Re: Well, too interesting to drop all of the posts in this thread...

>> >3. Allow for a greater variety of armor levels on
>> all
>> >sides of vehicles.
>> 
>> Sure, although this slightly complicates angle of
>> attack since you now
>> have at least three values (top being only relevant
>> for top attacking
>> systems.)
>
>Actually, 6 values:  front, rear, top, bottom, and
>sides.

I think this might slow down the game for 3 reasons :

- You have to remember more stat (as opposed to 1 value that you add 1
or
not depending if it's the front) or take the time to look it up on your
data sheet.

- Might create more argument about the angle of attack : Since you can
have, let say, front armor 8 and side 3, some degree (angle) will do a
big
difference. Since not all people play with vehicule bases, determining
precisely which side get hit is problematic and will be lot more
important
than it is now.

- Having bigger front armor value will make the vehicule harder to
destroy,
thus making the game last longer.

Personnaly, I like the lenght of game that DS2 gives. The current armor
rule may not reflect reality but are good for the game itself.

>> >6. Expansion of GMS classes to 1-5 (call them P, L,
>> M,
>> >H, and SH if you like)
>> 
>> Sure, then they could be costed like 'guns'.
>
>Well, not exactly like them, but it would definitely
>add flavor.

Good point. More variety (different range) for that particular weapon
will
be good.

>> >11.  Expanded rules for Biped Vs. Quadruped+
>> walkers,
>> >walker speeds independent from "Infantry
>> walker/combat
>> >walker/transport walker" designations
>> 
>> Well that could be done for all modes of movement.
>
>Currently, all other modes of movement are based on
>mobility type.  For walkers, it's based on function.

Good. This make things simpler.
Fast legs/Slow legs mobility or something like that.

>> >13. Allow direct fire weapons to engage High Mode
>> >VTOL's
>> 
>> HEL's Yes, MDCs seems Logical, HKP maybe.... DFFG
>> Maybe not?
>
>If a modern MBT main gun can do it, why not a DFFG?  

I can see game reason to prevent some weapons to do that. It create more
diversity and gives the vehicule designer more choice (difficult choice
I
should say) when creating his army. If you want a truly generic SF game,
some weapons should not be able to fire in the air (ground effect
disruptor
or something like that).

>> >16. Fire-on-the-fly; allow vehicles to fire at any
>> >point before, during, or after movement.
>> 
>> Okay, might make more complicated direct fire but if
>> done right...
>
>This change would almost necessitate the further
>expansion of opportunity & defensive fire.

Might be good if properly done.

> > 17. Remove rule permitting fire of only 1 weapon
> > system per turn

Not sure I like this one. If you combine this option and number 16
above,
you may have game turn that take much more times and more argument about
which weapons from which vehicule has been fired or not this turn.

I see the limit as a game balance thing. If you can put severe
limitation
to avoid vehicule firing more than once per turn too often, it might
work.
Finding the right balance might be more difficult (if your aim is to
keep
the game length like it is).

Yves