Re: [DSII] Air Defense

John wrote:
> LAD:	Appears to be incredibly useless.  Costs 75 points and does
nothing
except self-defense, even if the aircraft does a DFO on the infantry
platoon
400 to the left.  12" range overall, which makes it useless for vehicles
to
carry, as any self-respecting aerospace jock is going to be packing
GMS/H
for popping vehicles.  Proposed fix: All it to target ANY aerospace
units in
12", but only one per turn, making you sweat when and where to use it in
a
heavy aerospace environment.  This system is nearly ineffective unless
grouped in units of at least 2.
>
> By capacity cost, and based on the 'fluff text', this system can best
be
thought of as a Stinger-style GMS/L/AA, but with most of the range being
'up' and not 'out'.  Perhaps allowing it to target VTOLs at ranges of up
to
24 might be a useful change?

I agree.

>From my site at: http://valley.150m.com/Dirtside/Aerospace.html
If in Range, any Local Area Defence can Attack
If a element equipped with a LAD system and is within 12" of a enemy air
vehicle, it can attack the air vehicle as if the element were being
attacked
by the air vehicle. Like all area defence fire, this does NOT cause the
unit
to lose its own activation chance. This models typical anti-aircraft
fire,
which is fired by every unit capable of it.

Also, just because the table ends, Area Defence does not end. The Local
or
Zone Area Defence still can fire at aerospace craft that would have
flown
nearby, if the table was larger. We believe that the points cost of LAD
in
the rules is too expensive. We suggest that a points cost of 15 points
is
more appropriate. Also a capacity of 1 point is better suited to the
system.
Some in our group suggest that LAD is actually an abreviation of
Laughable
Air Defence!

> ZADS: By rules mechanics, this is a conventional autocannon.	Based on
the
capacity changes, one can imagine that the various grades represent
different calibers of autocannon (23/57/85??).	In this case, they
should be
treated differently for purposes of ground combat.  Instead of being
treated
as an RFAC/2, they should be treated as twin-linked RFAC/1, /2, or
HVC/3.
This would then make the capacity ratings make sense, the guns plus a
blanket 5 points of capacity for the sensors and electronics.  We know
they
are entirely automated because they are highly effective vs. GMSs, and
no
human has that kind of reflexes.

And from: http://valley.150m.com/Dirtside/Combat%20and%20Armour.html

Other Weapons for Area Defense Systems
To use another direct fire weapon system (other than RFAC/2, HVC/3 and
HVC/4
equivalents), mount your chosen twin weapons in a turret, and work out
the
cost for the twin weapons. Multiply the cost by ten and that is the
price of
the system in points.

The range of the system is equal to long range of the individual weapon
systems. To make this system consistent with the current ADS, the DSII
basic
ADS/ZAD should only have range of 24" (RFAC/2 max. range), and the DSII
enhanced ADS/ZAD should only have a range of 32" (HVC/3 max. range).

The ADS quality die is based on the size of the weapon: size 1 to size 5
is
D4 to D12 respectively. Draw damage chits equal to size class of weapon.
Even though two weapon systems are fitted, only one set of damage chits
are
drawn. Damage validities as per existing ADS damage validities, i.e. all
chits count.

If you want, you can use a single weapon instead. Just install it in a
turret, and multiply the points cost by 10. But, only RED chits are
valid.
If you want ALL chits valid, multiply the points cost by 20 instead of
10.

Or you can install quad weapons. Just install them in a turret, and
multiply
the points cost by 5. ALL chits will be valid.

You could install three weapons in turret, multiply by 5, but you will
only
get RED and YELLOW chits valid.

> The cost of ZADs is prohibitive.

I'd agree. I've assumed it's because it's a defence against aerospace
which
are higher cost, and because of the number of times the weapon can fire.
If
the weapon only fires when the unit activates, then the points cost
should
be a lot lower, perhaps 1/10 ?

Andrew Martin
ICQ: 26227169 http://valley.150m.com/
-><-

----- Original Message -----
From: "John Atkinson" <johnmatkinson@yahoo.com>
To: <gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu>
Sent: Sunday, September 08, 2002 7:13 AM
Subject: [DSII] Air Defense

