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: Eric Foley <stiltman@t...>
Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2008 02:51:18 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Re: [GZG] [OFFICIAL] Question: was Re: [SG3]: What if?

I see two ways of balancing out bots that are going to ignore morale and
suppression.  One is to make them more expensive.  Two is to take
advantage of the fact that response to suppression also happens to
involve a self-preservation instinct, and that if they don't have one
then they should also be more apt to just eat whatever munitions someone
may bring that can actually take them down instead of taking cover. 
This is reflected in all three Terminator movies -- I for one can't
remember a single instance in any of them where any terminator model
ever actually took cover to preserve itself.  They pretty much just
stood up and took whatever small arms fire they had to, and if something
came along that could actually hurt them they tended to be way, way too
slow to get out of the way.  This is also reflected somewhat in the
droid armies that appeared in the Star Wars prequels -- they didn't tend
to care much about preserving themselves, but this was by no means a
_good_ thing for them in most instances.

EF

-----Original Message-----
>From: John Atkinson <johnmatkinson@gmail.com>
>Sent: Feb 9, 2008 10:50 PM
>To: gzg-l@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
>Subject: Re: [GZG] [OFFICIAL] Question: was Re: [SG3]: What if?
>
>On Feb 9, 2008 4:30 PM, John Lerchey <lerchey@andrew.cmu.edu> wrote:
>> I disagree.	Adding "bots" (remote controlled gun drones,
terminators, etc.) simply modifies the specific sides infantry.  They
are all still able to be engaged by "standard" infantry, and do not have
to remove the fun of the game.
>>
>> Then again, I like DS types of battles with companies to battalions,
so my take on what such might do to SG is somewhat limited. :)
>
>bots = "I don't like being limited by morale rules and supressions"
>
>IMHO.
>
>That may not be why you're saying it.	It's why some people are saying
it.
>
>It removes a major strength and emphasis of the rules.  A game where
>robots dominate (and they will, if you allow them to be more or less
>infantry immune to morale and supression with no balancing
>disadvantages) will not be Stargrunt.
>
>John
>-- 
>"Thousands of Sarmatians, Thousands of Franks, we've slain them again
>and again.  We're looking for thousands of Persians."
>--Vita Aureliani
>
>_______________________________________________
>Gzg-l mailing list
>Gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
>http://mead.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l

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

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