Prev: Re: FT Confusion Next: Re: NAC/Japanese relations (was: Re: Anti-US bullshit...)

Re: Obstacles, Part 3

From: Ground Zero Games <jon@g...>
Date: Tue, 5 May 1998 11:30:10 +0000
Subject: Re: Obstacles, Part 3

>Um, realizing that there is a problem with the measure/countermeasure
argument
>- it can go on ad infinitum.  How about just mines and mine-clearing
>equipment, of several grades of effectiveness? (Basic, Enhanced,
Superior?)
>
>However, don't stop the ideas - they are neat.
>

These are not {OFFICIAL} rules suggestions - just some thoughts for
discussion....

Agreed that this is an interesting discussion, and detailed
mine/antimine
rules could form a good scenario basis, but I also agree that some
simple
and abstract rules for resolving these operations in the course of a
game
would probabaly be best for most purposes. As suggested above, how about
rating both mine and mineclearing systems as Basic, Enhanced or Superior
tech, and make a mineclearing operation a simple opposed roll between
the
mine tech and the clearing tech? Success by the clearer means X metres
of
minefield is now safe, success by the mines means they've missed some
(!)
and critical success by the mines means the engineers get blown
up.......

Jon (GZG)

Prev: Re: FT Confusion Next: Re: NAC/Japanese relations (was: Re: Anti-US bullshit...)