Re: ADS--A Prayer to St Jon
From: "chubbybob" <bob@r...>
Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2000 18:14:53 +0100
Subject: Re: ADS--A Prayer to St Jon
perhaps the background thinking here is that the ADS systems go on auto
when
on active targetting systems. Ie like navl CIWS systems etc.. and
therefore
are unable to manually target ground units... Thus if you turn on the
radar
you deactivate manual override.???
Bob deAngelis
----- Original Message -----
From: "Chris DeBoe" <LASERLIGHT@QUIXNET.NET>
To: <gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu>
Sent: Thursday 28 de December de 2000 18:08
Subject: Re: ADS--A Prayer to St Jon
> Brian asked:
>
> > How do you read p.19 that way? The emphasis I provided was
> > from the book.
> (referring to)
> > > > p. 19 - ADS vehicles MAY fire at ground targets if
> > > > they do NOT currently have hteir sensors active for
> > > > defence use.
>
> May have something to do with re-reading the DBM rules over the last
couple
> of weeks?
>
> I'm reading it as "may fire *even* if" and y'all are reading it as
"may
fire
> *only* if". I just don't see why lighting off ADS would mean it
can't
fire
> at ground targets--unless the idea is to make it use its fire only in
the
> enemy's activations, not its own. Which is reasonable, and I wouldn't
be
> crushed to find out that I'm wrong.
>
>
>
From - Wed Jan 03 11:05:31 2001
Return-Path: <owner-gzg-l@scotch.csua.berkeley.edu>
Received: from scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (scotch.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
[128.32.43.51])
by lilac.propagation.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id MAA04292;
Thu, 28 Dec 2000 12:03:56 -0600
Received: from localhost (daemon@localhost)
by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.0) with SMTP id
eBSHWwE14620;
Thu, 28 Dec 2000 09:32:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (bulk_mailer v1.12); Thu, 28 Dec
2000 09:32:57 -0800
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.0) id eBSHWuv14599
for gzg-l-outgoing; Thu, 28 Dec 2000 09:32:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: from soda.csua.berkeley.edu
(IDENT:DtzWQDPbljG3pwzEWE0Jv/jWKdYiqyZj@soda.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
[128.32.43.52])
by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id
eBSHWoH14594
for <gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU>; Thu, 28 Dec 2000 09:32:50
-0800 (PST)
Received: from exchange01.dscc.dla.mil (exchange01.dscc.dla.mil
[131.74.160.11])
by soda.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.1) with ESMTP id
eBSHWnp22955
for <gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu>; Thu, 28 Dec 2000 09:32:49 -0800
(PST)
(envelope-from Brian.Bell@dscc.dla.mil)
Received: by exchange01.dscc.dla.mil with Internet Mail Service
(5.5.2653.19)
id <W6J83Y6Q>; Thu, 28 Dec 2000 12:32:23 -0500
Message-ID:
<9DB05BB477A8D111AF3F00805F5730100D10073D@exchange01.dscc.dla.mil>
From: "Bell, Brian K (Contractor)" <Brian.Bell@dscc.dla.mil>
To: "'gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu'" <gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu>
Subject: RE: ADS--A Prayer to St Jon
Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2000 12:32:22 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19)
Content-Type: text/plain
Sender: owner-gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
Reply-To: gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu
Delivered-To: gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu
Status:
X-Mozilla-Status: 0000
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
X-UIDL: 39d245de00000ab4
Thanks for your response.
The ADS system is similar to the PDS system in that it looks for
threats in the air and attempts to defend against them. The ADS
system is more sophisticated and longer ranged than the PDS as
it can also intercept missiles not directly targeted at it and
aircraft as well.
The crew of the AFV with ADS may turn off the system to "free
the weapons up" for use against soft ground targets, but otherwise
the weapon is controlled by the ADS system.
Now granted, it would seem likely that you could disable the
servos controlling the weapon without turning off the sensors,
but you would not be able to use the weapon in a ground attack
role and its ADS role at the same time. So in game terms,
you would have to do one of the following:
1) Use an action to disable the servos (SG) and then remember
that they are disabled (no marker). I think that this would lead
to forgetfulness after several units have moved.
