Re: [GZG] [DSII] Precision Strike

Ryan Gill wrote:

 >>I think so, yes. Aircraft should be able to attack from above the 
"less-than-
 >>theater" AA's range, but at greatly reduced accuracy. Exactly what
altitude
 >>would be "safe" from the MADS and lesser systems will vary with time
- 
today
 >>it is around 15,000', tomorrow it will no doubt be higher; but if the

MADS can
 >>only reach 120mu *horisontally* it won't be able to reach much
further
 >>*vertically*... so there will always be an altitude above which you
need 
even
 >>bigger AA weapons than MADS to hit the high-flying aircraft.
 >
 >Are BUFF style Strikes Modeled into DSII at all?

No. Neither are any other high-altitude attacks by smaller craft flying 
above the range of tactical AA systems. That's yet another of the
reasons 
why DS2's aerospace rules are obsolete, and why any attempt to add "more

realistic" AA rules which nevertheless "go with the flow" of the DS2 AA 
rules will automatically be obsolete themselves...

 >>When they have weapon ranges of 10-15 kilometers, they are most
definitely
 >>*not* covered by DS2's "ZAD" (aka "ADS") system (which only has a
range 
of 2.4
 >>km). These 10-15 km ranges do however very nicely bracket the very
range 
you
 >>specified for your "MADS" system...
 >
 >Ok, what's an All in one ~120mu type all in one system?

2S6M Tunguska (SA-19 missile range 10km vs low-flying aircraft, but the 
Tunguska is also armed with shorter-ranged cannon), SA-8 Gecko (range 
15km), RBS23 Bamse (range 15 km, though that one's debatable - the
radars 
and launchers are all on the same unit, but the crew and controls can be

detached if desired)... Of course all of these can also benefit from
using 
data provided by external surveillance radars if it is available, but
they 
don't *need* it to engage.

 >Do you want to have a size slide with superiority so you can put your 
superior
 >system in one chassis with the launcher? Sounds like there needs to be
a
 >technical level as well. DSII has generally assumed increased
capability was
 >bigger and more expensive. How are you lads going to do that in DSIII
and 
keep
 >it elegant and un-Battle-Techish?

Essentially by returning to the DS1 concept of vehicle design, ie.
"write 
down whatever stats you consider appropriate for the vehicle you want to

model, then use the published DS3 points system to figure out how many 
scenario points it costs". We'll probably provide some sort of design 
guidelines for the GZGverse powers during the Xeno War period as
examples 
of how one can create one's own design systems for specific backgrounds,

but none of those guidelines will be compulsory; the *points* system
OTOH 
will be.

Why this? Because if DS3 is to be a generic game it'll need to be able
to 
cover as many different SF ground combat backgrounds as possible. Since 
every combat SF background has its own restrictions on what technologies

are available and how big and heavy they are, it is impossible to write
a 
single design system which covers each and every one of them without
being 
horribly complex - think "Fire Fusion and Steel", then raise that level
of 
complexity to the power of the number of different combat SF backgrounds

you can list... the "write down the stats you consider appropriate, then

use the published points system to determine the points cost" gives
pretty 
much the same end result but with a lot less effort :-/

 >>Sure, but in DS terms all that means is that you get an opposed die
roll
 >>between the missile's Guidance Quality and the radar's ECM level. It 
doesn't
 >>say squat about what die size the radar's ECM has to use - it could
still
 >>range from "None" (D4) all the way up to "Superior" (D10) :-)
 >
 >Guidance quality die vs target size die (modified by stealth and
emissions)
 >and target ECM die

Or simply use the standard DS2 GMS rules: guidance quality die vs ECM
die...

 >>Nope. Nowadays emitting *doesn't* necessarily reveal your position,
at 
least
 >>not if your ECM capabilities are better than the enemy's. Modern
radars can
 >>also be *very* low-powered and still get astonishingly good returns;
cf. 
eg.
 >>the claimed detection ranges for the F-22's radar system compared to
the
 >>ranges where said radar's emissions can be detected by older
aircraft.
 >
 >Aren't modern systems effectively proof against some of the older tech

barring
 >an operator that's asleep? ie mostly automated and fast?

Automation is a double-edged weapon. It works very well as long as the 
enemy uses his old equipment in the same old ways as the automaton is 
programmed to recognise, but if the enemy comes up with new ways to use
his 
old gear the automatons can surprisingly often mis-interpret the signals

they detect... and when that happens, it can take a very alert operator 
indeed to realise that something is amiss :-/

 >Also, if your tech level is capable of making heads and tails of a low
power
 >emission, then the equivalent tech level is capable of making heads or

tails of
 >your emissions which will have similar strength.

Like Derk said, this is not necessarily true with today's modern
equipment. 
It *used* to be true though, back when the stories on which DS2 was
based 
were written... :-/

 >Unless your emitter has a really huge receiver array in which case
you've 
got a
 >honking big target die.

You mean "a honking SMALL target die", or "a honking big SIGNATURE". A
BIG 
target die in DS means that you have a SMALL signature, and that you're 
therefore *difficult* to detect.

However, once again your assumption - "a big reciever array gives a big 
signature" - is not necessarily true with today's technology. It *used*
to 
be true back when DS2's source material was written though :-/

 >>In the future it can get even more interesting: the next generation
of AA
 >>tracking systems will most likely be passive ones which don't need to
emit
 >>*anything* towards the enemy aircraft. [...]

Derk asked why I called this "next generation": because we're talking 
primarily about land-based AA systems here (as opposed to systems
mounted 
on aircraft or wet-navy ships), and AFAIK there aren't any land-based AA

systems using purely passive surveillance and tracking systems in
service 
yet. If there is one in service, I'd be very interested in hearing about
it :-)

 >Then they're not emitting anything and it's high resolution passive 
sensors in >other >words. Kind of a different animal.

A different animal in real-world technical terms... but they do the same

job as the AA target tracking and acquisition radars, only stealthier. 
DirtSide's game mechanics don't care about the exact physical principles
an 
AA unit's surveillance and tracking equipment uses to detect and track 
targets; all that matters in the game is 1) how good the AA unit is at 
detecting and engaging enemy aircraft and 2) how likely it is that the
AA 
unit will itself be detected by the enemy while it is shooting at said 
aircraft. Passive surveillance and tracking systems make it possible to 
build ADS/MADS/etc. systems which can search for enemy aircraft
*without* 
making themselves shining beacons the way DS2's ADS rules claim they
should.

 >Hard to have an ARm if you don't emit. But, once you get a fixed
target 
point,
 >a floating PGM can then be tasked with hitting that fixed point that 
revealed
 >itself. This level of fencing seems beyond the ARM/Anti-ARM game.

Not at all. Technically speaking the PGM won't be an "ARM" since it
doesn't 
home on to the Radiation emitted by the target, but in game terms the 
difference is minimal: ARMs are tasked with hitting a target that
revealed 
itself, and your "floating PGM" is *also* tasked with hitting a target
that 
revealed itself. The only differences between them are the exact 
PSB-technical details of how that target revealed and the probability
that 
it will be revealed at all; the game mechanics aren't anywhere near 
detailed enough to bother with the PSB-technical details, so for the
game 
rules all that matters is what die size the AA unit uses in the opposed
die 
roll determining whether or not it has been revealed. Whether you call
that 
die "ECM", "Signature" or something else is pretty irrelevant :-/

Regards,

Oerjan
oerjan.ariander@telia.com

"Life is like a sewer.
  What you get out of it, depends on what you put into it."
-Hen3ry

_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
http://lists.csua.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l