Prev: Flak buys a clue! was Re: Geohex Next: Re: Its Doctrine, Scouting and Tactics not Fighters

Fighters/DLD/Welcome Back

From: "Tomb" <tomb@d...>
Date: Mon, 6 May 2002 12:43:31 -0400
Subject: Fighters/DLD/Welcome Back

Yes, I am to lazy to type three e-mails...

1) Fighters

Curious question: Of those who don't really think fighters are
unbalanced, I'd ask: 1) how often do you play, 2) do you attend
conventions and play FT or tournaments, and 3) how many different people
do you tend to game with? and 4) do you usually play with mixed-tech
designs, standard custom designs, or FB designs? and 5) is your play in
the context of a campaign or strict one-off battle where each side
brings X NPV?

I ask this because a fair number of the people I know who have
identified a problem with fighters seem to play the game at home and at
conventions, playing with a fair variety of gamers in (mostly) one-off
battles, and who play fairly frequently (some nearly weekly or maybe
bi-weekly, as far as I can tell). Some of the proponents of not changing
the balance seem to be from the "don't play one-off games" or "don't
play very much" etc. group. Is this just a perception of a distinction
in the demographics of the two sides? Or does it maybe account for the
difference in perspective?

And I'll conclude by offering this one thought: If you're already
playing with custom designs and house rules and mixed-tech and campaign
rules, then you are already far beyond current state-of-rules. So any
changes should worry you very little, given you'll take what you like,
change what you don't, and make up anything you think you need to fill
in the blankss. A lot of new gamers (and some more experienced ones with
time constraints) want a low complexity game with no campaign, with
standard designs, and out-of-the-book rules. Considering this crowd is
likely to represent any growth in the game and a fair amount of new
sales, would it be a bad thing to consider them? After all, experienced
veterans will ignore what they don't like (some people still play FT
rather than FTFB after all). 

2) DLD - Second Chris' call for a good mortar carrier. I think tracked
would be the most likely chassis, but wheeled or hover would be okay
(obviously the hover would ground on jacks or landing struts to fire).
This is another sadly missing item, just like a good mobile howitzer or
ADA system. The mortars and ADA are more likely to show up on an SG
board than the howitzers, so both would be very useful products.

3) Ndege, my man of the most excellent computer and pen art, welcome
back to the list! Glad to have you back, amazed at your work, and hoping
for more! Mr. Diamond, you rock!

Prev: Flak buys a clue! was Re: Geohex Next: Re: Its Doctrine, Scouting and Tactics not Fighters