2) Use a new marker to indicate active sensors, but no ADS
capability. This seems redundant to me.
3) Follow the rules as written. Disabling the servos also shuts
down the active sensors (why be a target). Remove the ADS
Active chit when it is expected to be used in a ground attack
role.
After having written this, perhaps you were referring to another
weapon system mounted on the same vehicle as the ADS
system? If so then we are back to the question of game mechanics:
If an AFV has 2 weapons, why can't it fire both each turn?
-----
Brian Bell
bkb@beol.net
-----
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Chris DeBoe [SMTP:LASERLIGHT@QUIXNET.NET]
> Sent: Thursday, December 28, 2000 12:08 PM
> To: gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu
> Subject: Re: ADS--A Prayer to St Jon
>
> Brian asked:
>
> > How do you read p.19 that way? The emphasis I provided was
> > from the book.
> (referring to)
> > > > p. 19 - ADS vehicles MAY fire at ground targets if
> > > > they do NOT currently have hteir sensors active for
> > > > defence use.
>
> May have something to do with re-reading the DBM rules over the last
> couple
> of weeks?
>
> I'm reading it as "may fire *even* if" and y'all are reading it as
"may
> fire
> *only* if". I just don't see why lighting off ADS would mean it
can't
> fire
> at ground targets--unless the idea is to make it use its fire only in
the
> enemy's activations, not its own. Which is reasonable, and I wouldn't
be
> crushed to find out that I'm wrong.
>
>
From - Wed Jan 03 11:05:32 2001
Return-Path: <owner-gzg-l@scotch.csua.berkeley.edu>
Received: from scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (scotch.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
[128.32.43.51])
by lilac.propagation.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id MAA07319;
Thu, 28 Dec 2000 12:17:38 -0600
Received: from localhost (daemon@localhost)
by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.0) with SMTP id
eBSHhbD14753;
Thu, 28 Dec 2000 09:43:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (bulk_mailer v1.12); Thu, 28 Dec
2000 09:43:35 -0800
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.0) id eBSHhYm14732
for gzg-l-outgoing; Thu, 28 Dec 2000 09:43:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: from soda.csua.berkeley.edu
(IDENT:Dk1+9m42nOqLeoocsb6fA+KbpS2r2n4w@soda.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
[128.32.43.52])
by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id
eBSHhXH14727
for <gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU>; Thu, 28 Dec 2000 09:43:33
-0800 (PST)
Received: from web4604.mail.yahoo.com (web4604.mail.yahoo.com
[216.115.105.159])
by soda.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.1) with SMTP id
eBSHhXp23757
for <gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu>; Thu, 28 Dec 2000 09:43:33 -0800
(PST)
(envelope-from john_t_leary@yahoo.com)
Message-ID: <20001228174329.19579.qmail@web4604.mail.yahoo.com>
Received: from [38.28.52.143] by web4604.mail.yahoo.com; Thu, 28 Dec
2000 09:43:28 PST
Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2000 09:43:28 -0800 (PST)
From: John Leary <john_t_leary@yahoo.com>
Subject: RE: [FT] SML-AF
To: gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Sender: owner-gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
Reply-To: gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu
Delivered-To: gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu
Status:
X-Mozilla-Status: 0000
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
X-UIDL: 39d245de00000ab6
Greetings,
The question that come to mind are;
1) Are you adding another phase to the turn?
(i.E. The SLM-AF attack proir to fighter
secondary movement phase)
2) Are you going to allow the SLM-AF to attack
during the 'after secondary fighter movement'
phase?
3) Scatterguns are Kra'Vak weapons, the adoption
by human forces (under any other name) smells.
I suggest that the SUBMUNITION rules be used
instead. (I.E. The SLM-AF does 2D6 as a
Submunition attack)
4) The suggestion of a 12 unit range for the
SLM-AF is rather silly, because it infers
the firing ship will never exceed speed 12/16.
