Re: Was re: RFACS but diverging into philosophic ramblings about future tech...

I think I've finally come up with a position on this topic that I'm
comfy 
with.

I regards to the quality of systems in the gam(s) as opposed to modern 
weapons systems, here's my take on it:

A Basic system..... Is the most basic system you're likely to find on
the 
battlefield at that time period -- and a Superior is the most advanced.

I know, I know, stating the obvious, but really, that's what it comes
down 
to. And remember that the time line presented with the games is
optional. If 
you want to make your setting super-advanced, where a modern AFV would
seem 
like a knight on horseback, go for it. Come up with some rules for old 
antique M1A1's and Challengers that reflect the disparity. If you want 
overlap, tell yourself that today's systems roughly equal the game's
Basic 
systems. Knock yourself out.

Because in the long run, what matters for the game is not how advanced
the 
systems are compared to today, it's how advanced they are compared to
EACH 
OTHER.... Y'know, point of reference, relativity, all that jazz. Just my

$.02

Brian B

 >inconsistent, to allow grav and FTL but not robot troops. it's not a
 >binary choice between modern or SF: there is a ladder of advancement,
 >starting with minor improvements over current tech (eg ARs with
thermal
 >imagers) and ending with the super space-age (eg robot troops). i
think
 >the Tuffleyverse is halfway up this ladder
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com