Re: [SG] The Tuffley 500

Tom Challenged:

>Okay Adrian, I'm calling you out. 
>

Very well.  My second will contact your second.

Waffles, at dawn.

>On the one hand, you cite 480 m + 60 m as a 
>distance that a vehicle + infantry could easily 
>due in the notional 5 min period. Then you turn 
>around to say that the idea of moving 120m is 
>ridiculous. 

Hang on.  You're cutting out all the rest of my discussion here...

You can't really (on the one hand) 
>argue about "reasonable distances" and on the 
>other hand argue about the game being 
>abstract and limiting vehicles.

Sure I can.  I did ;)

>board while the APC can only move 480m) or 
>you don't and only consider relative effects. 

My first point (the racetrack view) was in response to one of
Laserlight's.
 If we look at how far one of those Grav APC's is capable of moving, in
perfect conditions (ie around a race track, with no cover to worry about
and no hostile fire), then the limitations of the turn sequence are
glaring.  My point there was that the movement rules are limited for
several reasons (as I outlined) - to prevent vehicles from being too
powerful, and because they aren't modeling maximum theoretical movement
in
perfect conditions, but abstracted bits of movement in the battle
setting,
within the nature of the turn sequence mechanic of the game.

My second point, the "vehicles being limited to moving 120m, unloading
troops and that's it... which is silly" comment, was in response to the
idea that *vehicles* should have to spend an action to have troops
disembark.  It is one of the several reasons I don't like that idea -
while
I see the need to limit movement (for the reasons outlined above), I
think
the "vehicle has to spend the action" ruling is *too* limiting.

My own view falls in between the two - that disembarking actions should
come from the troops and not the vehicle... hence vehicles can move a
bit
further if they choose to, or do some moving and some shooting, or
whatever, while the infantry can disembark and do something else also.

I don't think my two points were mutually exclusive, at all.

Of course.  ;-)  :-P

>This just boils down to two schools of thought. 

Two attitudes toward what, exactly, the turn sequence represents.

I like Allan's comments, that we should really be looking at the game
turn
in terms of what happens across the complete turn (or the complete game)
rather than in individual actions...

>You like to consider "real numbers" in your 
>arguments. 

Well, yes and no.

I look at the relative performace issues, also.

I'm only examining relative 
>performance which is utterly without reference 
>to time units or distance units. 

Yes.

We've presented 
>both sides, and all listeners will make up their 
>own minds. 

No.  They'll see that I am RIGHT.  ALWAYS.  AHAHAHAHAHAHA......

Did somebody say something about Canadians???

Hey!  You tawkin' ta me?

I said, are you tawkin' ta me?

(ok, never mind... it's late...)

>I suppose that means we can let this particular 
>subthread die.

sounds good ;)

And Laserlight drolled on:
>But instead of a duel, mano-a-mano, steel cage grudge match...we get:
>
>>  We've presented
>> both sides, and all listeners will make up their
>> own minds.
>
><sigh> Damn Canadians, being reasonable again.  Good thing we're not
>letting you run the planet, nobody'd ever get to fight a war.
>

You tawkin' ta me???

***************************************

Adrian Johnson
adrian@stargrunt.ca
http://www.stargrunt.ca