I think that maintaining the intergrity of
SLM launcher concept is more important that
trying to use the SLM in a ADAF function.
5) It will become necessary to add another phase
to the turn as the ammunition selection for
the SLM grows, The 'record next turns selected
round type'.
Bye for now,
John L.
--- "Robertson, Brendan"
<Brendan.Robertson@dva.gov.au> wrote:
> It looks more usable than the original idea. It
> would certainly be a nasty
> surprise the first time it was used.
> Might I suggest that aside from the arc restrictions
> (and requiring an SML)
> that the rest is lifted strait from FB2 - scattergun
> rules? That way it
> will be consistant with those rules (including the
> drawbacks).
>
> Neath Southern Skies
> -http://home.pacific.net.au/~southernskies/
> [Pirates] Dame Captain Washalot
> [MKW2] Admiral Peter Rollins - Task Force Zulu-Beta
> [Firestorm] Battletech PBeM GM
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: bif smith [SMTP:bif@bifsmith.fsnet.co.uk]
> > Sent: Saturday, December 23, 2000 7:15 PM
> > To: full thrust
> > Subject: RE-(FT) SML-AF was more weapons
> >
> > If you are thinking along the lines of AF
> munitions/rounds for SML`s, you
> > have to compare them to scattergun packs (which
> are the nearest weapon I
> > can
> > think of for a ammo limited AF/PDS style weapon
> system). A scattergun has
> > 6
> > arc fire, doesn`t require a firecon, kills 1D6
> fighters & has a range of 6
> > MU with ADF abbilities at no extra mass/cost
> penalties. A SML AF round
> > would
> > have limited arcs, and require a minimum mass of 4
> (3 for launcher &1 for
> > round). I would give it the same kill/PDS roll as
> a scattergun, with a 12
> > MU
> > range, and can engage any fighters within 4 MU,
> and fighters have no
> > chance
> > to use secondary movement to avoid. Does this
> sound reasonable to anyone
> > out
> > there?
> >
> > BIF
> > "yorkshire born,yorkshire bred,
> > strong in arms, thick in head"
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
From - Wed Jan 03 11:05:31 2001
Return-Path: <owner-gzg-l@scotch.csua.berkeley.edu>
Received: from scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (scotch.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
[128.32.43.51])
by lilac.propagation.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id MAA04997;
Thu, 28 Dec 2000 12:05:58 -0600
Received: from localhost (daemon@localhost)
by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.0) with SMTP id
eBSHoHJ14841;
Thu, 28 Dec 2000 09:50:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (bulk_mailer v1.12); Thu, 28 Dec
2000 09:50:16 -0800
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.0) id eBSHoFp14820
for gzg-l-outgoing; Thu, 28 Dec 2000 09:50:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: from soda.csua.berkeley.edu
(IDENT:029Nuf51KAxRQ1wP9qDBKtENzpeavN9w@soda.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
[128.32.43.52])
by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id
eBSHoEH14815
for <gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU>; Thu, 28 Dec 2000 09:50:14
-0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp6.quixnet.net (psmtp6.array3.laserlink.net
[63.65.123.56] (may be forged))
by soda.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.1) with ESMTP id
eBSHoDp24359
for <gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu>; Thu, 28 Dec 2000 09:50:13 -0800
(PST)
(envelope-from LASERLIGHT@QUIXNET.NET)
Received: from hqmknt04enu ([63.88.48.82])
by smtp6.quixnet.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id MAA14236
for <gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu>; Thu, 28 Dec 2000 12:50:12 -0500
(EST)
Message-ID: <000701c070f6$88478c70$1e0aa8c0@hqmknt04enu>
From: "Chris DeBoe" <LASERLIGHT@QUIXNET.NET>
To: <gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu>
References:
<9DB05BB477A8D111AF3F00805F5730100D10073D@exchange01.dscc.dla.mil>
Subject: Re: ADS--A Prayer to St Jon
Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2000 12:49:31 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200
Sender: owner-gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
Reply-To: gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu
Delivered-To: gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu
Status:
X-Mozilla-Status: 0000
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
X-UIDL: 39d245de00000ab5
> 3) Follow the rules as written.
