Re: Uplift FT (was Re: Am I a Republic revisionist?)
From: agoodall@c...
Date: 12 Dec 2000 11:24:45 -0800
Subject: Re: Uplift FT (was Re: Am I a Republic revisionist?)
On Tue, 12 December 2000, Corey Burger wrote:
>
> Hey, us Canucks get even less for our dollar!
Uh... no we don't.
I did a currency conversion from the Bank of Canada's web site (as of
today's n
oon time rate). $1 Canadian equals $0.6559 US. $1 Australian equals
$.05421 US.
$1 Canadian gets $1.2099 Australian.
Of course, the silly thing is that this means nothing. Our dollar isn't
"worth
less" just because it doesn't trade at 1-to-1 with the US. It's worth
less if t
he average person has less buying power in one country than another.
I've found
most people have an understanding of this (as they have to do currency
convers
ion all the time). However, I've met a lot of Americans who laugh at us
because
our dollar is "worth less" than theirs. (They are usually stunned,
though, to
find out how much cheaper CDs and DVDs are up here, though, so we do get
SOMETH
ING out of the deal. *G*).
I wish we had called our dollar something else... like the Loon or
something (i
nside joke. *G*).
Allan Goodall - agoodall@canada.com
__________________________________________________________
Get your FREE personalized e-mail at http://www.canada.com
From - Wed Dec 13 16:39:13 2000
Return-Path: <owner-gzg-l@scotch.csua.berkeley.edu>
Received: from scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (scotch.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
[128.32.43.51])
by lilac.propagation.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id NAA29352;
Tue, 12 Dec 2000 13:51:31 -0600
Received: from localhost (daemon@localhost)
by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.0) with SMTP id
eBCJp2058674;
Tue, 12 Dec 2000 11:51:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (bulk_mailer v1.12); Tue, 12 Dec
2000 11:51:01 -0800
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.0) id eBCJp0i58653
for gzg-l-outgoing; Tue, 12 Dec 2000 11:51:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: from soda.csua.berkeley.edu
(IDENT:wtutrbgBPogIIj/d3rpoSH2OdhicY38o@soda.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
[128.32.43.52])
by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id
eBCJowP58647
for <gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU>; Tue, 12 Dec 2000 11:50:58
-0800 (PST)
Received: from babu.pcisys.net (stanczyk@babu.pcisys.net
[207.76.102.243])
by soda.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.1) with ESMTP id
eBCJovf24693
for <gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu>; Tue, 12 Dec 2000 11:50:58 -0800
(PST)
(envelope-from stanczyk@babu.pcisys.net)
Received: from localhost (stanczyk@localhost)
by babu.pcisys.net (8.9.0/8.9.0) with ESMTP id MAA09088
for <gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu>; Tue, 12 Dec 2000 12:50:55 -0700
(MST)
Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2000 12:50:55 -0700 (MST)
From: Mike Stanczyk <stanczyk@pcisys.net>
To: gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: Uplift FT (was Re: Am I a Republic revisionist?)
In-Reply-To:
<4.3.2.7.0.20001212092504.00abc7d0@burgundavia@pop.crosswinds.net>
Message-ID: <Pine.SOL.4.05.10012121237380.8974-100000@babu.pcisys.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: owner-gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
Reply-To: gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu
Delivered-To: gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu
Status:
X-Mozilla-Status: 0000
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
X-UIDL: 39d245de00000869
Sorry but I lost the original poster:
> >
> > >BTW, anyone else in America find it scary that it
> > >is a tad cheaper to order GZG stuff from Eureka in
> > > Aussie-land and pay the shipping then it is to
> > >order from GeoHex with free shipping?
> >
I can believe that. But I'm always willing to pay a little more so that
the good shops can stay in business. Unless I'm really in a crunch,
I'll
always order from GeoHex and KR before my local games stores.
*start venting*
What I find to be scary is that I can order direct from GeoHex and have
the latest stuff next week, or I can order through my local games store
and
have it next September. *Sheesh* "What do you mean you couldn't order
it?
They say it doesn't exist? What is this book I'm holding in my hands
then?
A figment of your deluded imagination?"
I needed lots of ship stands and got an awesome deal with Tony at
Brigade
Models. Paid with PayPal, and even considering they came from down
under,
had them in less than two weeks! It took my local game store a week of
fighting with suppliers to tell me they couldn't order anything similar,
even from Games Workshop. *aarrrggghhh*
*end venting*
Mike
From - Wed Dec 13 16:39:14 2000
Return-Path: <owner-gzg-l@scotch.csua.berkeley.edu>
Received: from scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (scotch.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
[128.32.43.51])
by lilac.propagation.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id OAA01303;
Tue, 12 Dec 2000 14:13:45 -0600
Received: from localhost (daemon@localhost)
by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.0) with SMTP id
eBCKAUb59067;
Tue, 12 Dec 2000 12:10:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (bulk_mailer v1.12); Tue, 12 Dec
2000 12:10:29 -0800
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.0) id eBCKARr59039
for gzg-l-outgoing; Tue, 12 Dec 2000 12:10:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from soda.csua.berkeley.edu
(IDENT:E4ZxVwfZ6JofB8OK4Y+A94jnP0gaM9Tl@soda.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
[128.32.43.52])
by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id
eBCKAPP59034
for <gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU>; Tue, 12 Dec 2000 12:10:25
-0800 (PST)
Received: from maila.telia.com (maila.telia.com [194.22.194.231])
by soda.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.1) with ESMTP id
eBCKAOf28903
for <gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu>; Tue, 12 Dec 2000 12:10:24 -0800
(PST)
(envelope-from oerjan.ohlson@telia.com)
Received: from default (t1o901p41.telia.com [62.20.252.41])
by maila.telia.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA10465
for <gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu>; Tue, 12 Dec 2000 21:10:20 +0100
(CET)
Message-Id: <200012122010.VAA10465@maila.telia.com>
From: "Oerjan Ohlson" <oerjan.ohlson@telia.com>
To: <gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu>
Subject: Re: FT: Question that may be really *old*...
Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2000 20:55:11 +0100
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Priority: 3
X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1157
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
Reply-To: gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu
Delivered-To: gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu
Status:
X-Mozilla-Status: 0000
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
X-UIDL: 39d245de0000086b
Richard Bell wrote, though not entirely in the order I quote it (I've
reordered them a bit to avoid having to refer forward and back in this
post - some of the comments below got rather... long <g>):
[My post snipped - I expand on it below anyway]
>>In short, try replacing 20-40 hull boxes on each test SDN with beam
>>weapons, and watch the results change :-)
>
>The strong hull integrity was chosen so that the amount of armor did
>not exceed the amount of hull integrity in one row,
[and the reason for that was that Richard thinks that:]
>Unless you can multi-layer armor, or are certain that your opponent
>does not use p-torps, missiles or k-guns, more armor than a line of
>hull boxes does little more than offer up the potential indignity of
rolling >a threshold check while still having undestroyed armor.
Not entirely true, I'm afraid. Three points here:
* P-torps, missiles, K-guns and beam re-rolls all ignore screens
completely; the only of these which ignore armour completely is the
beam re-roll (though large K-guns come close as well). If your opponent
uses any of these in serious amounts (in the beam case, that probably
means he's Aaron ;-) ) you're almost certainly better off with armour
than with screens anyway.
* If your opponent uses a mix of P-torps/missiles and beams, the "safe"
amount of armour before you start suffering excessive numbers of
"indignities" (ie., enough to significantly change the average battle
outcomes) varies with the number of P-torps/missiles he uses. If he
goes all-out on these weapons you can still quite safely have some
20-30% more armour than 1st-row hull boxes (the lower value for
missiles, the higher for P-torps), at least on the bigger ships
(cruisers and up) since he is rather unlikely to get even results on
all his damage dice. This figure increases to about 100% more armour
than 1st-row hull boxes if he only uses beams. Of course, this depends
on your definition of "serious risk"; my own definition is "less often
than one ship in thirty-six damaged ones, and no more than 10% of the
armour boxes bypassed by the 1st threshold". (The only time I've ever
exceeded this limit was in my earliest Phalon playtest battles, but
those Phalon ships had about as much armour as they had hull boxes *in
total* so it wasn't quite unexpected <g>)
There is a *potential* to take the 1st threshold prematurely,
certainly, but unless your ships are small the probability of this
potential actually being *realised* is quite small (unless your ships
are as heavily armoured as those proto-Phalons, of course!). If you use
beam re-rolls it also exists for beams, though it is even smaller -
I've seen a previously undamaged Valley Forge NAC SDN take its 1st
threshold from a single beam die; the player rolled 9 '6's in a row,
with 7 different dice... that's just under one chance in ten million.
Talk about "indignity" :-7
* Occasionally taking the 1st threshold after losing all but a couple
of the ten or twenty armour boxes on your test SDNs and having the
remaining 1-2 armour boxes flesh out the 2nd hull row instead has a
rather small impact on the battle. In order for the premature threshold
checks to be noticable, it needs to one or more of:
- happen to the majority of the ships (in all your battles taken
together), or
- be more than about one-third of the armour that's bypassed, or
- be the *2nd* (or later) threshold which is taken before all armour is
gone (usually coincides with the previous point).
These can happen to just about any ship with more than 2 pts of armour
if the enemy has a Teske Field or large enough K-guns; for P-torps and
missiles it needs rather more armour. If you stay safely below the
percentages I outlined above the potential for "indignities" is small
enough that the only real casualty is the player's self-esteem, not his
fleet's performance (unless he screws up from sheer embarrassment, of
course <g>).
All in all, I belive that you overestimate both the risk for and the
importance of premature 1st thresholds quite a lot. This is
unfortunate, since it seems to have caused you to ignore varying the
hull strengths in your simulations - and the efficiency of screens
depends on the hull strength to a considerably higher degree than the
efficiency of the same Mass of armour does.
>[the amount of armour was chosen to] equal to the mass of the >screens
(I wanted a mass for mass comparison).
Makes the comparison simpler to implement, certainly. I consider cost
for cost comparisons to be more accurate, but then you need to look at
the cost of the entire ship rather than just of the screen or armour
itself - in your test case, you'd need to pit a TMF 200 SDN with
level-1 screens against a TMF 203 SDN with 13 boxes of armour, not a
TMF 200 one with 10 armour. With the unmodified FB1 rules the armoured
SDN would have 12 pts of armour and 1 extra hull box, but the effect is
the same. (...and the corresponding design pairs for level-2 screens,
etc.)
>I chose SDN's to level out luck and reduce the number of runs needed
>for a statistically valid sample. In these battles the ships were
pitted >against each other. Statistically, the ship with screens
destroyed the >ship without more than 50% of the time, unless there
were more than >four p-torps on the vessels.
No argument with this. My point is that *if your test ships had had
weaker hulls*, you would've gotten different results - ie., you would
have seen the screens decline compared to armour as the hull strength
went down. Since you don't seem to have done comparisons for weaker
hulls yet, I think that your simulation is currently somewhat
incomplete.
*Incomplete*, mind, not *wrong*. It does seem accurate (or at least
fairly accurate; see below) for the particular designs you used in it;
and they may well be representative for the designs you usually use in
your gaming group (the only design I've seen that I'm aware is yours is
the Sa'Vasku Starstreak). However, they're not very representative for
the mainstream designs I see on the web or in our local games: of the
726 legal non-SV FBx designs of TMF 60+ that I've seen to date, only 80
have strong enough hulls that your simulation is valid for them. For
the other almost 90% of the cruiser and capital designs I've seen, your
simulation results aren't valid simply because they're too different
from your test designs.
>In the pure beam case, the armor does not even delay the first
>threshold check (crunch the numbers, in the pure beam case, they all
>reach the first check at approximately the same time),
Hm? If your simulator says this, there's either something strange with
it or you don't use re-rolls for beams - the latter would explain quite
a bit, of course. Lessee:
Your test ships are TMF 200, so each level of screens use up 10 Mass.
Each damage row has 20 hull boxes.
Level-1 screens will delay the 1st threshold by on average 20*0.263 =
5.3 pts of beam damage if you use re-rolls, or 6.67 pts if you don't
use them. The equivalent Mass of armour delays the same threshold by 10
pts of any damage, not just beams. 5.3 isn't the same as 10; the
difference is almost half the total armour, which is quite enough to be
worrying for the screened ship. 6.67 is closer to 10, but still
different enough to have some effect.
If you use re-rolls for beam dice, your lvl-1-screened test SDN will
have the *2nd* threshold delayed by almost exactly the same number of
damage points as the armoured one (10.6 vs 10, assuming the screen
doesn't go down or - if it does - is repaired immediately). The screen
only has an advantage after the 2nd threshold, and then only if it
remains operable - which means that you need to give it DCP priority
over downed weapons. The armoured ship can devote all its surviving
DCPs to its weapons and FCSs, which means that it will statistically
have more dice to fire; with your strong-hulled test designs this edge
isn't large enough to allow it to win the battle, but for weaker-hulled
ones it certainly does. If you don't use re-rolls the screen clearly
wins by 13.3 deflected points to the armour's 10.
Lvl-2 screens delay the 1st threshold by on average 20*0.714 = 14.3 pts
of damage, compared to the armour's 20 pts. Better than for lvl-1
screens; the difference is only 2/7, just on the border of being
significant. If you don't use re-rolls, the two ships both reach the
1st threshold after 20 pts - but this is the *only* one of these four
cases where armour and screens reach the 1st threshold at the same
time. In the other three cases, armour delays the 1st threshold for a
longer time than the screen. For a hull this strong, the level-2
screens will beat armour to the other three thresholds; in the absence
of screen-skipping weapons the screened ship will almost certainly win.
(In a cost-for-cost comparison, the screen-induced delays don't change
but the armour delays are 13 and 24 pts respectively (FB2 design rules
used for simplicity) - ie., the lvl-1 screen only "catches up" after
the 2nd threshold (with re-rolls; without them the armour matches the
screen to the 2nd threshold) while the lvl-2 screen "catches up" just
before the 2nd threshold. Both cases show a noticable shift in favour
of the armour.)
However, the interesting bit is what happens if you use less hull
boxes. Here I assume that
* you do use beam re-rolls (to cut the size of the examples in half
<g>), and
* neither side uses K-guns, missiles or P-torps, since they all reduce
the screen-induced threshold delays by a larger number of damage points
than they reduce the armour-induced delays.
TMF 200, Average hull (60 hull boxes, 15 per row).
10 pts of armour delay the first and all subsequent thresholds by 10
pts of damage. Lvl-1 screens only delay the 1st threshold by 3.95 pts,
the 2nd by 7.90 pts (if it stays operating)... it delays the 3rd
threshold and the ship's destruction by more than the armour can (11.85
and 15.8 pts respectively), but these late contributions are usually
only enough to even the odds rather than to push them clearly in favour
of the screened ship.
Level-2 screens delay the 1st threshold by on average 10.7 beam pts; 20
pts of armour will almost certainly delay it by 20 pts. This difference
is significant, particularly since the odds of losing one of your
screen generators is fairly large (which forces you to divert them from
the weapons or FCSs they'd otherwise be repairing). If you can keep
them working, and still have as many weapons operating as your
opponent's ship, the lvl-2 screens catches up with the armour just
before the 2nd threshold.... *can* be enough to let the ship win, but
in my experience the odds slightly favour the armoured ship.
On a Weak hull (40 hull boxes, 10 per row) the lvl-1 screen only delays
the 1st, 2nd, 3rd and fatal thresholds by 2.6, 5.3, 7.9 and 10.5 pts
respectively. 10 Mass of armour delays them by 10, 10, 10 and 10 pts
respectively, so the screened ship only "catches up" the seconds before
it dies - and since it is likely to have a few weapons less in
operation for most of that time (since it takes its thresholds earlier
and may need to devote DCPs to repairing the screens), the armoured
ship will win the majority of these battles.
Against beams, 20 pts of armour will almost always delay the 1st
threshold by 20 pts and is almost guaranteed to delay the other three
ones by 20 pts. The lvl-2 screens delays the thresholds by 7.1, 14.3,
21.4 and 28.6 beam pts, ie. they "catch up" with the armour just before
the *3rd* threshold (again ignoring the fact that the armoured ship has
had more weapons operable for most of this time, so is likely to be
ahead anyway)... IF the screens remain operable all the time.
Unfortunately that's not very likely, and my money is firmly on the
armoured ship. Against K-guns, P-torps and missiles *both* of these
ships will suffer badly, but the armoured ship will suffer less badly
than the screened one - not that much less against K-guns, but
considerably less against the human weapons.
So, to summarize (actually paraphrase the posts that started this part
of the thread):
"[RB]> Screens win until you up number of p-torps
[OO]...provided that your hull is strong enough"
If your hull *isn't* strong enough, armour beats screens even if there
are no P-torps at all.
'Course, the best bet is to use both armour *and* screens, except
against Kra'Vak <G>
Regards,
Oerjan Ohlson
oerjan.ohlson@telia.com
"Life is like a sewer.
What you get out of it, depends on what you put into it."
- Hen3ry
From - Wed Dec 13 16:39:14 2000
Return-Path: <owner-gzg-l@scotch.csua.berkeley.edu>
Received: from scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (scotch.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
[128.32.43.51])
by lilac.propagation.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id OAA01052;
Tue, 12 Dec 2000 14:11:59 -0600
Received: from localhost (daemon@localhost)
by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.0) with SMTP id
eBCKAKB59028;
Tue, 12 Dec 2000 12:10:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (bulk_mailer v1.12); Tue, 12 Dec
2000 12:10:19 -0800
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.0) id eBCKAIZ59006
for gzg-l-outgoing; Tue, 12 Dec 2000 12:10:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: from soda.csua.berkeley.edu
(IDENT:Yv1K2mbB2Tl8mh65AnZ6jIEMdTviBUrF@soda.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
[128.32.43.52])
by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id
eBCKAGP59001
for <gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU>; Tue, 12 Dec 2000 12:10:17
-0800 (PST)
Received: from saluki-mailsmtp.siu.edu (saluki-mailsmtp.siu.edu
[131.230.252.26])
by soda.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.1) with ESMTP id
eBCKAFf28875
for <gzg-l@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU>; Tue, 12 Dec 2000 12:10:16 -0800
(PST)
(envelope-from jdarnold@siu.edu)
Received: from saluki-mail.siu.edu (saluki-mail.siu.edu
[131.230.252.17])
by saluki-mailsmtp.siu.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id OAA40486
for <gzg-l@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU>; Tue, 12 Dec 2000 14:07:41 -0600
Received: from deathstar (port85.aixdialin.siu.edu [131.230.253.85])
by saluki-mail.siu.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) with SMTP id OAA21580
for <gzg-l@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU>; Tue, 12 Dec 2000 14:07:39 -0600
From: "Jay Arnold" <jdarnold@siu.edu>
To: <gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu>
Subject: retail woes [was RE: Uplift FT (was Re: Am I a Republic
revisionist?)]
Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2000 14:08:46 -0600
Message-ID: <NEBBKHOOCLECLODFJBHIIEIECBAA.jdarnold@siu.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0)
Importance: Normal
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300
In-Reply-To: <Pine.SOL.4.05.10012121237380.8974-100000@babu.pcisys.net>
Sender: owner-gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
Reply-To: gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu
Delivered-To: gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu
Status:
X-Mozilla-Status: 0000
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
X-UIDL: 39d245de0000086a
>It took my local game store a week of
fighting with suppliers...
There's the problem. The good and bad thing about running a game store
is
that you work through suppliers (often 2-3, not counting GW). More often
than not, a retailer should be able to order something from one of their
distributors and get it within a week. If one can not, then the retailer
has
the option of "shopping around" to the other distributors and getting it
form on of them. However, some suppliers have minimum order limits (GW,
for
example) or tell the retailer that they have it when they really mean
they
can get it. Also, some stores have an "order day" when they make all
their
orders for the upcoming week (usually after they have sold enough to
fill a
minimum order). Unfulfilled orders were almost the norm when I helped
run a
store in North Carolina (Gamer's Guild, Fayetteville, sadly now
defunct).
Don't blame your retailer. If there is something you absolutely can not
live
a week without, sure go direct to the source, but please support your
local
retailer. I'm sure you do this already, but the text of your message is
a
little vague on this point.
Jay
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
[mailto:owner-gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU]On Behalf Of Mike Stanczyk
Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2000 1:51 PM
To: gzg-l@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
Subject: Re: Uplift FT (was Re: Am I a Republic revisionist?)
Sorry but I lost the original poster:
> >
> > >BTW, anyone else in America find it scary that it
> > >is a tad cheaper to order GZG stuff from Eureka in
> > > Aussie-land and pay the shipping then it is to
> > >order from GeoHex with free shipping?
> >
I can believe that. But I'm always willing to pay a little more so that
the good shops can stay in business. Unless I'm really in a crunch,
I'll
always order from GeoHex and KR before my local games stores.
*start venting*
What I find to be scary is that I can order direct from GeoHex and have
the latest stuff next week, or I can order through my local games store
and
have it next September. *Sheesh* "What do you mean you couldn't order
it?
They say it doesn't exist? What is this book I'm holding in my hands
then?
A figment of your deluded imagination?"
I needed lots of ship stands and got an awesome deal with Tony at
Brigade
Models. Paid with PayPal, and even considering they came from down
under,
had them in less than two weeks! It took my local game store a week of
fighting with suppliers to tell me they couldn't order anything similar,
even from Games Workshop. *aarrrggghhh*
*end venting*
Mike
From - Wed Dec 13 16:39:15 2000
Return-Path: <owner-gzg-l@scotch.csua.berkeley.edu>
Received: from scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (scotch.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
[128.32.43.51])
by lilac.propagation.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id OAA07520;
Tue, 12 Dec 2000 14:33:57 -0600
Received: from localhost (daemon@localhost)
by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.0) with SMTP id
eBCKUPj59591;
Tue, 12 Dec 2000 12:30:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (bulk_mailer v1.12); Tue, 12 Dec
2000 12:30:23 -0800
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.0) id eBCKULd59560
for gzg-l-outgoing; Tue, 12 Dec 2000 12:30:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: from soda.csua.berkeley.edu
(IDENT:kI742JIWVGrYXkg9EQpcyWRpYf/1ytwQ@soda.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
[128.32.43.52])
by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id
eBCKUKP59554
for <gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU>; Tue, 12 Dec 2000 12:30:20
-0800 (PST)
Received: from c008.sfo.cp.net (c008-h003.c008.sfo.cp.net
[209.228.14.192])
by soda.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.1) with SMTP id
eBCKUJf33240
for <gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu>; Tue, 12 Dec 2000 12:30:20 -0800
(PST)
(envelope-from agoodall@canada.com)
Received: (cpmta 12434 invoked from network); 12 Dec 2000 12:30:13 -0800
Date: 12 Dec 2000 12:30:13 -0800
Message-ID: <20001212203013.12433.cpmta@c008.sfo.cp.net>
X-Sent: 12 Dec 2000 20:30:13 GMT
Received: from [192.206.151.130] by mail.canada.com with HTTP;
12 Dec 2000 12:30:13 PST
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Disposition: inline
Mime-Version: 1.0
To: gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu
From: agoodall@canada.com
X-Mailer: Web Mail 3.8.1.2
Subject: Re: Uplift FT (was Re: Am I a Republic revisionist?)
Sender: owner-gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
Reply-To: gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu
Delivered-To: gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu
Status:
X-Mozilla-Status: 0000
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
X-UIDL: 39d245de0000086d
On Tue, 12 December 2000, Mike Stanczyk wrote:
> *start venting*
>
> What I find to be scary is that I can order direct from GeoHex and
have
> the latest stuff next week, or I can order through my local games
store and
> have it next September. *Sheesh*
I've seen a lot of posts on Usenet about people supporting local stores.
This i
s commendable, as local stores let you see the stuff before you buy.
However, l
ocal stores often don't do themselves any favours. They are also
hampered by th
e distribution network.
My local miniatures store was asked to order some figures for me. After
a coupl
e of months, I found out they had held back so that they could order a
whole bu
nch of stuff at once. This was to save me, and everyone else, money. But
I didn
't WANT to save money. I wanted the stuff. I ended up cancelling the
order and
getting it directly by mail.
I tried to get a rulebook in from them. No doing, because the
distributor was s
old out and and wasn't getting any more (it was a fairly low selling
one-shot k
ind of thing). I mail ordered it direct from the company. Two months
later, the
distributor did get a copy, but it was too late.
The problem is that we are in a niche market. Companies sell to
distributors, w
ho sell to stores. That's the standard in North America. The problem is
that di
stributors are pretty busy and don't want to have a whole lot of stock
that doe
sn't sell. They aren't set up to order things easily as one-shots, they
are set
up to order stuff in bulk. Often they just can't be bothered spending
time on
getting you a single $20 order. That's chump change for the distributor,
and a
whole lot of effort for little reward.
I notice that stores rarely understand what they should be getting in.
It's rar
e to find a store run by an avid fan (at least in my experience). The
local min
iatures store is a good example. The person managing it is a nice guy,
but he d
oesn't know the hobby well. When they do an order, they tend to do a
bulk order
for a whole slate of miniatures. This means, for instance, that if they
bought
FT ships, they would maybe get two or three of every NAC ship,
regardless of t
he fact that you'd probably need fewer SDNs than cruisers.
For the record, they did get some FT stuff, sold about half of it, and
haven't
sold any more. I've asked, but they haven't brought in many new ships.
They won
't put the stuff they DO have on sale, either.
The store really only survives on GW stuff, anyway. They have some good
stuff,
but they have a ton of stuff that hasn't sold and will never sell. They
don't d
iscount stuff, don't understand that it's not WORTH hanging on to some
terrain
pieces that haven't sold in 5 years in the hopes that someone will walk
in any
day/week/month/year now and buy them at full value. They see it as, "I
paid $6
for an FT ship. If I sell it for less than that, I'm out money." They
don't see
it as, "I'm maybe never going to sell these FT ships so I'm out $6 on
every on
e. Maybe if I dropped the price to $1 each to clear, I'd recoup
SOMETHING."
So, in the end, I've turned to mail order or buying from conventions.
I'm sure
others have, too. The distributors cut out TWO middlemen. I don't see
much savi
ngs from mail order (companies are loathe to kill off the stores by
undercuttin
g them) where miniatures are concerned, though board games are quite a
bit chea
per. I do get better service from mail order. And if by paying the same
on my e
nd I give the companies more money directly, that makes for a healthier
hobby.
I'm not sure, though, how healthy the hobby will be if all the stores
dry up. P
erhaps the Net will keep the hobby alive without stores. Niche hobbies
seem in
the best position to take advantage of the Net.
