Re: [GZG] DSIII q

> 
> On Fri, 3 Mar 2006, Grant A. Ladue wrote:
> 
> >    Yeah, but what kind of cover keeps a blaster from shooting at you
from
> >  above?  They would have had to break for cover behind a building,
and at
> >  infantry movement speed, they'd have been long dead before they
reached it.
> >
> 
> Well, if you think about it, even entering Close Assault, you're at
least 
> 2mu distant, which is 200 meters.  You might be marginally "above"
them, 
> but infantry are really really really good at taking cover in small
places 
> (compared to vehicles).  Men can lay down, scrunch up, fold, staple
and 
> mutilate.  Oh... wait.  That's not quite right. ;)  But you get the
idea.
> Even from on the hill where the AA units were initially deployed,
those 
> grav tanks were around a kilometer away from the infantry.  No way
that 
> they were high enough to fire down INTO the positions.  They weren't 
> flying. :)
> 

    Well we definitely did something wrong there then.	:-)  Although I
could
  argue that power blasters don't really need to see the specific
infantrymen
  to fire away at them.  Entombment is plenty good enough.

> >    Perhaps the answer is to have a mechanism for "hopeless"
firefights where
> >  the side that can't shoot back can disband its unit and end the
firefight
> >  before the other guy can creep up to it.  Just a thought off the
top of my
> >  head.
> >
> 
> Or just keep piling on the fire to force the infantry to accumulate 
> stress. They'll break eventually. :)
> 
> John

   :-)	Yeah, I get that.  I'm just saying that in a convention setting,
that
 can be an extended period of time where everyone else isn't doing
anything.
 Minimizing that is a good thing.  I know that a lot of it is that we're
not
 yet really familiar with the new system and therefore don't know how to
use it
 to avoid this.  Still, my first look at it made me feel like putting in
a few
 things to help limit one or two firefights being the *entire* game
would be a
 good thing.  I'll happily concede the point if repetitive play in a
similiar
 setting shows that it doesn't come up often enough to be a concern. 
I'm 
 concerned though, because I've been to many a convention and the only
games
 I didn't enjoy were where the scenario setup or the game rules left me
unable
 to do *anything* for most of the game.  For DSIII I'm a bit concerned
that the
 "shaken" result which forces unit to go to cover may often force one
player's
 forces entirely to cover.  If a long firefight or firefights occur
after that,
 you may never reach the end of the turn that allows those units to get
back
 into action.  I'm thinking that some mechanism for keeping things
flowing to
 turn end points is a good thing, especially in the convention type
games.

   Our game at ECC was ~ 3 to 3.5 hours of play, and the entirety of the
game
 was 3 firefights in the first turn.  We probably had 2 more to go to
the end
 of the turn (we had 2 more mbt units to ram home).  I didn't get a
close look
 at the other game, but I thought it was similiar.  I like how DSIII
plays, but
 I'm not sure that one turn convention games are a good idea.

   I want to make sure that you understand that I'm not being critical
of the
 game system or how it's been developed.  I'm just thinking out loud
about 
 what might be a flow issue in the game.  I rather enjoyed the faster
movement
 speeds and the morale.

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