Re: [GZG] a peek from FT3 on fighters/ordnance (was: Re: FT:XD changes, part 1)
From: Indy <indy.kochte@g...>
Date: Wed, 5 May 2010 07:34:18 -0400
Subject: Re: [GZG] a peek from FT3 on fighters/ordnance (was: Re: FT:XD changes, part 1)
Gzg-l mailing list
http://mail.csua.berkeley.edu:8080/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lOn Tue, May 4,
2010 at 9:01 PM, Tom B <email@example.com> wrote:
> I'm bogged at work, but I'll try to find some time to give these
> rules a whirl. Don't expect feedback quick, but I'll add it onto the
> because it seems to have some interesting aspects.
No worries! I totally understand.
> I need to be sure I understand something:
> PDS can attack any target in range (not just those attacking). ADS
> only with longer range. Yes?
> ADS should be "Area Defense System". Actually, if PDS can attack
> attacking it, calling it a point defense system may be a little
> Area Defense System and Wide Area Defense System? (ADS and WADS?) Or
> Range ADS? (LRADS or contracted to LRDS which you know the Brits would
> pronounce "Lords")
> That's all nomenclature, but if it can engage over an area without the
> precursor requirement of an attack being launched by the fighters,
> isn't point defense IMO.
I understand your reasoning. But "PDS" is very ingrained into FT. People
know what it is and what it's functionality is supposed to be. Better
renaming the system wholesale. ADS came as an extension of PDS as it
off the tongue melliflously, better than ADFC.
And CIDS would be the new "point" defense. :-)
> Looking forward to trying some of this stuff out. Not sure how it will
> small fighter contingents feel though.
This is why I'm hoping people will be able to get some table time in,
small and large fighter contingents. :-)