Allan Goodall - agoodall@canada.com
__________________________________________________________
Get your FREE personalized e-mail at http://www.canada.com
From - Wed Dec 13 16:39:16 2000
Return-Path: <owner-gzg-l@scotch.csua.berkeley.edu>
Received: from scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (scotch.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
[128.32.43.51])
by lilac.propagation.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id PAA18766;
Tue, 12 Dec 2000 15:23:31 -0600
Received: from localhost (daemon@localhost)
by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.0) with SMTP id
eBCLCY760292;
Tue, 12 Dec 2000 13:12:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (bulk_mailer v1.12); Tue, 12 Dec
2000 13:12:32 -0800
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.0) id eBCLCVk60271
for gzg-l-outgoing; Tue, 12 Dec 2000 13:12:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: from soda.csua.berkeley.edu
(IDENT:8RAXGPgq9TcUdBxCalOvXgE93fpIW05V@soda.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
[128.32.43.52])
by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id
eBCLCUP60266
for <gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU>; Tue, 12 Dec 2000 13:12:30
-0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp4s.retemail.es (smtp4.iddeo.es [62.81.31.73])
by soda.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.1) with ESMTP id
eBCLCTf41220
for <gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu>; Tue, 12 Dec 2000 13:12:29 -0800
(PST)
(envelope-from bob@retemail.es)
Received: from default ([62.174.65.31]) by smtp4s.retemail.es
(InterMail vM.4.01.03.00 201-229-121) with SMTP
id <20001212211223.SEMW116110.smtp4s.retemail.es@default>
for <gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu>; Tue, 12 Dec 2000 22:12:23 +0100
Message-ID: <024301c06480$28d96060$d242ae3e@default>
From: "chubbybob" <bob@retemail.es>
To: <gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu>
References: <20001212203013.12433.cpmta@c008.sfo.cp.net>
Subject: retail or mail order.. OT
Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2000 22:09:37 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400
Sender: owner-gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
Reply-To: gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu
Delivered-To: gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu
Status:
X-Mozilla-Status: 0000
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
X-UIDL: 39d245de0000086e
I have to admit that as a Londoner I remember fondly the many small
games
shop that once littered the London area in the 70's.. They have all
gone
now and for a while I felt it a terrible shame.. However if I am honest
I
have to admit that they rarely had the stuff I wanted and could not
afford
to carry the great variety of miniatures that the diversity of the hobby
required.. It was so frustrating to see a display sample and then be
told no
stock.. I now buy exclusively by mail order (originally from
circumstance
but now by choice). My original objections were not being able to see
before
I bought.. Conventions were ideal for this.. I believe that the net is
the
answer.. Unfortunately most suppliers have not discovered that last
little
detail that will make all the differences... Pictures.. How many times
on
lists have I seen an appeal for images of such and such a suppliers
miniatures.. Even Jon T is guilty in this respect.. heheheheh
I am a recent convert to his 6mm infantry figures which for me are the
best
6mm figs I have ever seen in any period from any manufacturer.. Had his
sight carried images I would have bought them when they first appeared
rather than by an accidental discovery of a picture on the net.... Mail
order selling over the web is fairly new but pictures are a basic
necessity
in a hobby such as ours.. I have dealt with many suppliers and as of
yet
not been badly done by by any of them.. it is also so convenient to
phone
with the little "flexible plastic friend" and being told "Nope its out
of
stock but I can mould you some for Monday"!! Mail order also has the
advantage that you get to to to the man who runs the show rather than a
go
between who really has little idea of what you are talking about.. I
remember phoning a supplier of 15mm ancients who will remain nameless to
protect their reputation. He was not available but his wife was.. She
apologised profusely and said she would try to help me.. Difficult for
her
as I was missing some product code.. I still fondly remember her
description of republican triari as "the dinky ones with the fluffy
helmets
and long pokey things"...hehehe yes mail order has a charm all of its
own
too!!..
Bob deAngelis
----- Original Message -----
From: <agoodall@canada.com>
To: <gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu>
Sent: Tuesday 12 de December de 2000 21:30
Subject: Re: Uplift FT (was Re: Am I a Republic revisionist?)
> On Tue, 12 December 2000, Mike Stanczyk wrote:
>
>
> > *start venting*
> >
> > What I find to be scary is that I can order direct from GeoHex and
have
> > the latest stuff next week, or I can order through my local games
store
and
> > have it next September. *Sheesh*
>
> I've seen a lot of posts on Usenet about people supporting local
stores.
This is commendable, as local stores let you see the stuff before you
buy.
However, local stores often don't do themselves any favours. They are
also
hampered by the distribution network.
>
> My local miniatures store was asked to order some figures for me.
After a
couple of months, I found out they had held back so that they could
order a
whole bunch of stuff at once. This was to save me, and everyone else,
money.
But I didn't WANT to save money. I wanted the stuff. I ended up
cancelling
the order and getting it directly by mail.
>
> I tried to get a rulebook in from them. No doing, because the
distributor
was sold out and and wasn't getting any more (it was a fairly low
selling
one-shot kind of thing). I mail ordered it direct from the company. Two
months later, the distributor did get a copy, but it was too late.
>
> The problem is that we are in a niche market. Companies sell to
distributors, who sell to stores. That's the standard in North America.
The
problem is that distributors are pretty busy and don't want to have a
whole
lot of stock that doesn't sell. They aren't set up to order things
easily as
one-shots, they are set up to order stuff in bulk. Often they just can't
be
bothered spending time on getting you a single $20 order. That's chump
change for the distributor, and a whole lot of effort for little reward.
>
> I notice that stores rarely understand what they should be getting in.
It's rare to find a store run by an avid fan (at least in my
experience).
The local miniatures store is a good example. The person managing it is
a
nice guy, but he doesn't know the hobby well. When they do an order,
they
tend to do a bulk order for a whole slate of miniatures. This means, for
instance, that if they bought FT ships, they would maybe get two or
three of
every NAC ship, regardless of the fact that you'd probably need fewer
SDNs
than cruisers.
>
> For the record, they did get some FT stuff, sold about half of it, and
haven't sold any more. I've asked, but they haven't brought in many new
ships. They won't put the stuff they DO have on sale, either.
>
> The store really only survives on GW stuff, anyway. They have some
good
stuff, but they have a ton of stuff that hasn't sold and will never
sell.
They don't discount stuff, don't understand that it's not WORTH hanging
on
to some terrain pieces that haven't sold in 5 years in the hopes that
someone will walk in any day/week/month/year now and buy them at full
value.
They see it as, "I paid $6 for an FT ship. If I sell it for less than
that,
I'm out money." They don't see it as, "I'm maybe never going to sell
these
FT ships so I'm out $6 on every one. Maybe if I dropped the price to $1
each
to clear, I'd recoup SOMETHING."
>
> So, in the end, I've turned to mail order or buying from conventions.
I'm
sure others have, too. The distributors cut out TWO middlemen. I don't
see
much savings from mail order (companies are loathe to kill off the
stores by
undercutting them) where miniatures are concerned, though board games
are
quite a bit cheaper. I do get better service from mail order. And if by
paying the same on my end I give the companies more money directly, that
makes for a healthier hobby. I'm not sure, though, how healthy the hobby
will be if all the stores dry up. Perhaps the Net will keep the hobby
alive
without stores. Niche hobbies seem in the best position to take
advantage of
the Net.
>
> Allan Goodall - agoodall@canada.com
> __________________________________________________________
> Get your FREE personalized e-mail at http://www.canada.com
From - Wed Dec 13 16:39:16 2000
Return-Path: <owner-gzg-l@scotch.csua.berkeley.edu>
Received: from scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (scotch.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
[128.32.43.51])
by lilac.propagation.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id QAA02080;
Tue, 12 Dec 2000 16:35:58 -0600
Received: from localhost (daemon@localhost)
by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.0) with SMTP id
eBCMTQq60959;
Tue, 12 Dec 2000 14:29:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (bulk_mailer v1.12); Tue, 12 Dec
2000 14:29:25 -0800
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.0) id eBCMTN960938
for gzg-l-outgoing; Tue, 12 Dec 2000 14:29:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: from soda.csua.berkeley.edu
(IDENT:IBZCXvB4gcJu+3tpXTXzJ2uXZs6DZ3FP@soda.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
[128.32.43.52])
by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id
eBCMTMP60933
for <gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU>; Tue, 12 Dec 2000 14:29:22
-0800 (PST)
Received: from babu.pcisys.net (stanczyk@babu.pcisys.net
[207.76.102.243])
by soda.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.1) with ESMTP id
eBCMTLf51935
for <gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu>; Tue, 12 Dec 2000 14:29:21 -0800
(PST)
(envelope-from stanczyk@babu.pcisys.net)
Received: from localhost (stanczyk@localhost)
by babu.pcisys.net (8.9.0/8.9.0) with ESMTP id PAA10322
for <gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu>; Tue, 12 Dec 2000 15:29:20 -0700
(MST)
Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2000 15:29:20 -0700 (MST)
From: Mike Stanczyk <stanczyk@pcisys.net>
To: gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: retail woes
In-Reply-To: <NEBBKHOOCLECLODFJBHIIEIECBAA.jdarnold@siu.edu>
Message-ID: <Pine.SOL.4.05.10012121501550.10035-100000@babu.pcisys.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: owner-gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
Reply-To: gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu
Delivered-To: gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu
Status:
X-Mozilla-Status: 0000
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
X-UIDL: 39d245de0000086f
On Tue, 12 Dec 2000, Jay Arnold wrote:
> Don't blame your retailer. If there is something you absolutely can
not live
> a week without, sure go direct to the source, but please support your
local
> retailer. I'm sure you do this already, but the text of your message
is a
> little vague on this point.
> Jay
No, I always try and find things locally first. But after a month of
waiting
I'll try other channels. My worry is that while I'm waiting on the
local
channels what I'm after will disappear. This is a bigger worry for some
things than others but what happens if I find out late about a product?
I also worry that distributers will refuse to carry a product just
because
they don't want the extra hassle. Do I use my support for a product (ie
money)
with the locals and risk not getting the product or do I send my support
in
a more direct way and be more assured that the producer of the product
knows?
Example 1:
Do I order the next GZG games book directly from GeoHex or do I order it
via
my local games store? The first path shows my support directly back to
the
author. The second path should do the same but if the distribtor
desides to
wait six months before adding the new book, then what? Will GeoHex or
Jon
still be in business?
Example 2:
Mage Knight miniatures. I've ordered some from my local comic book
store via
the Diamond Previews system at a good price. Now, Mage Knight has been
available via other retail stores for over a month but Diamond still has
not
shipped my Mage Knight order. (As far as I can tell, Diamond hasn't
shipped
Mage Knight to anyone.) After being burned by Pokemon and Magic, my
local
store won't order any Mage Knight directly. (This I can understand.)
