Prev: RE: (DS): Systems per Class Next: RE: (DS): Systems per Class

RE: (DS): Systems per Class

From: Brian B <greywanderer987@y...>
Date: Wed, 21 Jul 2004 11:10:14 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: RE: (DS): Systems per Class

1. Even weapons per class is a bit much. 2. Until he
does, Im HRing it out.
--- owner-gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
<lerchey@andrew.cmu.edu> wrote:
> Brian,
> 
> If you really want to get back to it, it's not
"systems per class", it's 
> *weapons* per class.	That's the limiting rule.
> 
> As to why it's there, I have no idea.  I think you'd
have to get Jon T. to 
> chime in on it. :)
> 
> J
> 
> 
> John K. Lerchey
> Computer and Network Security Coordinator
> Computing Services
> Carnegie Mellon University
> 
> 
> On Wed, 21 Jul 2004, Brian B wrote:
> 
> > Firrt of all, let me again reiterate that
discussions
> > regarding specific Real life vehicles and
alternate
> > ways to simulate them are interesting, but
ultimately
> > they distract from the real issue. And I do
understand
> > the abstraction concept, believe it or not. But
even
> > it is tied to the issue of specific designs, and
fails
> > to address the main issue: why the systems per
class
> > rule, and should it be changed?
> > --- owner-gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
> > <lerchey@andrew.cmu.edu> wrote:
> >> I beg to differ here, but only because I'm a pain
> > the rear. :)
> >> The M-16 had quad .50 cals.  Given that they
shoot
> > down aircraft, and *do*
> >> have the capability of engaging lightly armored
> > vehicles at shorter
> >> ranges, I'd call 'em RFAC/1s.
> >>
> >> Still, that does give 4 class 1 weapons on a size
2
> > track if you go that
> >> way, which breaks the rule.
> >>
> >> However, as Indy stated, part of the elegance of
> > Jons rules is
> >> *abstraction*.  The M-16 was an AA vehicle. I'd
go
> > with a basic ADS and a
> >> second RFAC (coaxially mounted).  The ADS fires
> > against ground targets as
> >> an RFAC, so a pair of them adequately covers the
> > added firepower for my
> >> purposes, though clearly I would not be
representing
> > it as 4 weapons.
> >>
> >> No rules are perfect, and in DSII, I think that
"the
> > intended combat
> >> effect" is often more to be sought than the issue
of
> > "how many guns can I
> >> cram on this sucker?" mentality.
> >>
> >> :)
> >>
> >> J
> >>
> >>>
> >>> M-16 halftrack: 4xAPSW on a size 2 track.
> >>>
> >>> I don't really find a tactical reason to have
> > multiple
> >>> heavy weapons on a single vehicle (excepting
> >>> GMS/automatic weapon combos) anyway.
> >>>
> >>> John
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> __________________________________
> >>> Do you Yahoo!?
> >>> Yahoo! Mail is new and improved - Check it out!
> >>> http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
> >>>
> >>>
> >
> >
> > =====
> > "In life, you must try and be the type of person
that your dog thinks you are."
> >
> > - Anonymous
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > __________________________________
> > Do you Yahoo!?
> > Vote for the stars of Yahoo!'s next ad campaign!
> >
http://advision.webevents.yahoo.com/yahoo/votelifeengine/
> >
> >

=====
"In life, you must try and be the type of person that your dog thinks
you are."

- Anonymous

		
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail

Prev: RE: (DS): Systems per Class Next: RE: (DS): Systems per Class