From: Brian Bell <bkb@b...>
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2000 07:14:16 -0500
Subject: RE: was: PDS vs. IAVR/LAW/SMAW/etc.
Your point is valid. There are a number of house rules that you could employ to address your point (apply ONE, not all). 1) Allow the ADS to fire with full effectiveness against all missiles targeted against the ADS vehicle. If the ADS is also protecting other vehicles, count all missiles attacking the ADS vehicle as THE FIRST missile for calculating the diminishing returns for protecting other vehicles. 2) Force PDS to have diminishing returns. This may make missiles too effective. If this is done, I would also suggest limiting the number of times a missile system may fire by making it ammo dependant and costing out the missile ammo (like artillery). 3) Change the rule from "This (die) type is reduced by one for every extra missile above the first..." to "This (die) type is reduced by one for every element, that is targeted by missiles, that the ADS is defending...". This applies the penalty per extra missile target rather than per extra missile. I understand the diminishing returns rule for the ADS. The ADS should be less efficient providing protection for multiple vehicles against multiple missiles. What makes the ADS so big and expensive is the ability to cover more than just itself. And remember that the diminishing effect due to multiple missiles is a per-attacking-unit penalty. If unit A fires 3 missiles at unit X, protected by superior ADS, the ADS gets to roll a d6 for each missile. If then unit B fires 2 missiles at unit X, still protected by the superior ADS, the ADS get to roll a d8 for each missile. ----- Brian Bell bkb@beol.net http://members.xoom.com/rlyehable/ds2/