Re: Campaign costs

--- Mikko Kurki-Suonio <maxxon@dram.swob.dna.fi> wrote:
> I was reading through Lightning Strike (from DP9) last night. Apart
from
> the "have these guys repackaged Votoms and Gundam in their own
> backgrounds, or have they done it" feeling, an interesting facet I
> noticed:

Yep. I'm not sure about Votoms, but there is an awful lot of Gundam in
there.
Okay by me, I like the larger solar system DP9 uses, rather than the
more Earth
orbit focus in Gundam.
 
> Lightning Strike gives units two different costs. I.e. they admit that
> some units are more valuable in a campaign environment than in one-off
> battles, and adjust costs accordingly.

And for players of LS, be very careful about taking capital ships in a
one-off
game that have a higher campaign cost than their tactical value. The
CEGA
battleship in the basic rules is  less useful in one battle than 2
destroyers,
but possibly much more useful in a campaign. I believe that the tactical
values
may even be a little low for a few of ships if you don't limit exos to
the
number of bays on the ships in action (will try that next game). 
 
> Admitting the facts is groundwork for any progress.

> Perhaps this is something we could use?

As an idea, definitely. However, the Threat Values are more of a
balancing
factor than a construction cost. Cost of construction might be a bit
different.

=====
Michael Llaneza
see also maserati@flash.net
http://imperialdispatches.editthispage.com/
When they took the fourth amendment, I was quiet because I didn't deal
drugs. 
When they took the sixth amendment, I was quiet because I was innocent. 
When they took the second amendment, I was quiet because I didn't own a
gun. 
Now they've taken the first amendment, and I can say nothing about it."

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Send instant messages & get email alerts with Yahoo! Messenger.
http://im.yahoo.com/