FW: RE: GZG's DS 2 Design question

--------- Begin forwarded message ----------
From: "Wilson, Glenn" <WilsonG@nima.mil>
To: "'Triphibious@juno.com'" <Triphibious@juno.com>
Subject: RE: GZG's DS 2 Design question
Date: Sat, 2 Sep 2000 12:41:33 -0400 
Message-ID: <8B9D41BEE275D3119E7E00805FBE64D30128E989@stlx4>

I am curious where that implication is stated/read.

Page 11 Weapons Fit limitations allows for multiple tube weapons (3xA,
2xB)
in turrets, "...When further weapons are added to a vehicle that already
has
a Turreted main weapon (including adding extra barrels of the same
weapons
type to make multiple mount..." seems to allow just the opposite,
multiple
mounts of dissimilar weapons types (HEL with APSW OR DFFG OR any other. 
And
the language implies it doesn't stop at two.  A size 5 vehicle could
have,
God knows why, three or more appropriately sized weapons in a turret
mounting; say, a HEL/4 (8 points,) A MDC/3 (6 points,) an APSW (2
points)
and a GMS (4 points for a total of 13 capacity points.)  four of the
allowable 5 on a size 5 vehicle, leaving room for the favored by the
masses
(including myself) PDS.  Again, the application would be certainly at
best
specialized for some niche purpose but it seems allowable even if not
normally desirable.

I see nothing on page 28 (Direct fire) that seems to limit the direct
fire
except an element cannot split it's fire between two other elements - in
our
strange vehicle above, the HEL and the MDC but not the APSW and, IMO,
not
the GMS could be fired at a target element.  And I argue the GMS COULD
be
fired but it is an increase in complication that is undesirable.  Shades
of
'...roll a bucket of dice...' is another unhappy circumstance.	Also I
have
some dislike in the idea that a GCS system and FIRECON system would be
in
the same turret and one slaved to the other - possible but the
maintenance
in reality would and in a campaign should be ghastly unpredictable... 
But
so far, I can't see why it couldn't be done.... Just don't pop it on me
in a
game when I am GM'ing without clearing it with the GM (me) prior (I may
or
may not tell your opponent but you can bet I may have an small surprise
for
you at game start - "the maintenance officer reports all the GMS's are
down
in platoon 12 and all the Firecon's for the HEL/MDC systems are down in
platoon 7.  Do you field them short a system or do they report to the
Field
Maintenance area (out of the scenario) for repairs."

Any rules I have missed?  Interpretations are just that...
interpretations,
unless Jon and company have spoken.  I agree it does seems needlessly
max-min but then, IMO, so does using only 'optimum' systems.

Gracias.
Glenn M. Wilson, Jr.
NIMA SE Asia/Oceania Regional Analyst
(314)-263-4670

-----Original Message-----
From: Triphibious@juno.com [mailto:Triphibious@juno.com]
Sent: Friday, September 01, 2000 2:42 PM
To: Triphibious@juno.com; wilsong@nima.mil
Subject: Re: GZG's DS 2 Design question

------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
--

This message was forwarded to you from Deja.com by Triphibious@juno.com.
Deja.com offers free consumer information, including ratings and reviews
on
thousands of products and services.  Before you buy, visit 
http://www.deja.com/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
--

(beginning of original message)

Subject: Re: GZG's DS 2 Design question
From: Steve Pugh <steve@pugh.net>
Date: 2000/08/31
Newsgroups: rec.games.miniatures.misc
triphibious <Triphibious@juno.com> wrote:
>  Ari Lampinen <alampine@plessey.com.au> wrote:
>
>> I would go with (A) or (C) but ditch the HEL/2 in favour of PDS. The
>> HEL/2 wouldn't be much use against size 3-5 vehicles anyway.  I would
>> probably pick (C) to make the vehicle cheaper and live with the -6"
>> long range deficit.	Note my understanding is that you can't fire the
>> HEL and MDC at the same time anyway so I don't see the point.
>
>I asked that question on the gzg-l list - gzg-l@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU that,
>IIRC, Jon Tuffley is a member of, and got the response that in such a
>case (if there could be raised eyebrows on e-mail this would have been
>noted I am sure based on the wording) then both weapons fire and each
>uses it's own bands and hit values.  If it's out of range for one but
>not the other	I assume it's just wasted (I prefer the thought there
>would be an automatic cotoff if the HEl but not the DFFG [to use an
>extreme example] was in range.)

I saw that post from JT. I think he was suggesting that as an optional
ruling. The rules as they stand do imply the opposite. He did stress
that both weapons would have to be fired at the same target.

>I am also playing with multiple barrel versus single barrel turrets and
>find that on a size 5 vehicle the range difference between 2xMDC/4 (25
>cap points) 

Um, that should be 20 cap points. 3x4 for the first barrel and 2x4 for
the second barrel. I guess that was just a typo, as we're still
talking about a size 4 vehicle (max cap 20).

>and 1xMDC/5 (15 cap points) is a trade off of 6" - although
>you COULD include a basic ADS on the latter 

Most people prefer to keep ADS systems on specialised vehicles. They
attract so much fire that they rarely get a chance to perform in any
other role. A superior PDS is better for self-defence.

	Steve

-- 
The Ground Zero Games Meta-FAQ is available at
http://steve.pugh.net/grunt/meta-faq.txt

Steve Pugh   <steve@pugh.net>	<http://steve.pugh.net/>

(end of original message)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
--

You can view this message and the related discussion by following this
link:
http://www.deja.com/thread/%3c4jlsqs0brhqfsd59kvlvgki98pr0j6ok7q@4ax.com
%3e%
231/1
We hope to see you soon at Deja.com.
Before you buy.
http://www.deja.com/
--------- End forwarded message ----------

________________________________________________________________
YOU'RE PAYING TOO MUCH FOR THE INTERNET!
Juno now offers FREE Internet Access!
Try it today - there's no risk!  For your FREE software, visit:
http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj.