAC 2 is 2 capacity, we'd assume
that the capacity for a Basic ZADFC is 5x the weapn class, enhanced is 7.5x
Capacity, and Superior is 10x Capacity. Again, 7.5 is messy, and it means some
hellaciously big ZADS's, rendering the idea kinda silly.
B) Then the ZADFC just ADDS an amount of capacity, as I first proposed: If
assuming a standard full
traverse turret, then it's B/E/S = 4/9/15 (4+6=10,
9+6=15, 14+6=20 for RFAC 2). This raises the
objection that Ryan pointed out.
C) By PSB'ing a combination of the two, we get a multiplier, but not as
drastic, for the traversing equipment, as well as an addition, for the Sensor
gear
itself. The numbers I came up with (4x class+[2, 7,
or 12 for Basic, Enhanced, or Superior) allow you to
construct a single mount RFAC/2 with ZADFC combination
that is indentical in capacity to standard rules ZADS'
> > Costing WILL be a multiple. Take the cost of each
To do that, I'd need to have on hand the point values of ZADS' and the base
cost of a RFAC 2, and since I'm
at work....
> > This will mean that the system is comparitively
Agreed. Which is why I emphasized "SEEM".
> I could do it as 4/2/2/2/2....
I can live with that, although I'd still like more input on this point.
> In regards to the comment about HELs being extremely
Game esthetics, mostly, because I want to avoid an
OGRE/Slammer's style Aerospace-less battlefield.
> From my memory of how ZADS currently works, this would be:
1 or 2 missiles: d12 3 missiles: d10 4 missiles: d8 5 missiles: d6 6 or more
missiles: d4
It's a simultaneous degredation, not sequential.
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.
> --- Ryan M Gill <rmgill@mindspring.com> wrote:
> There's two things that increase your size. Sensor,
Agreed. See my post a moment ago....
> Charge separate cost/space for the T&E gear and the
Agreed, but it makes things a lot more complex. Maybe
a ZADFC that's independent will be sized/costed based
on how many vehicles it can control, and should be
more for Anti-aircraft and not so much good at
anti-GMS.
> I also have to wonder about an MDC 5 and it's true
Agreed, which brings me back to the question, how should these systems be
affected in performance by
their weapon type/class to account for round
velocity/rate fo fire?
> >However, this brings up a construction question for
You are correct, but that's for a normal turret, not
one of our special enhanced-traverse ZAD turrets....
> --- Ryan M Gill <rmgill@mindspring.com> wrote:
It's
> what, 25 capacity
I'm agreeing with you so far, but to pick a nit, it's
10/15/20 for B/E/S ZADS
> --- John K Lerchey <lerchey@andrew.cmu.edu> wrote:
> This is not reflected in the rules, as all HELs fire
Are you sure? Check the Vehicle Fire Vs. Infantry section on that, although
you may be right.
> I think that based on this, there is no good reason
Sense of esthetics more than anything else, although again, if required, I can
squeeze out some sort of PSB to justify limiting them....
> --- Beth.Fulton@csiro.au wrote:
> I take it the construction system cost alone won't
Good point...
> Try lowering low ROF weapons by a
It DOES make sense, though I lean more towards
decreasing low ROF/Velocity weapons' die classes, not
increasing the high ones...
> And onto the other question from Brian,
Thanks for the input.
--- "Robertson, Brendan"
> <Brendan.Robertson@dva.gov.au> wrote:
I dislike such artificial limits, I'd prefer to ALLOW heavier weapons, but
make players pay through the NOSE to build them....
Sorry, that's what I meant, I just worded it poorly. Although it would
actually be: 1 or 2 missiles: d12 3 missiles: d10 4 missiles: d8 5 missiles:
d6 6 missiles: d4 Cannot engage more than 6
--- "Robertson, Brendan"
> <Brendan.Robertson@dva.gov.au> wrote:
There's already several artificial limits built into the system; 1 size
larger than vehicle, max class-3 for aerospace/vtol etc.
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.
I never said I liked them any more. Since it's a HR for now anyway, I'd prefer
not to go that route.
--- "Robertson, Brendan"
> <Brendan.Robertson@dva.gov.au> wrote:
Actually HEL in anti-infantry mode are 36 inch range weapons.
On Mon, 1 Dec 2003 17:07:00 -0500 (EST) John K Lerchey
> <lerchey@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
> John K Lerchey wrote:
Check Dirtside II, page 36, Vehicle Weapon Fire Against Infantry.
No hit roll required, just draw chits as specified.
Maximum range for HELs against infantry is 36", you draw 2 chits regardless of
weapon class.
For RFACs, MDCs, HVCs and DFFGs against infantry, max range is Medium range,
you draw 2 chits (3 for DFFGs) regardless of weapon class.
For SLAMs, maximum aimed range against infantry is Close, draw chits equal to
weapon class. Infantry can only be hit as secondary targets at longer ranges.
> --- Ray Forsythe <erf2@wombatzone.com> wrote:
> > This is not reflected in the rules, as all HELs
Thanks, that's what I suspected. Maybe that's also a
good ADS range for Counter-GMS fire too.....
> John wrote:
We have laser ablative armour on our VTOLs and Aerospace, for just this
reason!:)
> Well, it appears that Jon actually didn't *base* the ZADS on anything
I get the distinct impression that they're twin, turret-mounted, size 2,
3 or 4 weapons. Here's why:
Size 2 weapon * 3 (in turret)
+ twin-ed Size 2 Weapon * 2
= 10 capacity.
