Prev: Re: [GZG] [OFFICIAL] Question: was Re: [SG3]: What if? Next: Re: [GZG] [OFFICIAL] Question: was Re: [SG3]: What if?

Re: [GZG] [OFFICIAL] Question: was Re: [SG3]: What if?

From: Indy <indy.kochte@g...>
Date: Sat, 9 Feb 2008 09:24:17 -0500
Subject: Re: [GZG] [OFFICIAL] Question: was Re: [SG3]: What if?

_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
http://mead.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lOn Feb
9, 2008 6:10 AM, Ground Zero Games <jon@gzg.com> wrote:

> Dragging this back to the particular question I asked, let me ask it
> again in a slightly different way.
> [...]
> I am assuming that in order to get a "balanced" game, the forces
> deployed will get smaller as the tech level increases; so to address
> the specific question I asked, do folks WANT the small high-tech
> infantry force to be able to shoot and kill enemy infantry at twice
> or three times the range that lower-tech troops can, or do you just
> want their fire to be more effective but at the same sort of ranges
> throughout?
>

Personally, I'm with the latter. Ranges slightly better for high tech vs
low, but volume and effectiveness of fire should be markedly better.

Just my non-military experience two bits worth. :-D

Mk


Prev: Re: [GZG] [OFFICIAL] Question: was Re: [SG3]: What if? Next: Re: [GZG] [OFFICIAL] Question: was Re: [SG3]: What if?