>
> Air Defense is one of the stickiest subjects in
> designing a DSII orbat.
>
> Most of my opponents have not been really
> aerospace-intensive.	I myself have rarely brought
> aerospace assets to the table.  So, admitting
> ignorance, here's what I glean from the RULES.
>
> Two types of ADA assets, ZADS and LADS.
>
> LAD:	Appears to be incredibly useless.  Costs 75
> points and does nothing except self-defense, even if
> the aircraft does a DFO on the infantry platoon 400 to
> the left.  12" range overall, which makes it useless
> for vehicles to carry, as any self-respecting
> aerospace jock is going to be packing GMS/H for
> popping vehicles.  Proposed fix: All it to target ANY
> aerospace units in 12", but only one per turn, making
> you sweat when and where to use it in a heavy
> aerospace environment.  This system is nearly
> ineffective unless grouped in units of at least 2.
>
> By capacity cost, and based on the 'fluff text', this
> system can best be thought of as a Stinger-style
> GMS/L/AA, but with most of the range being 'up' and
> not 'out'.  Perhaps allowing it to target VTOLs at
> ranges of up to 24 might be a useful change?
>
> ZADS: By rules mechanics, this is a conventional
> autocannon.  Based on the capacity changes, one can
> imagine that the various grades represent different
> calibers of autocannon (23/57/85??).	In this case,
> they should be treated differently for purposes of
> ground combat.  Instead of being treated as an RFAC/2,
> they should be treated as twin-linked RFAC/1, /2, or
> HVC/3.  This would then make the capacity ratings make
> sense, the guns plus a blanket 5 points of capacity
> for the sensors and electronics.  We know they are
> entirely automated because they are highly effective
> vs. GMSs, and no human has that kind of reflexes.
>
> The cost of ZADs is prohibitive.  In a 5,000 point
> game, a pair of Enh ZADS vehicles (724) is 15% of the
> cost.  I do not understand why this is so.  I doubt
> the procurement cost of an air defense system (guns
> and firecontrol alone) should be greater than that of
> a top-end medium tank.  I attempted to verify that,
> but could not find a straight answer on the internet
> anywhere as to what a TriAD turret costs.  [OO, why
> can't these things be put up where everyone can read
> them??  :)].
>
> The model is also very odd.  The quality of the system
> affect 3 things: The morale effect on the pilot, the
> ability to 'burn through' the ECM jamming the fire
> control, and the damage done to the aircraft. These
> are three seperate factors.
>
> I do not know for sure about the first factor, but I
> feel it should probably be fairly independant of
> weapon size.	I mean, once you're 'locked onto' by an
> ADA system, I doubt there is much time to sit down and
> decide "Oh, it's a FAN SHROUD class radar, which is
> the Target Acquisition system for second-line 85mm SP
> systems. . . "  No, they probably go "Look, I'm
> illuminated, better start evasive maneuvers and dump
> decoys and have my back-seater start jamming him."
>
> Ability to target through ECM is totally independant
> of weapons size and is the only factor the completely
> dependant on the electronics.
>
> Damage done, however, is a factor of weapons size.
> Note that the damage is not resolved as most
> twin-linked weapons systems are, but is instead one
> extra chit drawn.  This simulates the fact that you're
> not likely to get a direct hit, but instead fill the
> air with fragmentation.
>
> So:  My ADS fix is as follows:
>
> Weapon:  Size 1-3 (Counting GMS as class 1 and 2)
> Range vs. missles equals the short range of the basic
> system.  Range vs. aircraft equals 1.5x the max range
> of the basic system except for missle, which use their
> standard range.  Weapons of size 4&5 are too large to
> slew fast enough to be effective.  Cost of weapon is
> doubled.  Count GMSs as being 15 or 25 points.  Cost
> is doubled to represent special mount required.  A
> second weapon may be added to guns only.
>
> Targeting System:  Flat 5 capacity points.  Costs
> 75/150/225.  Quality of targeting system controls the
> roll vs. ECM.  As per a LAD, multiple ADS systems may
> help each other, upgrading the dice rolled as far as
> d12.
>
> Damage as per weapon, but GMS/L and GMS/H do 2 and 3
> chits of damage respectively.  This is not altered by
> number of units firing.  Presumably the cumulative
> effect of ADS represents an aircraft maneuvering out
> of one system's engagement envelope, and right into
> someone else's.
>
> Opposed roll between the quality of ADS and Command
> marker is changed so that the ADS player rolls a d6,
> upgraded by 1 for each additional ADS system firing on
> the aircraft.
>
> This makes GMS/L/ADS the equivelant of a LAD on a
> vehicle with an air search radar and superior
> targeting systems.  Which makes sense.  It's now also
> a game of when you want to target the enemy
> aircraft--if you do it at the max range of your laser
> system then it's the only one that can help.	But if
> you wait, your missle and guns can join in.
>
> I'm not happy about the range ruling, but it's the
> only one that makes sense.  After all, the book ZADS
> can engage at 36" which is 1.5x24" which is max range
> of RFACs.  Perhaps 36" is a limitation built into the
> nature of the fire control?  Any suggestions here?
>
> John
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Finance - Get real-time stock quotes
> http://finance.yahoo.com