Re: [DS] ZADS to ZADFC HR's Part II

--- John K Lerchey <lerchey@andrew.cmu.edu> wrote:

> Ok, so my first question would be, "Why does the
> ZADFC take up capacity?"

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
> (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.

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
> > 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.
> >
> 
> Ok. my head is being fuzzy.  Provide an example of
> this? :)

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
> bigger
> > and more expensive, although the point at which it
> > will SEEM "Broken" is when you construct with an
> > actual RFAC2.
> >
> 
> 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.

Agreed.  Which is why I emphasized "SEEM".

> 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?
 
I can live with that, although I'd still like more
input on this point.

> In regards to the comment about HELs being extremely
> effective, my take
> is, "Ok, so why not?"  

Game esthetics, mostly, because I want to avoid an
OGRE/Slammer's style Aerospace-less battlefield.

=====
"Teach a man to make fire, and he will be warm for a day.  Set a man on
fire, and he will be warm for the rest of his life."   -- John A.
Hrastar

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Free Pop-Up Blocker - Get it now
http://companion.yahoo.com/