But
what do I do now? I could go to another local store for them and cancel
the
Diamond order. I could try and order directly from the Mage Knight
makers.
I have stuck with my local comic store for the moment. But if Mage
Knight
flops, I may never get my order from Diamond. Then what?
Mike
From - Wed Dec 13 16:39:17 2000
Return-Path: <owner-gzg-l@scotch.csua.berkeley.edu>
Received: from scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (scotch.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
[128.32.43.51])
by lilac.propagation.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id RAA13728;
Tue, 12 Dec 2000 17:24:44 -0600
Received: from localhost (daemon@localhost)
by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.0) with SMTP id
eBCNO4l61589;
Tue, 12 Dec 2000 15:24:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (bulk_mailer v1.12); Tue, 12 Dec
2000 15:24:02 -0800
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.0) id eBCNO1j61568
for gzg-l-outgoing; Tue, 12 Dec 2000 15:24:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: from soda.csua.berkeley.edu
(IDENT:bvknxrOwPEvjSCZ9GNQHJkb/Nzrjz310@soda.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
[128.32.43.52])
by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id
eBCNNvP61562
for <gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU>; Tue, 12 Dec 2000 15:23:57
-0800 (PST)
Received: from strait.hba.marine.csiro.au (strait.hba.marine.csiro.au
[140.79.17.2])
by soda.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.1) with ESMTP id
eBCNNsf60334
for <gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu>; Tue, 12 Dec 2000 15:23:54 -0800
(PST)
(envelope-from beth.fulton@marine.csiro.au)
Received: from fulton.hba.marine.csiro.au (fulton [140.79.21.56])
by strait.hba.marine.csiro.au (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id
eBCNNF107290
for <gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu>; Wed, 13 Dec 2000 10:23:15 +1100
(EDT)
Message-Id: <4.2.2.20001213102245.00a27720@pop.hba.marine.csiro.au>
X-Sender: fulton@pop.hba.marine.csiro.au
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.2.2
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 10:23:38 +1100
To: gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu
From: Beth Fulton <beth.fulton@marine.csiro.au>
Subject: Re: Uplift FT (was Re: Am I a Republic revisionist?)
In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.0.20001212092504.00abc7d0@burgundavia@pop.crosswin
ds.net>
References: <4.2.2.20001211151948.00a381c0@pop.hba.marine.csiro.au>
<3A33BE86.6020607@ice.net>
<20001129195105.28051.cpmta@c008.sfo.cp.net>
<3A2C222B.ABB975C8@brewer.to>
<3A2D868C.1B256632@sympatico.ca>
<3.0.5.32.20001205212355.00a17a70@mail.HICom.net>
<004301c05f62$e743fc40$0100a8c0@brodm1.vic.optushome.com.au>
<001e01c06041$aafcaa40$4c468bca@avis>
<3A3017AD.20202@ice.net>
<00e801c062a3$f8c7aa40$97478bca@avis>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Sender: owner-gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
Reply-To: gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu
Delivered-To: gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu
Status:
X-Mozilla-Status: 0000
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
X-UIDL: 39d245de00000870
G'day,
>Hey, us Canucks get even less for our dollar!
Are you kidding?! Last time I looked (Monday) it was 80 Canadian cents
to
the Aussie dollar! We used to be cent for cent, sigh.
Beth
------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Elizabeth Fulton
c/o CSIRO Division of Marine Research
GPO Box 1538
HOBART
TASMANIA 7001
AUSTRALIA
Phone (03) 6232 5018 International +61 3 6232 5018
Fax 03 6232 5053 International +61 3 6232 5053
email: beth.fulton@marine.csiro.au
From - Wed Dec 13 16:39:17 2000
Return-Path: <owner-gzg-l@scotch.csua.berkeley.edu>
Received: from scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (scotch.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
[128.32.43.51])
by lilac.propagation.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id TAA15648;
Tue, 12 Dec 2000 19:15:43 -0600
Received: from localhost (daemon@localhost)
by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.0) with SMTP id
eBD0YA862593;
Tue, 12 Dec 2000 16:34:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (bulk_mailer v1.12); Tue, 12 Dec
2000 16:34:04 -0800
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.0) id eBD0Y2i62571
for gzg-l-outgoing; Tue, 12 Dec 2000 16:34:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: from soda.csua.berkeley.edu
(IDENT:4DfhPVXjMN8H2oeCueF+qp2IupT/Qmw2@soda.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
[128.32.43.52])
by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id
eBD0Y1P62566
for <gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU>; Tue, 12 Dec 2000 16:34:01
-0800 (PST)
Received: from okura.cowell.org (IDENT:root@okura.toysmakeuspowerful.com
[12.13.79.17])
by soda.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.1) with ESMTP id
eBD0Y0f71846
for <gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu>; Tue, 12 Dec 2000 16:34:00 -0800
(PST)
(envelope-from andy@cowell.org)
Received: from cowell.org (IDENT:andy@localhost [127.0.0.1])
by okura.cowell.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA11520
for <gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu>; Tue, 12 Dec 2000 19:34:05 -0500
Message-Id: <200012130034.TAA11520@okura.cowell.org>
To: gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: SG2 and Modern US squad with two fireteams
In-Reply-To: Your message of "11 Dec 2000 13:49:44 PST."
<20001211214944.3033.cpmta@c008.sfo.cp.net>
Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2000 18:34:05 -0600
From: Andy Cowell <andy@cowell.org>
Sender: owner-gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
Reply-To: gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu
Delivered-To: gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu
Status:
X-Mozilla-Status: 0000
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
X-UIDL: 39d245de00000872
In message <20001211214944.3033.cpmta@c008.sfo.cp.net>,
agoodall@canada.com wri
tes:
> On Mon, 11 December 2000, Andy Cowell wrote:
>
> > In SG2, this would be a 9 man squad with two SAWs and eight IAVRs.
> > That's a little more powerful in game terms than I'm used to playing
> > with. What does everyone else think? How are "fireteams" used by
> > the US Army, and do they jive with SG2 as written?
>
> He doesn't give standard distances between fireteams, but he does
> give some interesting commentary.
Excellent resource!! Thanks.
He seems to imply that they stay relatively close together, and are
primarily used to support the other fireteams in a squad.
> - fireteams should act like small squads, but should probably have
> some limits imposed on them. Perhaps there should be a limit as to
> the separation distance between fireteams in a squad. Sort of like
> squad integrity, but for two fireteams. This may be unnecessary, and
> it would have to be included as a house rule.
That's kinda what I was thinking-- maybe a special "FT DET" marker
for detached fireteams, which can detach at will, and move as an
independant squad, but otherwise operate within the rules.
> So, I would suggest you build one 5 man squad and one 4 man
> squad. They would share the same APC, they would set up near each
> other, but they would behave as individual squads.
But could also operate as a normal squad, neh?
> So, there's my suggestion: create two 4-man squads and one
> independent leader figure, but limit what the leader can do.
Not too keen on having that many individuals running around,
personally. I prefer the feeling of groups of fighting men, rather
than focusing so much on the squad leaders. Just how it feels to me,
I guess. I think operating as a detached squad would work.
Alternately, extend the normal chain of command a bit-- you could
allow the Squad Leader to attach to any particular fireteam under his
command, changing squad team organization as necessary.
Platoon HQ
/
/
Squad HQ }
(Fireteam 1) }
(3-5 men) }
/ \ } Squad Element
/ \ }
Fireteam 2 Fireteam 3, etc... }
(3-5 men) (3-5 men) }
Any reason a squad leader couldn't reactivate a fireteam?
Probably some good info in here:
http://www.adtdl.army.mil/cgi-bin/atdl.dll/fm/7-8/toc.htm
From - Wed Dec 13 16:39:17 2000
Return-Path: <owner-gzg-l@scotch.csua.berkeley.edu>
Received: from scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (scotch.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
[128.32.43.51])
by lilac.propagation.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id TAA13006;
Tue, 12 Dec 2000 19:03:30 -0600
Received: from localhost (daemon@localhost)
by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.0) with SMTP id
eBD0t8762986;
Tue, 12 Dec 2000 16:55:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (bulk_mailer v1.12); Tue, 12 Dec
2000 16:55:07 -0800
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.0) id eBD0t5V62965
for gzg-l-outgoing; Tue, 12 Dec 2000 16:55:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: from soda.csua.berkeley.edu
(IDENT:Bdin9bklbkTauy/FV8I8A/FLXN4okTxw@soda.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
[128.32.43.52])
by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id
eBD0t4P62960
for <gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU>; Tue, 12 Dec 2000 16:55:04
-0800 (PST)
Received: from okura.cowell.org (IDENT:root@okura.toysmakeuspowerful.com
[12.13.79.17])
by soda.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.1) with ESMTP id
eBD0t2f75068
for <gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu>; Tue, 12 Dec 2000 16:55:02 -0800
(PST)
(envelope-from andy@cowell.org)
Received: from cowell.org (IDENT:andy@localhost [127.0.0.1])
by okura.cowell.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA12560
for <gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu>; Tue, 12 Dec 2000 19:55:10 -0500
Message-Id: <200012130055.TAA12560@okura.cowell.org>
To: gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: SG2 and Modern US squad with two fireteams
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 12 Dec 2000 18:34:05 CST."
