Prev: More [OFFICIAL] News from the Shipyards (and the armaments manufacturers!) Next: RE: Prioritizing targets in SG2

RE: Prioritizing targets in SG2

From: "Mihail" <dmihail2@c...>
Date: Sun, 3 Oct 2004 13:13:34 -0700
Subject: RE: Prioritizing targets in SG2

Haha :)  But I thought one of the cool things about SG is that your
troops have a mind of their own and don't always do what you want?  ;)
 
I meant instead of any additional rules trying to further figure it out.
There comes a point when you have to just make the call and not worry
about any formula.  I could just as easily have said you gotta roll
randomly here.	But that kind of sucks, IMO.

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
[mailto:owner-gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU] On Behalf Of Charles Lee
Sent: Sunday, October 03, 2004 10:30 AM
To: gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: Prioritizing targets in SG2

Of course attacker chooses, trigger control. Unless a computer decides
for you.  <http://us.i1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/i/mesg/tsmileys2/06.gif> 

Mihail <dmihail2@cox.net> wrote: 

Hi List,
 
Long time lurker, but I rarely post.  Usually just don't have anything
to say.  
 
I was just reading through the SG2 rules again tonight, particularly the
rules for prioritizing targets and how to more formally do it without
getting into arguments about which target is the biggest threat.
Forgive me if this has already been covered.  Basically, I assigned a
value to each condition Jon listed, weighted by what order it's listed
in.  You might need to put this on a card for quick reference, but here
it is (top priority to lowest):
 
target is:
 
activated, close by, and in the open
activated, close by, and in cover
activated, far away, and in the open
activated, far away, and in cover OR inactive, close by, and in the open
(attacker's choice)
inactive, close by, and in cover
inactive, far away, and in the open
inactive, far away, and in cover
 
The two big problems I see off the bat is my arbitrary assignment of
distance being more important than cover (done simply because it's
listed that way in the book) and not having a good definition of
distance.  How about:
 
1 range band is "close" and 2+ bands are "far" for untrained
up to 2 range bands are "close" and 3+ bands are "far" for green and
regular
up to 3 range bands are "close" and 4+ bands are "far" for veteran and
elite
 
If more than 1 target have the same priority, attacker chooses?
 
Just thought I'd throw this out there for a little feedback and in case
anyone is interested in trying it out.
 
Thanks.

  _____  

Do you Yahoo!?
vote.yahoo.com - Register online to vote today!

Prev: More [OFFICIAL] News from the Shipyards (and the armaments manufacturers!) Next: RE: Prioritizing targets in SG2