Prev: Re: RE: FT Scenarios (was: Re: [GZG] Re: Points systems) Next: [GZG] [FT] Scenarios (was: Re: [GZG] Re: Points systems)

Re: RE: FT Scenarios (was: Re: [GZG] Re: Points systems)

From: John Tailby <john_tailby@x...>
Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2006 10:56:07 +1300
Subject: Re: RE: FT Scenarios (was: Re: [GZG] Re: Points systems)


> 
> From: "Laserlight" <laserlight@quixnet.net>
> Date: 2006/01/13 Fri AM 10:37:03 GMT+13:00
> To: <gzg-l@lists.csua.berkeley.edu>
> Subject: Re: RE: FT Scenarios (was: Re: [GZG] Re: Points systems)
> 
> St Jon said:
> > So should the mission cards carry deployment guides as well, or is
> > that too restricting? Should that be left up to the player (apart
> > from any scenario-specific stuff such as deployment of convoys,
> fixed
> > installations etc)?
> 
> Have that be a separate set of cards:
> "Deploy 1/4 way down the table, facing away from the table center"
> "Deploy in two groups, at with at least 1/3 your NPV and at least 30
> mu apart"
> "Deploy from jump"
> etc

I'm not sure I like to be told how to deploy my forces. I'd like to have
the strategic options of how to do the mission.

As has aready been said, any scenario restrictions that take away your
ability as the player to make what you consider to be the best decisions
reduce your enjoyment.

John

_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
http://lists.csua.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l

Prev: Re: RE: FT Scenarios (was: Re: [GZG] Re: Points systems) Next: [GZG] [FT] Scenarios (was: Re: [GZG] Re: Points systems)