Re: [GZG] What are the pitfalls of standardised forces?
From: "Robert Mayberry" <robert.mayberry@g...>
Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2008 10:26:05 -0400
Subject: Re: [GZG] What are the pitfalls of standardised forces?
On Sun, Jul 13, 2008 at 10:08 AM, Adrian1 <email@example.com> wrote:
> Robert Mayberry wrote:
>> That depends on where you are. As John points out, CFE and HMT both
>> use hydrocarbons that require some significant infrastructure to
>> support (though fusion is another story-- depending on your setting
>> might be ideal, as in my setting, or tricky to maintain and
>> expensive). On earth you're always just a few thousand miles from the
>> oil wells and refineries. On a newly colonized world, there won't be
>> oil deposits even if you had the resources to drill and refine. You'd
>> need some kind of chemical refinery and power source (probably
>> nuclear, possibly solar, wind or biological).
> Striclty speaking, the rules state that fuel isn't only oil but also
> alcohol and synthetic. I don't know what the minimum requirements are
> for a multi-fuel engine which is what I'm assuming a CFE is.
I've always interpreted that as being that CFE stands for a wide
variety of engines. The differences between an alcohol, gasoline,
diesel, bio-diesel or flex fuel are not important in a game like DS2
or SG. In a strategic setting, they obviously do make a difference.
It's perfectly valid to assume that, in your setting, CFE represents a
highly adaptive flex-fuel engine capable of burning a variety of
fuels. But if I used a force limited to a particular grade of gasoline
(for example) then I would ALSO use CFE to represent it. The rules
don't care about the fuels. In a strategic setting, these distinctions
Gzg-l mailing list