Re: Well, too interesting to drop all of the posts in thisthread...

Yves Lefebvre wrote:
> 
> >> >3. Allow for a greater variety of armor levels on
> >> all
> >> >sides of vehicles.
> >>
> >> Sure, although this slightly complicates angle of
> >> attack since you now
> >> have at least three values (top being only relevant
> >> for top attacking
> >> systems.)
> >
> >Actually, 6 values:	front, rear, top, bottom, and
> >sides.
> 
> I think this might slow down the game for 3 reasons :
> 
> - You have to remember more stat (as opposed to 1 value that you add 1
or
> not depending if it's the front) or take the time to look it up on
your
> data sheet.

I don't think that would be that big a deal. It takes a second to
look at the sheet, and most people I've gamed with do that anyhow,
with their current designs, if only to double-check.

> - Might create more argument about the angle of attack : Since you can
> have, let say, front armor 8 and side 3, some degree (angle) will do a
big
> difference. Since not all people play with vehicule bases, determining
> precisely which side get hit is problematic and will be lot more
important
> than it is now.

Again, I don't really think this would be much of a problem (except for
those rules lawyers who aren't really playing the *game*). Angles of
attack
are fairly well delineated in DS2 already (see also big diagram on p32
:-)

> - Having bigger front armor value will make the vehicule harder to
destroy,
> thus making the game last longer.

Now *that* I can see being a factor in making games longer (and at the
same
time I think would force players to maneuver more to try to get side
shots
if at all possible, use terrain more in order to move to get those side
shots AND/OR to keep fronts to the enemy, etc). 

> Personnaly, I like the lenght of game that DS2 gives. The current
armor
> rule may not reflect reality but are good for the game itself.

I'm interested in playing with adjusted armour rules. I just haven't had
time to come up with a scheme to determine a way to do it fairly in the
current design system. :-/  [I say, waiting for Oerjan to do this, since
he is so much better equipped to do so ;-) ]

Mk

> >> >6. Expansion of GMS classes to 1-5 (call them P, L,
> >> M,
> >> >H, and SH if you like)
> >>
> >> Sure, then they could be costed like 'guns'.
> >
> >Well, not exactly like them, but it would definitely
> >add flavor.
> 
> Good point. More variety (different range) for that particular weapon
will
> be good.
> 
> >> >11.  Expanded rules for Biped Vs. Quadruped+
> >> walkers,
> >> >walker speeds independent from "Infantry
> >> walker/combat
> >> >walker/transport walker" designations
> >>
> >> Well that could be done for all modes of movement.
> >
> >Currently, all other modes of movement are based on
> >mobility type.  For walkers, it's based on function.
> 
> Good. This make things simpler.
> Fast legs/Slow legs mobility or something like that.
> 
> >> >13. Allow direct fire weapons to engage High Mode
> >> >VTOL's
> >>
> >> HEL's Yes, MDCs seems Logical, HKP maybe.... DFFG
> >> Maybe not?
> >
> >If a modern MBT main gun can do it, why not a DFFG?
> 
> I can see game reason to prevent some weapons to do that. It create
more
> diversity and gives the vehicule designer more choice (difficult
choice I
> should say) when creating his army. If you want a truly generic SF
game,
> some weapons should not be able to fire in the air (ground effect
disruptor
> or something like that).
> 
> >> >16. Fire-on-the-fly; allow vehicles to fire at any
> >> >point before, during, or after movement.
> >>
> >> Okay, might make more complicated direct fire but if
> >> done right...
> >
> >This change would almost necessitate the further
> >expansion of opportunity & defensive fire.
> 
> Might be good if properly done.
> 
> > > 17. Remove rule permitting fire of only 1 weapon
> > > system per turn
> 
> Not sure I like this one. If you combine this option and number 16
above,
> you may have game turn that take much more times and more argument
about
> which weapons from which vehicule has been fired or not this turn.
> 
> I see the limit as a game balance thing. If you can put severe
limitation
> to avoid vehicule firing more than once per turn too often, it might
work.
> Finding the right balance might be more difficult (if your aim is to
keep
> the game length like it is).
> 
> Yves