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

--- Yves Lefebvre <ivanohe@abacom.com> wrote:

> 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.

Wow, and looking down to see that "2" or "3" next to
your tank's side will take all of what, 5 seconds?  I
don't see this as being all that difficult.

> - 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.

So establish a clearer more definitive rule for
determining angle of attack.

> - Having bigger front armor value will make the
> vehicule harder to destroy,
> thus making the game last longer.
>
> 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 can't really think that's a serious concern.	But if
you really want to limit armor to make games go
faster, then establish limits to armor as part of the
design system you use.	Remember, a lot of this is
predicated upon making the costing system independent
of the construction rules, so that you can come up
with a myriad of different design parameters, but a
uniform system for determining the combat value of the
vehicles.  So if you don't WANT more powerful armor,
don't ALLOW it in your game.

 
> >> >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).

We're speaking specifically about the Direct Fire
Weapons already in the game:  MDC, HKP, HVC, HEL, and
DFFG.  Of those 5, I can't see why any of them should
not be able to engage an air target as slow-moving as
a VTOL.

> >> >16. Fire-on-the-fly; allow vehicles to fire at
> any
> >> >point before, during, or after movement.

*snip*

> Might be good if properly done.

That's a big "IF", but worth the effort IMHO.
 
> > > 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.

That's a valid point, but it seems more like a reason
to be cautious as to how such a change would be
implemented, not yet a reason to toss it out
altogether.

> 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).

A few ideas might include penalties to accuracy for
secondary/tertiary or later targets, etc.

=====
"In life, you must try and be the type of person that your dog thinks
you are."

- Anonymous

	
		
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail