Re: (DS): Systems per Class

On Sat, 24 Jul 2004 18:07:34 -0400 "Laserlight" <laserlight@quixnet.net>
writes:
>> You may have 1960/USA technology up against Imperial armies vastly
>> in advance of the defenders. Any rules would have to allow both
>> types of armies on the battlefield at the same time.
>
>"The Imperials win."

Yes, Levels in DS 3 should not be like the differences in each year of
WW2 where a smart commander with elite troops might maul a similar sized
force with last year's tanks.  You run into the difference between
levels
resembling squaring numbers and multiplying them by 2.	3 x 2 is
significantly less then 3 squared kind of situation.

<snip> I'm not
>convinced that it needs to be able to handle Nam grunts vs Imperial
>Marines.
>
>

I pretty much assume that the difference between low tech  to high tech
is more within 1 level then changing levels with mid tech being
somewhere
in the transition zone.  Low tech is 'just achieved' the 'level' and
high
is 'about to move to the next level.'  And that may even be too extreme.

The problem is that if you get widely disparate levels then why bother
except for the exercise?  Also you end up with the complexity of levels
of Traveller.  And I assume that all the nations portrayed are more
limited by budget, policy, local politics (all politics are local) and
other voluntary factors  then failure to grasp the science/technology of
the current level the ESU/NAC use.  More like the difference in military
technology utilized between Malaysia and Laos then technology
capabilities possible between today and WW1.  YMMV.

________________________________________________________________
The best thing to hit the Internet in years - Juno SpeedBand!
Surf the Web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER!
Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today!