Firing missiles as a separate action is more a play-balance issue than
realism. I actually like the separate fire actions (and run my GMS/L
missile teams in pairs), as if the first shot kills the target, the second
shot can be used elsewhere or the unit can dig in.
Brendan 'Neath Southern Skies
http://home.pacific.net.au/~southernskies/
> -----Original Message-----
> The proper "checks and balances" need to be included. You
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. Any electronic address published in this message is not to be taken as a
conspicuous publication of that electronic address. The Department of
Veterans' Affairs does not consent to the receipt of "commercial electronic
messages" as that term is defined in the Spam Act 2003.
6. If you do not wish to receive further emails of this type from the
Department of Veterans' Affairs, please forward your reply to this message
Replies inline:
> -----Original Message-----
That's already subsumed into the attack roll mechanics.
> 6. Expansion of GMS classes to 1-5 (call them P, L, M,
I would think you mean LAD, here. I agree with that, actually. It makes LAD
more meaningful.
> 15. 5 classes of PDS and ZAD
Already covered by the quality of the system.
> 16. Fire-on-the-fly; allow vehicles to fire at any
Play balance issue. As soon as you remove this, all sorts of weird things
start happening. It has been errata'd to one weapon per *activiation* anyway.
> 18. Permit better Firecons to engage multiple targets
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. Any electronic address published in this message is not to be taken as a
conspicuous publication of that electronic address. The Department of
Veterans' Affairs does not consent to the receipt of "commercial electronic
messages" as that term is defined in the Spam Act 2003.
6. If you do not wish to receive further emails of this type from the
Department of Veterans' Affairs, please forward your reply to this message
Likewise, replies inline.
--On Tuesday, July 27, 2004 9:54 AM +1000 "Robertson, Brendan"
> <Brendan.Robertson@dva.gov.au> wrote:
> Replies inline:
Um... no it isn't. The direct fire attack rules give you an attack die based
on FCS vs the targets aspect. The missile attack rules give you an attack die
based on the missiles targeting system, but the defender gets an explicit ECM
roll *AND* a PDS roll *if* it has PDS. Even with PDS systems,
you do NOT get the second die vs MDC/HKP/HVC/SLAM attacks.
:)
--- "Robertson, Brendan"
> <Brendan.Robertson@dva.gov.au> wrote:
> > 5. PDS that can engage incoming MDC/HKP/HVC/SLAM
No, not for direct fire weapons it's not. Currently, that's only true of PDS
vs GMS. My point was, allow PDS to defend against all kinetic energy weapons.
> > 14. Make ZAD a Firecon system attachable to any
If I meant LAD, I'd have said LAD. I meant ZAD. Currently, a ZAD can be direct
fired as if a RFAC 2. I'm saying that you should be able to attach a ZADS
FireCon to any direct fire weapons system,giving you all the finction (plus
some) of the ADS, as well as expanded capability in the AA role. LAD, on the
other hand, is the little LOCAL air defense, and it should
be replaced by multi-role GMS.
> > 15. 5 classes of PDS and ZAD
There are currrently only THREE qualities of each. Again, I said, expand it to
FIVE.
> > 17. Remove rule permitting fire of only 1 weapon
Um...... I was speaking of DS, not SG. In DS, an element only has one
activation per turn, so you're splitting hairs on that rcount, but regarding
the play balance issue: There are less artificial ways of addressing that
issue, and if we're going to make sweeping changes anyway, why not take a look
at some of them?
Thanks to John and Glenn for the backup on this point:
> --- "John K. Lerchey" <lerchey@andrew.cmu.edu> wrote:
Although you should.
On 26 Jul 2004 at 16:55, "Robertson, Brendan"
> <Brendan.Robertson@dva.gov.au> wrote:
> Firing missiles as a separate action is more a play-balance issue than
I don't like the fact that a squad can fire IAVRs at a vehicle and then run
away, a missile team can fire a missile at a vehicle and then run away, but a
squad with a missile team and IAVRs can't fire missiles and IAVRs at a vehicle
and then run away. But that's maybe just me.
---
Can we please make sure to add [DS] or [SG] to the subject lines so we can
track which game is being discussed in which post? Thanks.
> --- Allan Goodall <agoodall@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> On 26 Jul 2004 at 16:55, "Robertson, Brendan"
G'day,
> 17. Remove rule permitting fire of only 1 weapon
We have tinkered with that as well, tying the number of weapons fired
(actually number of targets allowed) to the FC. No huge issues there either
actually. If you're a points concerned kind of person then yes the points
rules need a shake (they do anyway really), but if you're scenario oriented
then no sweat.
Cheers