Re: Campaign costs
From: Michael Llaneza <imperialdispatches@y...>
Date: Thu, 18 May 2000 12:36:55 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: Campaign costs
--- Mikko Kurki-Suonio <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> I was reading through Lightning Strike (from DP9) last night. Apart
> the "have these guys repackaged Votoms and Gundam in their own
> backgrounds, or have they done it" feeling, an interesting facet I
Yep. I'm not sure about Votoms, but there is an awful lot of Gundam in
Okay by me, I like the larger solar system DP9 uses, rather than the
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
game that have a higher campaign cost than their tactical value. The
battleship in the basic rules is less useful in one battle than 2
but possibly much more useful in a campaign. I believe that the tactical
may even be a little low for a few of ships if you don't limit exos to
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
factor than a construction cost. Cost of construction might be a bit
see also email@example.com
When they took the fourth amendment, I was quiet because I didn't deal
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
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.