Re: [SG] - Turn Sequence Idea

Owen Glover spake thusly upon matters weighty: 
> Has anyone heard of this style of turn sequencing before or played it?
how
> much do people think it would effect teh flavour of the game?

Well, I've seen advances directly into the face of an enemy unit 
because the player knew that the enemy unit could not fire, or dashes 
across wide open areas where no one had a chance to interrupt. So I 
can see where one might want to do this. But I can see some issues 
here too:

1. Battle plan: It's kind of hard to execute one when the units you 
want to move first move last and vice versa. If I want 1 squad to 
(for example) run up and blow the door off a bunker and the second 
squad to close assault the occupants.... this is thorny if the 
assaulters activate first. 

2. Do you think the command elements should be activated this way? It 
sure seems that goes against the spirit of the game. The game is 
about choices, and command control. This flavour would be about 
random chance and the ebb and flow of battle.  Maybe leaving the 
command elements able to activate at any point in place of a card 
draw would be useful. 

Plus, do you use two separate decks and alternate between them (one 
for each player) or do you allow for that awful random chance where 
one player gets (for example) five or six activations in a row before 
the enemy can react? Yikes! 

This might be a viable option, but it would certainly want to be 
tested out a few times. I think it offers a potential imbalance and 
it seems to take away from your ability to react and plan. Maybe that 
is fair, maybe not. 

Tom. 
/************************************************
Thomas Barclay		     
Voice: (613) 831-2018 x 4009
Fax: (613) 831-8255

 "C makes it easy to shoot yourself in the foot.  C++ makes
 it harder, but when you do, it blows away your whole leg."
 -Bjarne Stroustrup
**************************************************/