Re: GZG DS2 Mikko: Genres for DS2.

On Sun, 6 Sep 1998, Andrew Martin wrote:

>     The WRG rules model the differences so indifferently, that most
players
> don't play in certain periods with some nationalities as they know
that
> certain combinations are ineffective, even though they were effective
in
> WWII. For example, early war German tanks can't destroy French and
English
> tanks. Also, mid war German tanks can't destroy Russian tanks.

Well, I never said it didn't have it's share of shortcomings, though I
don't recall anything quite that bad. Which edition are you playing?
 
> >Shockforce - fast, simple, easy to remember, no counters. Unlike most

>     Then why bother to play it? 

I don't understand you. Being fast easy and fun is not reason enough to
play? Or was it about the background world? Then I shouldn't play any
GZG
games either as I really don't care for the official background at all.

> >Warzone - really, if you ignore the super-duper-hyper crap, the basic
> >rules are quite sound.
>     I thought the twin engine, one man helicopter, particularly odd. 

That's *exactly* what I mean by the super-duper-hyper crap. Throw all
the
idiotic stuff and cyber-shit away, just take some basic squads and
leaders
and equip them somewhat reasonably (i.e. the captain does *not* get the
biggest gun) and it's quite nice.

E.g. bracing heavy weapons. It's a nice, good rule. Except that everyone
worth his salt takes enough cybercrap/whatever to boost their strength
high enough to ignore the penalty, so it never really shows up in play. 

>     Keep the powerguns as Jon Tuffley wrote them. 

With no point value...

> Any missile that comes
> flying towards Hammer's Slammers GEV's is automatically destroyed. The
CO
> can mutter ironically, "They bought guided missiles to a Power Gun
fight?"
> The crew can laugh in unison, as they track the missiles and detroy
them in
> flight with quick main gun blasts. 

I'm going to chop off most of your solutions for brevity, because I feel
they fall into two categories. This, I feel, is the worse one:
Arbitrarily
disallowing something for no good logical reason. 

I'm sorry, but "you just can't do that" simply doesn't cut the mustard
in
my book. 

Jon's article, while a very good read, fails in that it does not provide
any actual rules for the Slammers' very common ability to shoot down
aircraft, missiles and artillery shells almost at will. Heck, he doesn't
even rate the supertank a simple PDS. What makes this omission even
worse
is that this ability is the very justification for the entire existance
of
the regiment. See "The Warrior" for what Drake feels will happen to an
armored force left without this defense -- rapid death by AT artillery.

And in a "brind-n-battle" environment, it needs a point value.

> By the way, Hammer's Slammers fight like the US in the Vietnam War
era.

The US in Vietnam didn't have too much trouble with ATGM's, I seem to
recall...  Drake's justification isn't entirely logical, but he knew
he'd
have to get rid of the rapidly advancing missile technology somehow to
justify big gun MBTs as viable future war machines.

>     Develop a device called a shield generator and give it a size
rating.

This is the other category of your solutions: A house rule. While it
could
work, I did previously say that making rules and playtesting them is
what
I think I am paying the publisher for. 

If I have to weigh the time and trouble of properly testing a house rule
for system X vs. just buying system Y that already covers the issue, the
rule has to be *very* minor, or I have to like X *very,very* much to
justify the work.

> The armour erosion rules that RL uses are a variant of DSII armour and
> penetration rules. They are really a horrible system!

Actually, I found it fun. Not realistic, sure, and a bit slow to play,
but
fun nonetheless.

>     Reduce GMS damage to 1 per size class. GMS/L = 1 chit. GMS/H = 2
chits.

Now, this is actually a worthwhile suggestion. Except that it probably
throws the balance off the other way, making GMS too expensive for what
it
can do.

>     Yes, but can you suspend your disbelief long enough? 

I find it easier to accept that a slightly silly looking vehicle
has a place on the battlefield than a blanket "you just can't do that"
going against published rules.

-- 
maxxon@swob.dna.fi (Mikko Kurki-Suonio) 	   | A pig who doesn't
fly
+358 50 5596411 GSM +358 9 80926 78/FAX 81/Voice   | is just an ordinary
pig.
Maininkitie 3C14 02320 ESPOO FINLAND | Hate me?    |	      - Porco
Rosso
http://www.swob.dna.fi/~maxxon/      | hateme.html |