RE: Anti Grav......

>Mike sez... (among some snippage)
>>
>>I can see those Indonesian gunskimmers now.......
>
>For once, so can I.  My mother sent me that clipping from the paper. 
>I may have to rethink my attitude about 'Grav' vehicles, now magrep
>or repulsorlift or somesuch seems less nonsensical. Grav vehicles are
>usually the first
>things to go in my altogether gritty, relatively lo-tech near future. 
>
>Gene

I've always thought along the same lines, and originally the grav bits
in
DSII and SGII were mainly for completeness and to keep it generic, as
some
backgrounds that we anticipated people wanting to play in had very
prominent antigrav (SW for one). [OK, grav crept into the "official"
timeline, though I sometimes wished it hadn't... :)].
However, these reports (assuming they are correct - they weren't
published
around the 1st of April by any chance, were they...?) certainly give
rise
to some interesting thoughts. In game terms, I still tend towards making
grav tech expensive and even unreliable (as in needing lots of high-tech
support backup) simply as a mechanic for limiting its over-use on the
tabletop. Grav is great for the units that REALLY need it
(rapid-response
forces, first wave interface assaults etc) but is too costly to use in
situations where a good old wheeled/tracked carrier will do instead.

Jon (GZG).