I think the question we were discussing was, what do "the rules as
written"
mean? Once that's clarified, then we're in good shape.
From - Wed Jan 03 11:05:32 2001
Return-Path: <owner-gzg-l@scotch.csua.berkeley.edu>
Received: from scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (scotch.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
[128.32.43.51])
by lilac.propagation.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id MAA11358;
Thu, 28 Dec 2000 12:35:15 -0600
Received: from localhost (daemon@localhost)
by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.0) with SMTP id
eBSI8Vx15090;
Thu, 28 Dec 2000 10:08:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (bulk_mailer v1.12); Thu, 28 Dec
2000 10:08:30 -0800
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.0) id eBSI8SD15069
for gzg-l-outgoing; Thu, 28 Dec 2000 10:08:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: from soda.csua.berkeley.edu
(IDENT:hE5g6JPbtQTB1Ut5ilqMne7uikLo+hf3@soda.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
[128.32.43.52])
by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id
eBSI8RH15064
for <gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU>; Thu, 28 Dec 2000 10:08:27
-0800 (PST)
Received: from exchange01.dscc.dla.mil (exchange01.dscc.dla.mil
[131.74.160.11])
by soda.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.1) with ESMTP id
eBSI8Qp26190
for <gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu>; Thu, 28 Dec 2000 10:08:26 -0800
(PST)
(envelope-from Brian.Bell@dscc.dla.mil)
Received: by exchange01.dscc.dla.mil with Internet Mail Service
(5.5.2653.19)
id <W6J83Y9W>; Thu, 28 Dec 2000 13:08:00 -0500
Message-ID:
<9DB05BB477A8D111AF3F00805F5730100D10073E@exchange01.dscc.dla.mil>
From: "Bell, Brian K (Contractor)" <Brian.Bell@dscc.dla.mil>
To: "'gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu'" <gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu>
Subject: RE: ADS--A Prayer to St Jon
Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2000 13:07:57 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19)
Content-Type: text/plain
Sender: owner-gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
Reply-To: gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu
Delivered-To: gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu
Status:
X-Mozilla-Status: 0000
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
X-UIDL: 39d245de00000ab8
Then you have to go with page 19:
"ADS vehicles MAY fire at ground targets if they do NOT currently
have their sensors active for defense use." (emphasis from book)
-----
Brian Bell
bkb@beol.net
-----
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Chris DeBoe [SMTP:LASERLIGHT@QUIXNET.NET]
> Sent: Thursday, December 28, 2000 12:50 PM
> To: gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu
> Subject: Re: ADS--A Prayer to St Jon
>
> > 3) Follow the rules as written.
>
> I think the question we were discussing was, what do "the rules as
> written"
> mean? Once that's clarified, then we're in good shape.
