Re: [GZG] DSIII

> On Thu, 2 Mar 2006, Grant A. Ladue wrote:

> >  elements.	It seemed to me that my K'hif (sp?) were rolling d6's to
hit for
> >  the green units and d10's for the orange.	I didn't notice a
modifier based
> >  on FCS.  Was it built in, or were we doing it wrong?
> 
> I had it built in on the vehicle sheets.  You might recall (though
given 
> that it was Sunday morning, you might not) that at short range, the
K'hiff 
> vehicles got a +2 QD shift.  That was the +2 for having Superior FCS. 
The 
> Order's Trinity tanks (with BASIC FCS) got +0 at short, -1 at medium,
and 
> -2 at long.  Their green units don't do so well at any range.
> 
> The basic construct is:
> 
> QD +FCS, -0 at Close, -1 at Medium, -2 at Long, +/- any modifiers from
the 
> fire modifiers chart.
> 
> It's easier for me to build the FCS bonus and range non-bonuses into
the 
> sheet so that you don't have to care once you have it ready for play.
:)
>

  Yeah, I think that is why I didn't consciously notice it.  Probably 
 aggravated by the relatively short range bands of the K'hiff weapons,
so it
 *appeared* like I was rolling the same dice as my opponent.  In such a
case,
 I can see that it works fine.

> 
> >    Your "iron sights being obsolete" comment below also reminds me
about
> >  another thought.  Iron sights really aren't completely obsolete are
they?
> >  Pretty much any modern direct fire (non-missile) system can still
fire in a
> >  degraded manner even when its fcs is down.  It seems to me that the
> >  "targeting systems down" result for a damaged unit is a bit too
damaging.
> >  Perhaps the tsd result should remove the fcs bonus and allow the
unit to fire
> >  at one (perhaps two) less than it's quality die.
> >
> That's not a bad idea.  If it's mostly an electronics issue, then it 
> should degrade FCS to "Obsolete" (in DS3 terms, that's about late 
> WWII-ish).  I'll bring that up as a possibility.  My gut reaction is
that 
> it might be *easier* to just leave it as is, but it's certainly a neat

> thought.
>
   I think that at the very least, it would be a good optional rule for
non
 convention games where speed of play is less of an issue.

 
> >    I apologize in advance if all this has been passed around before
(and I
> >  imagine it has), and I admit that my inexperience with this may
invalidate my
> >  opinion.  :-)  In any case, I think the firefight issue is the
biggest one
> >  in terms of making the game playable, especially at conventions.  I
think it
> >  is important to minimize issues that can cause a player to be
basically
> >  uninvolved for most of the duration of the game.
> >
> No apologies necessary.  I was only pointing out that there has been a
lot 
> of thought put into it, which you *could* not have know about if you
don't 
> get regular updates from the DS3 playtesters/designers. :)
> 
   Never doubted it.  I'd be mighty happy if I could get onto a playtest
list.
 :-)

> We've (a small subset of playtesters that I regularly correspond with)
run 
> into the question about the firefight stuff causing uninvolved players
to 
> take naps before, but haven't come with any decisive answer.	For that

> matter, while it *can* be a problem, it generally doesn't present
itself 
> unless you have at least 3 players per side.	I'm not 100% certain
that it 
> is a problem that needs to be fixed, but we are aware of it.	I saw
the 
> same thing happen in a playtest that Indy did last year at a local (to

> him) hobby shop.  3 players on each side, and the guy in the center
didn't 
> do much of anything the whole game 'cause the action was on the edges.
> 

   I think it might be a bit more common with the type of troops we had
on 
 Sunday.  Those green troops get shaken pretty easy and have to go hide
in 
 cover.  Any long firefights after that leave them effectively out of
the game.
 Our game sunday had one guy not doing anything for at least 2+ hours,
and my
 tanks were really were involved in most of the action for our side.  
 Similiarly an air unit or something similiar which has limited time
over the
 battlefield could spend hours after it's initial pass not being used
while a 
 long firefight goes on.
   This may be another issue where it's less important for local groups
who
 meet regularly, but for a convention type game some mechanic that
limits one
 firefight from being the entire game may be necessary.  The existing
firefight
 rules are probably *accurate*, but they may be less *fun* in certain 
 situations .

  grant

> Certainly stuff to think about. :)
> 
> John
> _______________________________________________
> Gzg-l mailing list
> Gzg-l@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
> http://lists.csua.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l
> 

_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
http://lists.csua.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l