G'day,
OK I'll put my hand up and look the idiot. I must be the only dim wit who has
had to resort to using a construction system so they know what is sensible to
have on a tank. Obviously for all you old hands who know everything about
tanks a construction system is useless, but for the completely ignorant in the
audience they can be very helpful;)
Though I still get the odd "what were you thinking you can't have that AND
that on a tank it just doesn't make sense and isn't done" lecture;)
Cheers
DESK points???
Sodding spell checker!!
Sorry obviously that was supposed to be DS3 points and game balancing;)
Cheers
[quoted original message omitted]
> On Sat, 6 Apr 2002 18:47:46 +1000 Beth.Fulton@csiro.au writes:
Beth, it's called innovation and if it works, per Murphy, then it's not
stupid. And if it doesn't then don't build any more of them... <grin>
Gracias,
Anyone designing a game system has to take into account beth's situation. The
game is her main reference for armored warfare concepts. This goes double for
anyone coming from a PW background. So a design system has to (should) take
into account both what standard doctrine is,
but allow for enough variation to allow for some of the dead-end design
concepts.
> Glenn M Wilson wrote:
> On Sat, 6 Apr 2002 18:47:46 +1000 Beth.Fulton@csiro.au writes:
> AND
> On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 01:17:06PM -0700, Michael Llaneza wrote:
The solution to Beth's problem is sufficient examples and a discussion
extended in the setting description. Mainly because if my setting is
based on a neo-WWII technological fallback with a few "magical" beam
weapons, its going to have a /vastly/ different set of expectations of
a tank than if I'm modelling Renegade Legion grav tanks.
The rules shouldn't say anything about doctrine, insofar as it goes to "what's
expected of designs," because that's not their job. It shouldn't tell me how
large to make a unit of elements, just tell me how to use them. Settings are
too diverse to be shoehorned thus.