From: Aron_Clark@d...
Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2000 13:29:17 -0800
Subject: [DS] Ch*t (was [SG2] vehicle weapons vs. infantry)
shogakusha comments regarding Dirtside... > Don't like it. Hate the scale, and can't stand the idea of drawing I'm rather partial to DS myself and really appreciate the novel approach to the combat system. DS was the first rule set where I encountered the varied die type "opposed roll" system, and the drawing of damage chits seemed revolutionary. Sure they're a fiddly and you might lose some if you're not careful, but there's all that added suspense and a feel that you're physically determining the outcome rather than making a lookup to a table. I'm tired of the GW roll to hit, roll to damage, roll to save, system that has started to dominate the wargame design mind set. In my book any system which explores new approaches to resolving combat, and is fun and exciting, deserves a closer look . I think the 1/300th scale is excellent for larger tactical games. You might have an infantry engagement, an armor thrust, and an air attack all occurring o n the same table and influencing very different parts of the battle. I can understand, though, if this isn't for everyone. Finally I've nearly finished a DS vehicle designer in Excel. It's modeled alon g the lines of Sean Schoon's FT spreadsheet, and will error check the design against the rules criteria (ie power plant to weapon and mobility requirements) . I've yet to run it by Jon but I don't think there will be a problem of sharing this with anyone who is interested. If you'd like a copy of this spreadsheet, or would like to be put on a list for the final draft (which will output to a data card) contact me off list at... aronbc@juno.com. "shogakusha" <shogakusha@geotec.net> on 11/08/2000 12:16:28 PM Please respond to gzg-l@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU To: gzg-l@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU