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

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

From: John K Lerchey <lerchey@a...>
Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2003 17:07:00 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Re: [DS] ZADS to ZADFC HR's Part II

On Mon, 1 Dec 2003, Ryan M Gill wrote:

> At 4:23 PM -0500 12/1/03, John K Lerchey wrote:
> >
> >Ok, so my first question would be, "Why does the ZADFC take up
> >Normal FCS do not, regardless of effectiveness (Basic, Enhanced,
> >Superior).  If they don't and you're making the ADS have it's own
> >control, why not just apply a flat capacity for the extra system, and
> >the *cost* be based on the effectivness.
> Look at a Gepard. Search Radar, Tracking Radar, processing computers,
> Antennas, Sights, controls for indicating the approach of bad
> aircraft, IFF systems, etc. Sure they get smaller in the future, but
> why is a ZAD Superior a Large vehicle only? It's what, 25 capacity
> for a ZAD Superior?

I sit corrected.  In DSII the ADS actually does take more capacity based
on effectiveness (B=10, E=15, S=20), so I'm happy enough with both your
explanation and the rules support of it. :)

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

Well, it appears that Jon actually didn't *base8 the ZADS on anything in
particular.  He made them a completely generic system and gave them
fire as a way to do *something* against ground targets just as all tanks
in Close Assault fire at each other as an IARV regardless of what they

As to the the lasers themselves, this is a quote from the rules:

"When engaging "hard" (armoured) targets, HELs use a single very high
energy pulse; when they need to engage infantry or other dispersed
targets, a lower power setting enables the weapon to "sweep" an area
rapid-fire bursts of much lower intensity.  Such area fire does,
have a much shorter effective range as the lower-energy beam is much
susceptable to the effects of atmospheric attenuation."

This is not reflected in the rules, as all HELs fire out to 60".  The
difference is in the chit validity against target types. <shrug>

I think that based on this, there is no good reason that HELs would not
make fine ADS.



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

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