Prev: Re: Planetary Forces (was Anti-Grav) Next: Re: Anti Grav......

Re: Anti Grav......

From: Darryl Adams <dadams@t...>
Date: Wed, 23 Apr 1997 04:29:15 -0400
Subject: Re: Anti Grav......

Ground Zero Games wrote:
> I've always thought along the same lines, and originally the grav bits
> DSII and SGII were mainly for completeness and to keep it generic, as
> 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
> around the 1st of April by any chance, were they...?) certainly give
> to some interesting thoughts. In game terms, I still tend towards
> grav tech expensive and even unreliable (as in needing lots of
> support backup) simply as a mechanic for limiting its over-use on the
> tabletop. Grav is great for the units that REALLY need it
> 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).

I was slightly disapointed with the Grav Vehicles in SGII/DSII. I felt
that They would be a step up in VTOL technolagy (able to do pop up
attacks and still have heavy armour).

And given that Fast Grav gives almost the same abillities at 40%


Prev: Re: Planetary Forces (was Anti-Grav) Next: Re: Anti Grav......