RE: Philosophy/Design of SF War Games

--- "Robertson, Brendan"
<Brendan.Robertson@dva.gov.au> wrote:

> > 5. PDS that can engage incoming MDC/HKP/HVC/SLAM
> > attacks.
> 
> That's already subsumed into the attack roll
> mechanics.

No, not for direct fire weapons it's not.  Currently,
that's only true of PDS vs GMS.  My point was, allow
PDS to defend against all kinetic energy weapons.

> > 14. Make ZAD a Firecon system attachable to any
> direct
> > fire weapon
> 
> I would think you mean LAD, here.  

If I meant LAD, I'd have said LAD.  I meant ZAD. 
Currently, a ZAD can be direct fired as if a RFAC 2. 
I'm saying that you should be able to attach a ZADS
FireCon to any direct fire weapons system ,giving you
all the finction (plus some) of the ADS, as well as
expanded capability in the AA role.  LAD, on the other
hand, is the little LOCAL air defense, and it should
be replaced by multi-role GMS.

> > 15. 5 classes of PDS and ZAD
> 
> Already covered by the quality of the system.

There are currrently only THREE qualities of each. 
Again, I said, expand it to FIVE.

> > 17. Remove rule permitting fire of only 1 weapon
> > system per turn
> 
> Play balance issue.  As soon as you remove this, all
> sorts of weird things
> start happening.  It has been errata'd to one weapon
> per *activiation*
> anyway.

Um...... I was speaking of DS, not SG.	In DS, an
element only has one activation per turn, so you're
splitting hairs on that rcount, but regarding the play
balance issue:	There are less artificial ways of
addressing that issue, and if we're going to make
sweeping changes anyway, why not take a look at some
of them?

=====
"In life, you must try and be the type of person that your dog thinks
you are."

- Anonymous

		
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail