Re: (DS): Systems per Class

--- Glenn M Wilson <warbeads@juno.com> wrote:

> frame.  And field very few of them - specialist
> vehicles usually end up
> fighting in environemnts/situations they aren't
> designed to work it if
> your foe knows what they are.

I agree.  Most of my vehicles fit broad tactical
roles.

> Most games lately have had units suffering damaged
> or mobility killed
> vehicles near a 'victory point' spot so the entire
> platoon usually goes
> on what i call  on stand and fire mode (why?	I

Oooh!	Oooh!  Stationary targets!  I like. . . 

> don't know) at that
> location until they are shot dead.  But artillery
> use (or abuse by
> non-use/misuse) is enough to make a GM cry for some
> reason in most games

Eh?  
What's the problem with it?  Are they just not
realizing how much fun it is?

Granted we houserule artillery to be much more
responsive and flexible, so that it more closely
approximates modern artillery.	But still, even with
book rules medium artillery MAK is enough to
discourage anyone from staying in the same spot for
too long.

John

		
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Read only the mail you want - Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail