GZG List archives -- February 2008

Number 138 of 200 messages in this Archive
[Date Prev] Main Index [Date Next]
[Thread Prev] Thread Index [Thread Next]

Re: [GZG] [OFFICIAL] Question: was Re: [SG3]: What if?





On Feb 11, 2008 12:56 AM, K.H.Ranitzsch <kh.ranitzsch@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
John Atkinson schrieb:

> bots = "I don't like being limited by morale rules and supressions"
>
> IMHO.
>
> That may not be why you're saying it.  It's why some people are saying it.
>
> It removes a major strength and emphasis of the rules.  A game where
> robots dominate (and they will, if you allow them to be more or less
> infantry immune to morale and supression with no balancing
> disadvantages) will not be Stargrunt.

Robots should be subject to suppression and morale in a fashion similar
to other troops.

Why ?

A trooper becomes suppressed when his immediate surroundings become too
dangerous to continue with his mission - a robot that ignores this would
very soon become a heap of scrap metal.

Going on with this, if you set it up so robotic units do not take suppression, then they should drop a die type for each suppression marker they would otherwise take. So yeah, one can have morale-less units, but it's then increasingly easier to hit and disable them.

Least, that's how I see it being game-able.

Mk

_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://mead.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l


  • Prev by Date: Re: [GZG] Genghis Con: Age of Eagles and others
  • Next by Date: Re: [GZG] [OFFICIAL] Question: was Re: [SG3]: What if?

  • Previous by thread: Re: [GZG] [OFFICIAL] Question: was Re: [SG3]: What if?
  • Next by thread: Re: [GZG] [OFFICIAL] Question: was Re: [SG3]: What if?

  • Main Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Archive Index

    roger@nospam.firedrake.org
    Generated: Sat Mar 15 02:07:24 GMT 2008