Re: [GZG] DSIII q

Grant,

I think that your comments are very constructive - especially when they 
are mapped to "what works in a convention setting?"  I purposely left
out 
most of the artillery (the base defenders had two mortar teams, but they

were only good against deployed infantry, and I don't think that the 
K'hiff ever did deploy them!).

As to my mistakes with the rules, I must admit the combination of weekly

changes and modifications and too little sleep definitely had a negative

impact on my ability to keep things straight.  As OA pointed out to me
in 
a seprate mailing, the changes that have been made in the last 6 months 
actualy contribute to me NOT knowing what I'm doing 'cause I mix up what

is with what used to be.

On that note, I'm gonna try something completely different for ECCX. :)

J

John K. Lerchey
Assistant Director for Incident Response
Information Security Office
Carnegie Mellon University

On Fri, 3 Mar 2006, Grant A. Ladue wrote:

>>
>> On Fri, 3 Mar 2006, Grant A. Ladue wrote:
>>
>>>    Yeah, but what kind of cover keeps a blaster from shooting at you
from
>>>  above?  They would have had to break for cover behind a building,
and at
>>>  infantry movement speed, they'd have been long dead before they
reached it.
>>>
>>
>> Well, if you think about it, even entering Close Assault, you're at
least
>> 2mu distant, which is 200 meters.  You might be marginally "above"
them,
>> but infantry are really really really good at taking cover in small
places
>> (compared to vehicles).  Men can lay down, scrunch up, fold, staple
and
>> mutilate.  Oh... wait.  That's not quite right. ;)  But you get the
idea.
>> Even from on the hill where the AA units were initially deployed,
those
>> grav tanks were around a kilometer away from the infantry.  No way
that
>> they were high enough to fire down INTO the positions.  They weren't
>> flying. :)
>>
>
>    Well we definitely did something wrong there then.  :-)  Although I
could
>  argue that power blasters don't really need to see the specific
infantrymen
>  to fire away at them.  Entombment is plenty good enough.
>
>
>>>    Perhaps the answer is to have a mechanism for "hopeless"
firefights where
>>>  the side that can't shoot back can disband its unit and end the
firefight
>>>  before the other guy can creep up to it.  Just a thought off the
top of my
>>>  head.
>>>
>>
>> Or just keep piling on the fire to force the infantry to accumulate
>> stress. They'll break eventually. :)
>>
>> John
>
>   :-)  Yeah, I get that.  I'm just saying that in a convention
setting, that
> can be an extended period of time where everyone else isn't doing
anything.
> Minimizing that is a good thing.  I know that a lot of it is that
we're not
> yet really familiar with the new system and therefore don't know how
to use it
> to avoid this.  Still, my first look at it made me feel like putting
in a few
> things to help limit one or two firefights being the *entire* game
would be a
> good thing.  I'll happily concede the point if repetitive play in a
similiar
> setting shows that it doesn't come up often enough to be a concern. 
I'm
> concerned though, because I've been to many a convention and the only
games
> I didn't enjoy were where the scenario setup or the game rules left me
unable
> to do *anything* for most of the game.  For DSIII I'm a bit concerned
that the
> "shaken" result which forces unit to go to cover may often force one
player's
> forces entirely to cover.  If a long firefight or firefights occur
after that,
> you may never reach the end of the turn that allows those units to get
back
> into action.	I'm thinking that some mechanism for keeping things
flowing to
> turn end points is a good thing, especially in the convention type
games.
>
>   Our game at ECC was ~ 3 to 3.5 hours of play, and the entirety of
the game
> was 3 firefights in the first turn.  We probably had 2 more to go to
the end
> of the turn (we had 2 more mbt units to ram home).  I didn't get a
close look
> at the other game, but I thought it was similiar.  I like how DSIII
plays, but
> I'm not sure that one turn convention games are a good idea.
>
>   I want to make sure that you understand that I'm not being critical
of the
> game system or how it's been developed.  I'm just thinking out loud
about
> what might be a flow issue in the game.  I rather enjoyed the faster
movement
> speeds and the morale.
>
>
>
>  grant
> _______________________________________________
> Gzg-l mailing list
> Gzg-l@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
> http://lists.csua.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l
>
>
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
http://lists.csua.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l