<200012130034.TAA11520@okura.cowell.org>
Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2000 18:55:10 -0600
From: Andy Cowell <andy@cowell.org>
Sender: owner-gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
Reply-To: gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu
Delivered-To: gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu
Status:
X-Mozilla-Status: 0000
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
X-UIDL: 39d245de00000871
In message <200012130034.TAA11520@okura.cowell.org>, Andy Cowell writes:
>
> Probably some good info in here:
>
> http://www.adtdl.army.mil/cgi-bin/atdl.dll/fm/7-8/toc.htm
Then again, maybe not:
"Chapter 1: Doctrine. The US Army's basic fighting doctrine is called
AirLand Battle. It reflects time proven fundamentals, the structure
of modem (sic) warfare..."
From - Wed Dec 13 16:39:18 2000
Return-Path: <owner-gzg-l@scotch.csua.berkeley.edu>
Received: from scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (scotch.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
[128.32.43.51])
by lilac.propagation.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id UAA31257;
Tue, 12 Dec 2000 20:28:58 -0600
Received: from localhost (daemon@localhost)
by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.0) with SMTP id
eBD2KD064140;
Tue, 12 Dec 2000 18:20:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (bulk_mailer v1.12); Tue, 12 Dec
2000 18:20:07 -0800
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.0) id eBD2K6d64119
for gzg-l-outgoing; Tue, 12 Dec 2000 18:20:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: from soda.csua.berkeley.edu
(IDENT:Sb15ap2McsqItCAtw2oV57QJxNK1nuxl@soda.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
[128.32.43.52])
by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id
eBD2K5P64114
for <gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU>; Tue, 12 Dec 2000 18:20:05
-0800 (PST)
Received: from tomts8-srv.bellnexxia.net (tomts8.bellnexxia.net
[209.226.175.52])
by soda.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.1) with ESMTP id
eBD2K3f87260
for <gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu>; Tue, 12 Dec 2000 18:20:03 -0800
(PST)
(envelope-from rlbell@sympatico.ca)
Received: from sympatico.ca ([64.230.73.7]) by tomts8-srv.bellnexxia.net
(InterMail vM.4.01.03.00 201-229-121) with ESMTP
id
<20001213021954.UCLT1115.tomts8-srv.bellnexxia.net@sympatico.ca>
for <gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu>; Tue, 12 Dec 2000 21:19:55 -0500
Message-ID: <3A36DCB9.B71A46C0@sympatico.ca>
Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2000 21:19:37 -0500
From: Richard Bell <rlbell@sympatico.ca>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.73 [en]C-SYMPA (Win98; U)
X-Accept-Language: en,fr-CA
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: FT: Question that may be really *old*...
References: <200012122010.VAA10465@maila.telia.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
Reply-To: gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu
Delivered-To: gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu
Status:
X-Mozilla-Status: 0000
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
X-UIDL: 39d245de00000873
Oerjan Ohlson wrote:
> >In the pure beam case, the armor does not even delay the first
> >threshold check (crunch the numbers, in the pure beam case, they all
> >reach the first check at approximately the same time),
>
> Hm? If your simulator says this, there's either something strange with
> it or you don't use re-rolls for beams - the latter would explain
quite
> a bit, of course. Lessee:
die roll
screens 1 2 3 4 5 6
none 0 0 0 1 1 2
lvl-1 0 0 0 0 1 2
lvl-2 0 0 0 0 1 1
To account for rerolls, we must multiply the average damage per die by
the
average number of rolls per die. Which is 1 + 1/6*1 + 1/6*1/6*1 + ...,
and
the result is 1.20. So the the test SDN with no screens requires twice
as
many hits as the lvl-2 SDN, but each die of beams inflicts twice as much
damage . . . DOH! (I even remember coding this factoid and being amazed
at
how little the runs changed), the point two dice are not stopped by
screens, so the lvl-2 screened ship has the first threshold, but the
screened ship does not lose enough weapons to offset the damage bonus it
inflicts on the armored ship. The other problem is that the screened
ship
probably still has at least one screen, so the armored has at most one
turn
of advantage for volume of fire.
What really skews things against the armored ship is that screens can be
repaired, but not armor. The simulation evolved as I realized mistakes
were made. The first iteration was aweful, because I forgot to
implement
the armor (no surprise about the results). The second iteration forgot
to
have any ship attempt to repair damage (the priorities were FC's if all
were down and there are weapons, screens, p-torps, beams, and spare
FC's).
The third iteration properly handled rerolls. The fourth iteration
added
initiative coin tosses for each turn. The fifth iteration added the
p-torps and the armored ship finally stopped being an unqualified
failure.
I chose strong hulls on the basis of what turned out to be a small
sample
size (my web connections were not terribly rich at first, nor did I have
time to do a lot of surfing). FB1 has a frequency of 50% for SDN's with
strong hulls. "I looked for my keys under the streetlight, not because
that was where I expected to find them, but because, it being after
dark,
it was the only place I could look for them" (wishing I said this first)
From - Wed Dec 13 16:39:18 2000
Return-Path: <owner-gzg-l@scotch.csua.berkeley.edu>
Received: from scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (scotch.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
[128.32.43.51])
by lilac.propagation.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id VAA07100;
Tue, 12 Dec 2000 21:10:56 -0600
Received: from localhost (daemon@localhost)
by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.0) with SMTP id
eBD36bk64870;
Tue, 12 Dec 2000 19:06:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (bulk_mailer v1.12); Tue, 12 Dec
2000 19:06:34 -0800
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.0) id eBD36Xl64849
for gzg-l-outgoing; Tue, 12 Dec 2000 19:06:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: from soda.csua.berkeley.edu
(IDENT:ml5t0Hz1pCEFWt6k37yp1Em6EtnKC31Z@soda.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
[128.32.43.52])
by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id
eBD36WP64844
for <gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU>; Tue, 12 Dec 2000 19:06:32
-0800 (PST)
Received: from tomts7-srv.bellnexxia.net (tomts7.bellnexxia.net
[209.226.175.40])
by soda.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.1) with ESMTP id
eBD36Vf93648
for <gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu>; Tue, 12 Dec 2000 19:06:31 -0800
(PST)
(envelope-from awg@sympatico.ca)
Received: from Toronto-ppp220858.sympatico.ca ([64.228.103.183])
by tomts7-srv.bellnexxia.net
(InterMail vM.4.01.03.00 201-229-121) with SMTP
id
<20001213030622.OXZQ1081.tomts7-srv.bellnexxia.net@Toronto-ppp220858.sym
patico.ca>
for <gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu>; Tue, 12 Dec 2000 22:06:22 -0500
From: Allan Goodall <awg@sympatico.ca>
To: gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: Uplift FT (was Re: Am I a Republic revisionist?)
Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2000 22:04:40 -0500
Organization: Haphazard at best.
Message-ID: <popd3tolqbve14o93kbc4f65kksca6u4ih@4ax.com>
References: <3A33BE86.6020607@ice.net>
<20001129195105.28051.cpmta@c008.sfo.cp.net>
<3A2C222B.ABB975C8@brewer.to> <3A2D868C.1B256632@sympatico.ca>
<3.0.5.32.20001205212355.00a17a70@mail.HICom.net>
<004301c05f62$e743fc40$0100a8c0@brodm1.vic.optushome.com.au>
<001e01c06041$aafcaa40$4c468bca@avis> <3A3017AD.20202@ice.net>
<00e801c062a3$f8c7aa40$97478bca@avis>
<4.3.2.7.0.20001212092504.00abc7d0@burgundavia@pop.crosswin ds.net>
<4.2.2.20001213102245.00a27720@pop.hba.marine.csiro.au>
In-Reply-To: <4.2.2.20001213102245.00a27720@pop.hba.marine.csiro.au>
X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.7/32.534
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by
scotch.csua.berkeley.edu
id eBD36WP64845
Sender: owner-gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
Reply-To: gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu
Delivered-To: gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu
Status:
X-Mozilla-Status: 0000
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
X-UIDL: 39d245de00000874
On Wed, 13 Dec 2000 10:23:38 +1100, Beth Fulton
<beth.fulton@marine.csiro.au>
wrote:
>Are you kidding?! Last time I looked (Monday) it was 80 Canadian cents
to
>the Aussie dollar! We used to be cent for cent, sigh.
*L* First we're posting the same comments on the playtest list, now
here? *L*
Wait... is that YOUR camera up there??? *looks up veeeerrrrryyyyy
slowly...*
Allan Goodall awg@sympatico.ca
Goodall's Grotto: http://www.vex.net/~agoodall
"Surprisingly, when you throw two naked women with sex
toys into a living room full of drunken men, things
always go bad." - Kyle Baker, "You Are Here"
From - Wed Dec 13 16:39:18 2000
Return-Path: <owner-gzg-l@scotch.csua.berkeley.edu>
Received: from scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (scotch.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
[128.32.43.51])
by lilac.propagation.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id WAA17675;
Tue, 12 Dec 2000 22:04:08 -0600
Received: from localhost (daemon@localhost)
by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.0) with SMTP id
eBD3qi865483;
Tue, 12 Dec 2000 19:52:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (bulk_mailer v1.12); Tue, 12 Dec
2000 19:52:42 -0800
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.0) id eBD3qfH65462
for gzg-l-outgoing; Tue, 12 Dec 2000 19:52:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: from soda.csua.berkeley.edu
(IDENT:IVuNNl69X1eLGnaFk5tESyPdoX+ybIrC@soda.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
[128.32.43.52])
by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id
eBD3qdP65457
for <gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU>; Tue, 12 Dec 2000 19:52:39
-0800 (PST)
Received: from strait.hba.marine.csiro.au (strait.hba.marine.csiro.au
[140.79.17.2])
by soda.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.1) with ESMTP id
eBD3qbf98149
for <gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu>; Tue, 12 Dec 2000 19:52:38 -0800
(PST)
(envelope-from beth.fulton@marine.csiro.au)
Received: from fulton.hba.marine.csiro.au (fulton [140.79.21.56])
by strait.hba.marine.csiro.au (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id
eBD3q0126288
for <gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu>; Wed, 13 Dec 2000 14:52:00 +1100
(EDT)
Message-Id: <4.2.2.20001213145120.00a34a70@pop.hba.marine.csiro.au>
X-Sender: fulton@pop.hba.marine.csiro.au
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.2.2
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 14:52:23 +1100
To: gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu
From: Beth Fulton <beth.fulton@marine.csiro.au>
Subject: Re: Uplift FT (was Re: Am I a Republic revisionist?)