From - Wed Jan 03 11:05:33 2001
Return-Path: <owner-gzg-l@scotch.csua.berkeley.edu>
Received: from scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (scotch.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
[128.32.43.51])
by lilac.propagation.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id MAA11664;
Thu, 28 Dec 2000 12:37:48 -0600
Received: from localhost (daemon@localhost)
by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.0) with SMTP id
eBSI9Pg15150;
Thu, 28 Dec 2000 10:09:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (bulk_mailer v1.12); Thu, 28 Dec
2000 10:09:24 -0800
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.0) id eBSI9NS15129
for gzg-l-outgoing; Thu, 28 Dec 2000 10:09:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: from soda.csua.berkeley.edu
(IDENT:D9xEipcrop8GapWssMH0L3uURshNYEuq@soda.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
[128.32.43.52])
by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id
eBSI9MH15124
for <gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU>; Thu, 28 Dec 2000 10:09:22
-0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp3.quixnet.net (psmtp3.array3.laserlink.net
[63.65.123.53] (may be forged))
by soda.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.1) with ESMTP id
eBSI9Lp26269
for <gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu>; Thu, 28 Dec 2000 10:09:21 -0800
(PST)
(envelope-from LASERLIGHT@QUIXNET.NET)
Received: from hqmknt04enu ([63.88.48.82])
by smtp3.quixnet.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id NAA17556
for <gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu>; Thu, 28 Dec 2000 13:09:20 -0500
(EST)
Message-ID: <001601c070f9$34569130$1e0aa8c0@hqmknt04enu>
From: "Chris DeBoe" <LASERLIGHT@QUIXNET.NET>
To: <gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu>
References:
<9DB05BB477A8D111AF3F00805F5730100D10073C@exchange01.dscc.dla.mil>
<000f01c070f0$cb1fba50$1e0aa8c0@hqmknt04enu>
Subject: Ship Names
Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2000 13:08:39 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200
Sender: owner-gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
Reply-To: gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu
Delivered-To: gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu
Status:
X-Mozilla-Status: 0000
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
X-UIDL: 39d245de00000ab9
Murphy et al, Attys, also known as Muphy's Lawyers, have two light
cruisers
configured for special operations plus approximately six Night Vision
and
Night Music recon/elint corvettes. Murphy et al, based in the Huy
Braseal
system of the Alarishi Empire, offers "discrete services" (which include
counterpiracy ops, sabotage, subversion and disinformation) in addition
to
their more usual legal and arbitration services. The cruisers are
designated Julia and Mandelbrot.
From - Wed Jan 03 11:05:32 2001
Return-Path: <owner-gzg-l@scotch.csua.berkeley.edu>
Received: from scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (scotch.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
[128.32.43.51])
by lilac.propagation.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id MAA08950;
Thu, 28 Dec 2000 12:25:06 -0600
Received: from localhost (daemon@localhost)
by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.0) with SMTP id
eBSIOjg15533;
Thu, 28 Dec 2000 10:24:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (bulk_mailer v1.12); Thu, 28 Dec
2000 10:24:44 -0800
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.0) id eBSIOh115512
for gzg-l-outgoing; Thu, 28 Dec 2000 10:24:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: from soda.csua.berkeley.edu
(IDENT:ZO6P23b7zekAjfVpG6RJuifLJRXwhs3i@soda.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
[128.32.43.52])
by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id
eBSIOgH15507
for <gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU>; Thu, 28 Dec 2000 10:24:42
-0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp4s.retemail.es (smtp4.iddeo.es [62.81.31.73])
by soda.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.1) with ESMTP id
eBSIOWp27772
for <gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu>; Thu, 28 Dec 2000 10:24:34 -0800
(PST)
(envelope-from bob@retemail.es)
Received: from default ([62.174.67.148]) by smtp4s.retemail.es
(InterMail vM.4.01.03.00 201-229-121) with SMTP
id <20001228182430.YLYG187612.smtp4s.retemail.es@default>
for <gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu>; Thu, 28 Dec 2000 19:24:30 +0100
Message-ID: <003401c070fb$3f20f2c0$9443ae3e@default>
From: "chubbybob" <bob@retemail.es>
To: <gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu>
References:
<9DB05BB477A8D111AF3F00805F5730100D10073E@exchange01.dscc.dla.mil>
Subject: Re: ADS--A Prayer to St Jon
Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2000 19:23:02 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400
Sender: owner-gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
Reply-To: gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu
Delivered-To: gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu
Status:
X-Mozilla-Status: 0000
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
X-UIDL: 39d245de00000ab7
Bell, Brian K said
> Then you have to go with page 19:
>
> "ADS vehicles MAY fire at ground targets if they do NOT currently
> have their sensors active for defense use." (emphasis from book)
Brian and Chris I think at this point we are all agreed.. HOWEVER where
we
disagree is that one school take the converse of this to mean
ADS vehicles MAY NOT fire at ground targets if they DO currently
> have their sensors active for defense use." (My emphasis)
The problems lie in what the rules don't say.. I personally like the
auto
target and auto fire approach that means no manual control when in
anti-air
mode ..ie sensors on no ground fire..
Bob deAngelis..