Re: [GZG] Armoured utility vehicles and IEDs in SG/DS
From: "Robert Mayberry" <robert.mayberry@g...>
Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2008 06:57:25 -0400
Subject: Re: [GZG] Armoured utility vehicles and IEDs in SG/DS
On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 3:01 AM, Richard Bell <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> The scary thing about a grav-pulse mine that damages/destroys the
drive of a
> grav vehicle is that effect goes right through any armor, as if it was
> there. Any protection scheme that could block the effect also blocks
> effect of the drive.
My instinct is to say that superweapons are not fun in a game unless
you give them equally uber downsides.
For example, a grav disruptor that is both powerful and indefensible
will be useful if you're actively trying to discourage grav vehicles
in your setting. However, if you're not specifically trying to do
that, you'll want to probably think up some PSB defenses. The easiest
option is to say that, with the grav disruptor well-known by both
sides, modern armor includes waveguides, dead spaces, active defenses
or other PSB that fall under the general category of armor. Therefore,
you'd treat a grav disruptor minefield as a normal minefield (maybe
that only works on grav vehicles, but see below). Or you could call it
a special mine that ignores armor and attacks ECM, with Basic =
Effective "armor" 2, Enhanced = effective "armor" 3, and Superior =
effective "armor" 4.
Creating new rule categories tends to create new edge cases. Anytime
you create a new rule, you're creating new loopholes, but in a game
like Dirtside, you also don't want to spoil its elegant simplicity.
You also want to make sure that the battle is won or lost at the
table, not on a spreadsheet optimizing points values the week before.
Vehicle design should create new tactics and strategies, but NOT
significant combat advantages over another equal-cost force. A weapon
or defense that works extremely well on one particular force type but
is useless against another makes games less fun. (PDS, AD and CBR work
this way, it's true, but artillery and air support are by design
peripheral to the main game, and missiles are common to most forces.)
Personally, I'd do the same for IED's. To me, they're another type of
command-detonated minefield, but if you want, you can make them a
one-shot, 4-chit MAK attack that otherwise follows the minefield rules
(ie that vehicles damaged are instead immobilized). I think it's
important to, as much as possible, roll new stuff into existing rules
Gzg-l mailing list