Re: grav

Point taken.  This *is* science fiction...

Gracias,
Glenn/Triphibious@juno.com
This is my Science Fiction Alter Ego E-mail address.
Historical - Warbeads@juno.com
Fantasy and 6mm - dwarf_warrior@juno.com

On Mon, 19 Nov 2001 17:44:44 -0700 Binhan Lin <Lin@RXKINETIX.com>
writes:
>Points shouldn't be the only measure of a unit's effectiveness, which 
>is why
>most point systems fail.  Most of a unit's value is in how you use it. 
> A
>huge tank force composed of systems for use against vehicles is 
>vulnerable
>to a much smaller force of infantry armed to the teeth with Anti-tank
>weapons.  Does this mean Tanks are underpriced?  Or that infantry is
>overpriced?  If a player bunches his units and a single artillery 
>strike
>takes them all out, does that mean the artillery strike should be 
>priced as
>much as all the vehicles destroyed?  Would a squadron of wheeled tanks 
>be
>worth as much against a similarly priced squadron of GEV vehicles on 
>swampy
>terrain?  Or would you have to reduce the price of wheeled vehicles 
>since
>they are of less use?
>
>Points are always use dependent, a thousand points in equipment you 
>don't
>need or can't use is pretty much points wasted.  In real life, you 
>don't
>always know what you'll need, and so there will always be room for 
>strange,
>weird and wasteful ways to spend your resources. Plus, you never know 
>when
>the rules will change (both real-life and Tuffleyverse) and an 
>apparently
>dead-end system may have new life breathed into it.  
>
>An example was the submarine.	Originally a novelty and with the spar
>torpedo, a very limited weapon. The invention of the self-powered 
>torpedo
>made it a weapon to be reckoned with.	Who knows what might happen to
>walkers in future rule sets.
>
>--Binhan
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Brian Bilderback [mailto:bbilderback@hotmail.com]
>Sent: Monday, November 19, 2001 5:13 PM
>To: gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu
>Subject: RE: grav
>
>
>My question was rhetorical - the point being that for the game to be 
>fair 
>and balanced,	a walker, while having a different set of abilities and 
>
>limitations different from those of a Grav tank or a tracked tank, 
>should be
>
>just as effective a unit in the game as any other vehicle costing the 
>same 
>amount of points.
>
>Brian
>
>"The Irish are the only race of people on Earth for which 
>psychoanalysis is 
>of no use."
>
>				  - S. Freud
>
>
>>From: Binhan Lin <Lin@RXKINETIX.com>
>>Reply-To: gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu
>>To: "'gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu'" <gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu>
>>Subject: RE: grav
>>Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2001 16:55:51 -0700
>>
>>The reason to incorporate them is to allow people to use universes 
>where
>>they are more common - i.e. anime.  As long as the rules exist, then 
>it
>>makes it easier for people to adapt a different background to canon 
>rules.
>>If walkers did not exist above size one, how could you run a Gundam 
>or
>>Macross type game?
>>
>>--Binhan
>>
>>
>> >Not necessarily--some things are silly regardless of
>> >how you point them.  For instance walkers above size
>> >1.
>>
>>Silly, yes.  But if they're allowed, they should be just as useful as 
>any
>>other unit.  Otherwise, why bother incorporating them into the rules?
>>
>>Brian
>>
>>
>
>
>_________________________________________________________________
>Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at 
>http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp

________________________________________________________________
GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO!
Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less!
Join Juno today!  For your FREE software, visit: