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

Actually HEL in anti-infantry mode are 36 inch range weapons.

On Mon, 1 Dec 2003 17:07:00 -0500 (EST) John K Lerchey
<lerchey@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
>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
>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.
>>
>> 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 
>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.
>>
>> 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 
>direct
>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
>carry.
>
>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 
>with
>rapid-fire bursts of much lower intensity.  Such area fire does, 
>however,
>have a much shorter effective range as the lower-energy beam is much 
>more
>susceptable to the effects of atmospheric attenuation."
>
>This is not reflected in the rules, as all HELs fire out to 60".  The 
>only
>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.
>
>:)
>
>J
>
>John K. Lerchey
>Computer and Network Security Coordinator
>Computing Services
>Carnegie Mellon University
>
>

________________________________________________________________
The best thing to hit the internet in years - Juno SpeedBand!
Surf the web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER!
Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today!