Prev: OT Warning: "threading" on dangerous ground was Re: St Jon's remarks Next: Re: THOSE PESKY PIRANHA BUGS

Re: DS2 Duh on Aerospace/VTOL Design

From: Glenn M Wilson <triphibious@j...>
Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2002 21:14:12 EST
Subject: Re: DS2 Duh on Aerospace/VTOL Design

On Sun, 13 Jan 2002 18:00:02 -0800 (PST) John Atkinson
<johnmatkinson@yahoo.com> writes:
>
>--- Glenn M Wilson <triphibious@juno.com> wrote:
>
>> The question came up with a VTOL Size 2 design
>> SLAM/3 (Fixed so 6 cap and
>> a DFO cap 4, 
>
>Perfectly orthodox.  Not my choice--using DFOs blows
>part of the point of VTOLs, but that's your problem.
>

Agreed

>followed by a munchkinist attempt to
>> fit multiple SLAm/3's
>> on a larger system (to vehicle size max) *plus* a
>> DFO, IIRC.  "But in
>> says 'also' type argument."
>
>That would be pretty much impossible.	SLAM/3 requires
>size 6.  Each size class allows 5 capacity points
>each.	So your size 4 VTOL can only have 3 SLAM/3s,
>and has only 2 size points left.  Etc, etc.
>
>But using 4 SLAM/2s (which is pretty pointless, they
>are too small to kill anything dangerous) on a size 4
>vehicle, plus a DFO fits onto a vehicle.  This is
>illegal, as page 11 states "No vehicle may be fitted
>with more weapon systems than its basic size class;
>thus a class-3 vehicle could carry no more than three
>weapons systems.  Multiple mounts count every barrel
>towards this limit, and a Point-defense system counts
>towards the total as well.  The only weapon NOT
>counted in this total is a single APSW, as below:"  So
>the DFO counts, and your associate is a little turd
>for trying to break the rules.
> 

I prefer to think that he has not had a sufficient amount of time to
absorb the ethos of war games, and the dangers - real and perceptual -
of
this kind of munchkinism.  What experience this individual has had is
definitely not in the vein of GZG rules but one of the 'other G'
companies which shall, like Voldemort, be unnamed.

>> Never thought of oversize aerospace or VTOL
>> vehicles.... Can you do that?
>>   Better reread rules.
>
>Page 15 states "Oversize vehicles may in general use
>whatever mobility type is desired."  I mean, how else
>do you explain the B-52?
> 
>John
>

Good point.  Definitely not a dive bomber.

Gracias,
Glenn/Triphibious@juno.com
This is my Science Fiction Alter Ego E-mail address.
Historical - Warbeads@juno.com
Fantasy and 6mm - dwarf_warrior@juno.com

________________________________________________________________
GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO!
Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less!
Join Juno today!  For your FREE software, visit:
http://dl.www.juno.com/get/web/.


Prev: OT Warning: "threading" on dangerous ground was Re: St Jon's remarks Next: Re: THOSE PESKY PIRANHA BUGS