In-Reply-To: <popd3tolqbve14o93kbc4f65kksca6u4ih@4ax.com>
References: <4.2.2.20001213102245.00a27720@pop.hba.marine.csiro.au>
<3A33BE86.6020607@ice.net>
<20001129195105.28051.cpmta@c008.sfo.cp.net>
<3A2C222B.ABB975C8@brewer.to>
<3A2D868C.1B256632@sympatico.ca>
<3.0.5.32.20001205212355.00a17a70@mail.HICom.net>
<004301c05f62$e743fc40$0100a8c0@brodm1.vic.optushome.com.au>
<001e01c06041$aafcaa40$4c468bca@avis>
<3A3017AD.20202@ice.net>
<00e801c062a3$f8c7aa40$97478bca@avis>
<4.3.2.7.0.20001212092504.00abc7d0@burgundavia@pop.crosswin ds.net>
<4.2.2.20001213102245.00a27720@pop.hba.marine.csiro.au>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Sender: owner-gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
Reply-To: gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu
Delivered-To: gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu
Status:
X-Mozilla-Status: 0000
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
X-UIDL: 39d245de00000875
G'day again,
>*L* First we're posting the same comments
>on the playtest list, now here? *L*
Does that make us great minds or fools... maybe its safer not to answer
that one knowing this lot ;)
>Wait... is that YOUR camera up there???
>*looks up veeeerrrrryyyyy slowly...*
No mine's the one in the pot plants ;)
Beth
------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Elizabeth Fulton
c/o CSIRO Division of Marine Research
GPO Box 1538
HOBART
TASMANIA 7001
AUSTRALIA
Phone (03) 6232 5018 International +61 3 6232 5018
Fax 03 6232 5053 International +61 3 6232 5053
email: beth.fulton@marine.csiro.au
From - Wed Dec 13 16:39:19 2000
Return-Path: <owner-gzg-l@scotch.csua.berkeley.edu>
Received: from scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (scotch.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
[128.32.43.51])
by lilac.propagation.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id WAA18283;
Tue, 12 Dec 2000 22:06:07 -0600
Received: from localhost (daemon@localhost)
by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.0) with SMTP id
eBD41n065601;
Tue, 12 Dec 2000 20:01:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (bulk_mailer v1.12); Tue, 12 Dec
2000 20:01:48 -0800
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.0) id eBD41lp65580
for gzg-l-outgoing; Tue, 12 Dec 2000 20:01:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: from soda.csua.berkeley.edu
(IDENT:t1OuJDr0eOMqlHp7YxGGf53Dpnb7iSxC@soda.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
[128.32.43.52])
by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id
eBD41jP65575
for <gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU>; Tue, 12 Dec 2000 20:01:45
-0800 (PST)
Received: from unebmail.uneb.edu ([199.240.194.41])
by soda.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.1) with ESMTP id
eBD41if99418
for <gzg-l@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU>; Tue, 12 Dec 2000 20:01:44 -0800
(PST)
(envelope-from devans@uneb.edu)
Subject: Someone to watch over he... Re: Uplift FT (was Re: Am I a
Republic
revisionist?)
To: gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu
X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.5 September 22, 2000
Message-ID: <OFEC1D1222.5CBDCBBB-ON862569B4.00164021@uneb.edu>
From: devans@uneb.edu
Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2000 22:04:07 -0600
X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on UNEBMAIL/Servers/UNEBR(Release 5.0.5
|September 22, 2000) at
12/12/2000 10:04:14 PM
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Sender: owner-gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
Reply-To: gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu
Delivered-To: gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu
Status:
X-Mozilla-Status: 0000
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
X-UIDL: 39d245de00000876
> >Wait... is that YOUR camera up there???
> >*looks up veeeerrrrryyyyy slowly...*
>No mine's the one in the pot plants ;)
Not mine; mine's the audio pickup in your pen.
The_Beast
-Douglas J. Evans, curmudgeon
One World, one Web, one Program - Microsoft promotional ad
Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Fuhrer - Adolf Hitler
From - Wed Dec 13 16:39:19 2000
Return-Path: <owner-gzg-l@scotch.csua.berkeley.edu>
Received: from scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (scotch.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
[128.32.43.51])
by lilac.propagation.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id WAA24759;
Tue, 12 Dec 2000 22:40:11 -0600
Received: from localhost (daemon@localhost)
by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.0) with SMTP id
eBD4Zsa65934;
Tue, 12 Dec 2000 20:35:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (bulk_mailer v1.12); Tue, 12 Dec
2000 20:35:47 -0800
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.0) id eBD4ZkQ65910
for gzg-l-outgoing; Tue, 12 Dec 2000 20:35:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: from soda.csua.berkeley.edu
(IDENT:60YmGhLWw0RmL3pg9nZ0tSjpuTrpx/N2@soda.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
[128.32.43.52])
by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id
eBD4ZjP65904
for <gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU>; Tue, 12 Dec 2000 20:35:45
-0800 (PST)
Received: from tomts6-srv.bellnexxia.net (smtp.bellnexxia.net
[209.226.175.26])
by soda.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.1) with ESMTP id
eBD4Zif02734
for <gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu>; Tue, 12 Dec 2000 20:35:44 -0800
(PST)
(envelope-from awg@sympatico.ca)
Received: from Toronto-ppp220858.sympatico.ca ([64.228.103.183])
by tomts6-srv.bellnexxia.net
(InterMail vM.4.01.03.00 201-229-121) with SMTP
id
<20001213043537.SQBQ16490.tomts6-srv.bellnexxia.net@Toronto-ppp220858.sy
mpatico.ca>
for <gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu>; Tue, 12 Dec 2000 23:35:37 -0500
From: Allan Goodall <awg@sympatico.ca>
To: gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: SG2 and Modern US squad with two fireteams
Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2000 23:33:55 -0500
Organization: Haphazard at best.
Message-ID: <lspd3tc5b77dfbbmhjutiq84l511s22tmt@4ax.com>
References: <20001211214944.3033.cpmta@c008.sfo.cp.net>
<200012130034.TAA11520@okura.cowell.org>
In-Reply-To: <200012130034.TAA11520@okura.cowell.org>
X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.7/32.534
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by
scotch.csua.berkeley.edu
id eBD4ZjP65905
Sender: owner-gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
Reply-To: gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu
Delivered-To: gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu
Status:
X-Mozilla-Status: 0000
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
X-UIDL: 39d245de00000877
On Tue, 12 Dec 2000 18:34:05 -0600, Andy Cowell <andy@cowell.org> wrote:
>Not too keen on having that many individuals running around,
>personally.
Funny enough, the game is done at the leader level. I can't remember the
page
reference (26 sticks in my mind) but Jon actually has the leaders doing
EVERYTHING, it's just some things are motivating the squads and others
are
leader independent things.
The idea of making the squad leaders individuals is that they can attach
to a
squad. In practice, the players assign a fireteam for the squad leader,
but
the squad leader could move from fireteam to fireteam if he wants. You
may
find it's not a big deal.
>Alternately, extend the normal chain of command a bit-- you could
>allow the Squad Leader to attach to any particular fireteam under his
>command, changing squad team organization as necessary.
I thought of that, actually. The problem is that it would effectively
give
each squad double the actions. The squad leader would be able to
transfer
actions to both squads, and then they would have their normal
activations. Not
a major deal in infantry only battles, but it would give infantry twice
the
number of activations as vehicles, and that might be unbalancing.
Allan Goodall awg@sympatico.ca
Goodall's Grotto: http://www.vex.net/~agoodall
"Surprisingly, when you throw two naked women with sex
toys into a living room full of drunken men, things
always go bad." - Kyle Baker, "You Are Here"
From - Wed Dec 13 16:39:20 2000
Return-Path: <owner-gzg-l@scotch.csua.berkeley.edu>
Received: from scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (scotch.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
[128.32.43.51])
by lilac.propagation.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id FAA04030;
Wed, 13 Dec 2000 05:37:31 -0600
Received: from localhost (daemon@localhost)
by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.0) with SMTP id
eBDBYvs71245;
Wed, 13 Dec 2000 03:34:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (bulk_mailer v1.12); Wed, 13 Dec
2000 03:34:49 -0800
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.0) id eBDBYlC71214
for gzg-l-outgoing; Wed, 13 Dec 2000 03:34:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: from soda.csua.berkeley.edu
(IDENT:qrasfQpaiQ4H4vd9LAf2C7fnKUlUmtNf@soda.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
[128.32.43.52])
by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id
eBDBYkP71208
for <gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU>; Wed, 13 Dec 2000 03:34:46
-0800 (PST)
Received: from beehive-en2.uk03.bull.co.uk (beehive1-en2.uk03.bull.co.uk
[137.213.252.253])
by soda.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.1) with ESMTP id
eBDBYif42481
for <gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu>; Wed, 13 Dec 2000 03:34:45 -0800
(PST)
(envelope-from Mike.Elliott@bull.co.uk)
Received: from hmn-smtp01.bull.co.uk (hmn-smtp01.uk03.bull.co.uk
[137.213.195.244])
by beehive-en2.uk03.bull.co.uk (8.10.0/8.10.0) with ESMTP id
eBDBYOp19404
for <gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu>; Wed, 13 Dec 2000 11:34:24 GMT
Subject: Re: No campaign system acceptable for SG2?
