Re: [GZG] Microcarriers(was:NewCampaign) [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]

If campaign factors make munition heavy fleets "pay" for it in other
ways, then it may work out in the end.

>From the POV of most of the comments:
For a "free munitions" option: Daleks lose a 300 pt cruiser; Grey's lose
300 pts of fighters doing it.  The grey's "win" as it costs them nothing
to replace the casualties.  This allows resources to accumulate as there
are no combat losses to replace.
For a "pay for munitions" option: the Daleks lose a 300 pt cruiser;
Grey's lose 300 pts of fighters, the balance is towards the Dalek's as
the Grey's will be losing that *every battle*, so they're "buying" their
fleet every turn (and the carriers are in real trouble if cut off from
supply).

FT2.5 Munitions costs:
1 std fighter = 3
MKP = 4
Std Salvo = 6
ER Salvo = 9
Std SMR = 6 (2 mass for launcher, 2 mass for missiles)
ER SMR = 9 (2 mass for launcher, 3 mass for missiles)
SubPack = 3
"heavy" missiles = ~6 (possibly 3 if you allow 1 mass for launcher, 1
mass for missile itself; there is the option somewhere to use magazines)

When you have a campaign meeting to discuss how the campaign is going;
get a vague idea of total losses that have been "paid for".  If there is
a major discrepency (it won't necessarily the "grey" fleet, but I think
it likely after 8-10 turns), that will need to be investigated regarding
the long term health of the campaign.  (Resource losses tend to be
logarithmic based on force imbalances; the larger force should take less
casualties in a battle).

At the end of the day, if the "Grey's" aren't dominating strategically,
there must be something inside the campaign mechanics that has balanced
the free munition replacement, so this all becomes a non-issue.  
When the Grey's fight a defensive battle, as mentioned, we'll see if he
can actually hold the ground.

Rambled on a bit there, but its been a long day here...

Brendan
'Neath Southern Skies
http://home.pacific.net.au/~southernsk/

> -----Original Message-----
> From:  On Behalf Of john tailby
> Sent: Wednesday, October 03, 2007 4:41 PM
> Subject: Re: [GZG] Microcarriers (was: NewCampaign) [TO BE CLASSIFIED]
> 
> 
> I am not convinced that people should "pay" for expenable 
> munitions in a campaign. In order for that to balance out 
> they would have to be significantly better on the tactical 
> map or they would just become marginalised.
> 
> Its often difficult to take a tactical combat game and try 
> and translate it into a campaing game when the points are 
> balanced for the tactical game. I think the points are 
> ballanced for the tactical game so we don't need to handicap 
> players further. Also what is the cost of the expendible munition? 
> For fighters it's a bit visible but for missiles and MKPs its not.

______________________________________________________________________
IMPORTANT
1. Before opening any attachments, please check for viruses. 
2. This e-mail (including any attachments) may contain confidential
information 
     for the intended recipient. If you are not the intended recipient, 
     please contact the sender and delete all copies of this email. 
3. Any views expressed in this e-mail are those of the sender and are
not 
     a statement of Australian Government Policy unless otherwise
stated. 
4. Electronic addresses published in this email are not conspicuous
publications 
     and DVA does not consent to the receipt of commercial electronic
messages. 
5. Please go to http://www.dva.gov.au/feedback.htm#sub to unsubscribe
emails
     of this type from DVA. 
6. Finally, please do not remove this notice.

_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
http://mead.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l