RE: Star Grunt 2 : Whenit finaly comes together.

IMHO the concerns about points systems should not be that great. Unless
one is involved in a tournament then the game should run along scenario
lines devised by a third party. 

In reality any contact/firefight will never be "balanced". At the level
of SGII (Company/Squadron) the forces involved would never give a
definite outcome if facing off on equal sizes ie Coy vs Coy. Most likely
outcome is going to be both sides withdraw or a Pyhrric victory. 

For an assault situation most modern armies operate on odds of (MINIMUM)
3 to 1. And if you are facing a dug in well sited defensive position you
better hope for plenty of armour or engineer and arty as well!!

For that matter about AFVs; I really think that SGII is not designed as
a tank vs tank game. MICVs and infantry with the occasional tank thrown
in to give the grunt a bad hair day!?
> ----------
> From: 	Darryl Adams[SMTP:root@tig.com.au]
> Sent: 	Monday, 26 May 1997 11:46
> To:	FTGZG-L@bolton.ac.uk
> Subject:	Star Grunt 2 : Whenit finaly comes together.
> 
> 
> While thrashing the game around for the second time (my and my mate
> have
> spent more time on DSII as we had more figures prepared), we noticed a
> few
> things.
> 
> 1. Once we realised that there is no multible dice on armour, weapons
> et
> al, the game is very smooth. The thing that slows things down is
> determining damage, but again this is reasoable.
> 
> 2. Different weapons have different abilities between DSII and SGII.
> RFAC-2 kicks ass in SGII! I have almost abandoned them in DSII as they
> are
> like popguns, but in SGII our APC's where very vicous. The only tank
> in
> the game was a light GEV tank killer that was taken out by a RFAC-2 in
> the
> first turn!
> 
> 3. Ranges for vehicals are almost meaningless. Whiel my friend argues
> that
> all the weapons are too short in SGII, I feel that any target bigger
> than
> size 2 makes ranges almost obsolete (again my Tank killer was taken
> out at
> reasonably long range IMHO)
> 
> 4. POINT SYSTEMS! This is needed for competive play. I tabled 1 squad
> (8
> men) of NAC trrops , 2 squads (4 men) Power Armour, 1 tank killer
> (size 2)
> 1 command vehical (size 2)1 Inf walker (size 1) 2 grav APC and 1
> Attack Grav
> vehical. The Enemy was 4 sqauds (6 men) (1 support squad with 2  size
> 1
> mobile weapons) , 4APC's, 1 missile APC. I honestly thought he would
> win, and 
> since I set the senerio that my squad was a recon force against a
> recon in
> force, I gave him a round head start till I brought in th power armour
> (by
> grav). It ended up a draw with myself as a partial winner as I manage
> to
> halt his company.
> 
> 5. Weapons : The use of Heavy weapons as man portable weapons is not
> clearly defined, and makes things like close assults against them hard
> to
> interprate (We desided that since I did not reach him in the firt
> combat
> move, his free shot allowed it to be used, but it got confused in the
> actual close combat).
> 
> 6. Power armour rules!
> 
> 7. GMS Missiles against infantry is a good thing, better than heavy
> weapons, especially if you have multable launchers	 
> 
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> --------
> Darryl Adams
> dadams@tig.com.au
> 
> "The rich kid becomes a junkie,
> The poor kid , advertising,
> What a tragic waste of potential
> Being a junkie is not great either"
> 
> TISM : "Greg the Stop Sign"
> 
>