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-lA
friend developed a force that I think used robots in a very snesible
way.  He played a smaller nation which compensated for lack of available
manpower by using hi-tech force multipliers.  His infantry units were
equipped with robots that performed hi-risk jobs - point, medical
retrieval, EOD, etc.  All of these are done in tandem with humans and
none of them independent of some sort of handler or command.

I thought this was an effective, but not overpowering use for robots in
game.

-Eli

-------------- Original message -------------- 
From: "John Lerchey" <lerchey@andrew.cmu.edu> 

> Fair point. 
> 
> What we've been doing in DS3 is to have the remote units *operators*
take morale 
> tests when the bots get damaged to see if they pull 'em out. OA says
that ops 
> tend to fall in love with their toys. :) 
> 
> I've only played a little with actual robots, but plan to do some more
with it. 
> Yes, they have advantages in no morale, but they should also lack in
tactical 
> flexibility (or maybe, depending on your background and desired
limitations). 
> They also likely cost more (in battle effectiveness) than living
units. And 
> they likely don't really take cover. :) 
> 
> Things can be offset. 
> 
> For the record, I *require* strong morale systems for my more serious
games. 
> That was one of the biggest failures of a lot of the older games like
Starguard 
> and Strike Team Alpha. Ok mechanics, no morale. No communications. No
control 
> problems. Too unrealistic (yeah, like I can say that when I want
disruptors and 
> blasters!). :) 
> 
> J 
> 
> > On Feb 9, 2008 4:30 PM, John Lerchey 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 
> > 
> > 
> 
> 
> John K. Lerchey 
> Assistant Director for Incident Response 
> Information Security Office 
> Carnegie Mellon University 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________ 
> Gzg-l mailing list 
> Gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU 
> http://mead.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l