Size 3 weapon * 3 (in turret)
+ twin-ed Size 3 weapon * 2
= 15 capacity.
Size 4 weapon * 3 (in turret)
+ twin-ed Size 4 weapon * 2
= 20 capacity.
Which matches the existing capacities: Basic = 10, Enhanced = 15, Superior =
20.
Of course, there could be better designs that I haven't found yet.
> However, this brings up a construction question for multi-mounts -- do
The DSII rules seem to state x3 for the first weapon in a turret and x2 for
each subsequent weapon in the same turret, provided the weapons are all the
same size.
> --- A J Martin <AJMartin@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
> We have laser ablative armour on our VTOLs and
The numbers fit, but it just doesn't "Feel" right, for several reasons
reasons:
1) It doesn't acknowledge the fact that all ZADS' act like RFAC 2's in DF
mode. 2) It doesn't assume any increase in capacity for ZAD Firecon systems.
3) It doesn't address Mr.Gill's concerns regarding
increased size of turret/traversing gear for the
greater elevation of a ZAD gun.
> --- A J Martin <AJMartin@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
> The DSII rules seem to state x3 for the first weapon
Yes, I know -- in a normal full-traverse turret. But
we've been discussing the option of increasing the turret modifier for the
direct fire weapon attached to a ZAD from 3x Size to 4x size to account for
greater range of elevation, faster turning time, etc.
> At 8:01 AM -0800 12/2/03, Brian B wrote:
The volume of the turrets on the Gepard or on the ZSU23/4s speaks
volumes about this.
http://afvinteriors.hobbyvista.com/gep/gepard1.html
That screams ADS Enhanced to me.
Sorry, I can't resist....
> --- Ryan M Gill <rmgill@mindspring.com> wrote:
> The volume of the turrets on the Gepard or on the
And it does so with volume.....
(After achieving Triple-entendre perfection, he waits
with Zen-like tranquility for the arrival of the Narns....)
[quoted original message omitted]
> --- "K.H.Ranitzsch" <KH.Ranitzsch@t-online.de> wrote:
> As an alternative to higher turret elevation,
Hmmmm.... perhaps allowing a vehicle to be equipped with the ZADFC without the
improved turret, but can only engage aircraft passing through it's medium and
long ranges (With an artificial minimum range based on gun elevation for HEL
turrets), and taking some sort of penalty aginst GMS.....
> By the way, this isn't Science Fiction anymore. A
Yup, I've watched TV shows on modern US armor crew training, and it included
using their main weapons Vs. Helos.
Putting this into DS *2* terms, ground vehicles are already allowed to make
attacks of opportunity Vs
Helos doing Pop-ups, I don't see why they couldn't
fire direct Vs. Helos in Low Flight, though I begin to
wonder about High Flight -- if you allow it, I'd
definitely impose some sort of penalty (PSB that the generalized FireCons
aren't as good at intercepting aircraft as the specialized ZADFC)......
> At 11:18 PM +0100 12/2/03, K.H.Ranitzsch wrote:
Well, can't Ground vehicles fire at VTOLs in low mode anyhow?
> --- Ryan M Gill <rmgill@mindspring.com> wrote:
> Well, can't Ground vehicles fire at VTOLs in low
They can definitely make opportunity attacks at Low
FLight VTOL's making pop-ups. I can't read my book
right now (I like being employed), so I can't verify rules for normal Low
Flight, but it stands to reason.
> At 3:43 PM -0800 12/2/03, Brian B wrote:
High mode is out as they're typically moving too fast or are too high to
engage. Low mode, in the open say, that's a valid target to me.
> --- Ryan M Gill <rmgill@mindspring.com> wrote:
> High mode is out as they're typically moving too
I don't know how much of that I agree or disagree with. I'd like to get more
input from a wider range of players.
But as I see it, there is a grid we can make. Across
the top we can list VTOL/Low, VTOL/High, and
Aerospace. Down the side we list normal Direct Fire Weapons and ADS weapons.
Two questions: Can the Given weapons system attack the given unit? And should
there be a modifier to the attack roll? The possible answers are No,
Yes/advantage to aircraft, Yes/no advantage, and
Yes/Advantage to firer.
> At 4:21 PM -0800 12/2/03, Brian B wrote:
Well, if Direct fire weapons can hit a fleeting target that is at range, why
can't they hit a similar non fleeting target at the same altitude? Is it that
they're moving? Or something else?
Just expanding my thoughts.
All of the below comments are regarding goals for House Rules regarding Air
Defense, not a discussion of what the rules ARE.....
> --- Brian B <greywanderer987@yahoo.com> wrote:
> --- Ryan M Gill <rmgill@mindspring.com> wrote:
> Well, if Direct fire weapons can hit a fleeting
NOt saying I DISAGREE either.... just wanting to get all data before I put
together a set of rules for all situations.
I pretty much agree about Tanks attacking VTOL's in
Low Mode - I think it should be allowable. Where I'm
unconvinced is in that I think maybe they should also be able to attack VTOL's
in high flight (but not Aerospace fighters), though probably with a severe
handicap.
A common house rule I've seen is to allow vehicles with LAD to use their main
gun against Low Mode targets.
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:
I believe I'm leaning towards allowing any direct fire weapon to fire on
VTOL's in low mode, but giving ZAD an advantage.