To: gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu
From: Mike.Elliott@bull.co.uk
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 11:34:34 +0000
Message-ID: <OF03692E6A.94D7D4C4-ON802569B4.003F0BB4@bull.co.uk>
X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on HMN-SMTP01/UK/BULL(Release 5.0.4a
|July 24,
2000) at
13/12/2000 11:34:23
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Sender: owner-gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
Reply-To: gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu
Delivered-To: gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu
Status:
X-Mozilla-Status: 0000
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
X-UIDL: 39d245de00000879
No, it doesn't necessarily need a _points_ system, but it does need a
_costing_ system. These are not really the
same thing. Equipment cost is based on tech level and availability not
on
battlefield effectiveness. The cost of hiring on
troops can be affected by all sorts of factors and probably won't have
any
bearing on their battlefield effectiveness
either.
Mike
In message
<604019546FC6D211AE310000F8BCBCEA01A8C385@SABRETOOTH.CORNING.COM>, "
Parrott, Charles P" writes:
>
> As for ideas, I've always been fond of the merc approach where you
> start with limited funds and buy your forces and take contracts to
> earn more money to upgrade and/or buy your forces.
Doesn't this inherently require a points system for SG2?
************************************************************************
**
Privileged, confidential and/or copyright information may be contained
in
this e-mail. This e-mail is for the use only of the intended addressee.
If
you are not the intended addressee, or the person responsible for
delivering it to the intended addressee, you may not copy, forward,
disclose or otherwise use it or any part of it in any way whatsoever. To
do
so is prohibited and may be unlawful.
If you receive this e-mail by mistake please advise the sender
immediately
by using the reply facility in your e-mail software.
Bull Information Systems Limited may monitor the content of e-mails sent
and received via its network for the purposes of ensuring compliance
with
its policies and procedures.
This message is subject to and does not create or vary any contractual
relationship between Bull Information Systems Limited and you.
Bull Information Systems Limited. Registered Office: Computer House,
Great
West Road, Brentford, Middlesex TW8 9DH. Registered in England.
Registration Number: 2017873
Thank you.
************************************************************************
**
From - Wed Dec 13 16:39:22 2000
Return-Path: <owner-gzg-l@scotch.csua.berkeley.edu>
Received: from scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (scotch.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
[128.32.43.51])
by lilac.propagation.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id PAA09711;
Wed, 13 Dec 2000 15:32:24 -0600
Received: from localhost (daemon@localhost)
by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.0) with SMTP id
eBDLVSn80354;
Wed, 13 Dec 2000 13:31:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (bulk_mailer v1.12); Wed, 13 Dec
2000 13:31:27 -0800
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.0) id eBDLVPZ80333
for gzg-l-outgoing; Wed, 13 Dec 2000 13:31:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: from soda.csua.berkeley.edu
(IDENT:tOrbXxDp4O0txslINSzpPrSFgcqt5mpr@soda.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
[128.32.43.52])
by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id
eBDLVOP80328
for <gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU>; Wed, 13 Dec 2000 13:31:24
-0800 (PST)
Received: from cmailg5.svr.pol.co.uk (cmailg5.svr.pol.co.uk
[195.92.195.175])
by soda.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.1) with ESMTP id
eBDLVMf07697
for <gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu>; Wed, 13 Dec 2000 13:31:23 -0800
(PST)
(envelope-from bif@bifsmith.fsnet.co.uk)
Received: from modem-868.black-necked-stilt.dialup.pol.co.uk
([62.137.183.100] helo=auser)
by cmailg5.svr.pol.co.uk with smtp (Exim 3.13 #0)
id 146JUe-0002Wo-00
for gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu; Wed, 13 Dec 2000 21:31:20 +0000
Message-ID: <000001c0654c$3a8e5460$64b7893e@auser>
From: "bif smith" <bif@bifsmith.fsnet.co.uk>
To: "full thrust" <gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu>
Subject: Future history (or, what about the irish?)
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 14:41:36 -0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300
Sender: owner-gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
Reply-To: gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu
Delivered-To: gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu
Status:
X-Mozilla-Status: 0000
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
X-UIDL: 39d245de0000087f
Sorry if this has been explained before, or in one of the books, but I
cannot remember what, if anything, was said. My take on the history is
below-
When the UK severed it`s relations with the EC due to growing froggy
dominance, irland stayed in the EC, and northern irland was given to the
south (too mutch trouble). Irland stayed with the EC till just after the
formation of the AC, when the french domminated EC, in a period of
economic
depresion, was forced to raise taxes to pay for it`s subsidies. One
thing
they did was raise a beer tax on any alcoholic produce, EXCEPT wine
(because
wine is a classy drink, not because it would have ruined french wine
makers!). This had come on top of growning unease witn the EC, and
taxing
guiness was the last straw. The irish gov. petitioned the AC to join,
and
was acepted, with it writen into the constitution that the black drink
could
not EVER be taxed at more than 2% (the second lowest tax for a alcoholic
drink, only navy rum is lower, at 0%, and that dobbles as paint
stripper/
antiseptic/ ground car fuel). This did not result in any terrorism,
because
the main sorce of funds(usa), was now part of the same country(ac).
There is
a planet in the NAC named new irland, where a lot of irish emmigrated
to,
that has few strategic targets, except for the large shipyards, where
irish
shipwrites cotinue the traditions for the NAC of building ships they had
for
the UK before independence.
The above ramble is a pure urine extraction, thought up for fun, but
does
ask the question- Are the irish part of the NAC (with the large irish
emmigration to the USA, and the history with the UK, bloody or not), or
part
of the FSE (born from the EC, irland presently pro EC?).
BIF
"Yorkshire born, yorkshire bred,
strong in arms, thick in head"
From - Wed Dec 13 16:39:20 2000
Return-Path: <owner-gzg-l@scotch.csua.berkeley.edu>
Received: from scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (scotch.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
[128.32.43.51])
by lilac.propagation.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id KAA08127;
Wed, 13 Dec 2000 10:53:38 -0600
Received: from localhost (daemon@localhost)
by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.0) with SMTP id
eBDGrbf75970;
Wed, 13 Dec 2000 08:53:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (bulk_mailer v1.12); Wed, 13 Dec
2000 08:53:22 -0800
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.0) id eBDGrLK75946
for gzg-l-outgoing; Wed, 13 Dec 2000 08:53:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: from soda.csua.berkeley.edu
(IDENT:p6kXw7ZULf0CvuAoR3p4YOppw/7vusFO@soda.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
[128.32.43.52])
by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id
eBDGrKP75941
for <gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU>; Wed, 13 Dec 2000 08:53:20
-0800 (PST)
Received: from exsrv.bitheads.com (mail.bitheads.com [64.26.142.194])
by soda.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.1) with ESMTP id
eBDGrJf67863
for <GZG-L@csua.berkeley.edu>; Wed, 13 Dec 2000 08:53:19 -0800
(PST)
(envelope-from tomb@bitheads.com)
Received: by host-253.bitheads.com with Internet Mail Service
(5.5.2448.0)
id <YM7VRDCY>; Wed, 13 Dec 2000 11:53:13 -0500
Message-ID:
<417DEC289A05D4118408000102362E0A34D146@host-253.bitheads.com>
From: "Barclay, Tom" <tomb@bitheads.com>
To: "Gzg Digest (E-mail)" <GZG-L@csua.berkeley.edu>
Subject: [DS2] Aerospace Q
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 11:53:10 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0)
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Sender: owner-gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
Reply-To: gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu
Delivered-To: gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu
Status:
X-Mozilla-Status: 0000
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
X-UIDL: 39d245de0000087a
I'm a bit confused (yes, no news there!).
I was reading my DS2 and I thought I saw movement rates for VTOLs and
Aerospace craft. Yet I also thought I read that an Aerospace craft
operates
by making a pass over the board, defining its entry and exit points and
flight path, and then executing that. It seemed like movement rate was
thus
irrelevant (any plane should be able to make a pass in 15 mins...).
What's up? Where'd I step off the path?
And on another note, anyone toyed with the idea of mounting LADs on your
VTOLs? This would be like the "stinger" mounts on some modern choppers
to
provide limited A-A to ground support/ground attack VTOLs. Does this
make
sense?
And as to the comment about my proposed vehicle design by capacity
points...
<which said I should just divide by 5 and round up - I assume rather
than
use the chart provided>.... unless I screwed it up, that was exactly the
algorithm the chart attempted to ellucidate. <*grin*>
------------------------------------------
Thomas R. S. Barclay
Voice: (613) 722-3232 ext 349
e-mail: tomb@bitheads.com
Now, now my good man, this is no time for making enemies.
Voltaire (1694-1778), on his death bed in response to a priest asking
that
he renounce Satan.
------------------------------------------