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

On Mon, 1 Dec 2003, Brian B wrote:

>
> --- Ryan M Gill <rmgill@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
> *SNIP a lot of logical stuff*
>
*SNIP again for argument on size increase, though it is a good one*

> But your point about elevation remains valid.  So
> here's what I've come up with on the spur of the
> moment Ex Posteriori (Out of my A....):
>

*SNIP on explanation of accounting for how it's being done...*

> So then I thought, "OK, so the RFAC is on a special
> mount with more elevation."
>
> Thus I came up with this:
>
> Construction:
> When constructing a ZAD vehicle, you must equip it
> with a main direct fire weapon which will be mated to
> the ZADFC.  This weapon requires a special
> full-traverse turret with increased elevation ability,
> so the main weapon takes up capacity equal to 4x it's
> class as well as one weapon spot.  In addition, the
> ZADFC itself takes up capacity, but no weapon slot.
> Basic = Capacity 2, Enhanced = Capacity 7, Superior =
> Capacity 12.
>

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

> 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? :)

> 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.

> However, this brings up a construction question for
> multi-mounts -- do the extra mounts take up 2 capacity
> as per normal rules, or 3, or maybe it'll be
> 4/3/2/2/2........
>
> So the three choices are:
> 4/3/3....
> 4/2/2.....
> 4/3/2.....
>

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?

In regards to the comment about HELs being extremely effective, my take
is, "Ok, so why not?"  HELs don't necessarily required a large, heavy,
counterweighted barrel so much as they need a hell of a power source. 
So,
IMHO, they would make better ZADS than slug throwers.  In the OGRE
universe lasers were the primary reason that there were no combat
aircraft
being used.  Basically, if you flew above nap-of-the-earth, you were
burned down.

John

John K. Lerchey
Computer and Network Security Coordinator
Computing Services
Carnegie Mellon University