First let me reiterate that I am a Battletech escapee and thus a little hard
on mecha. I for one like the restrictions placed on them in DSII regarding
increased signature.
However, it seems that while the rules claim to be addressing walkers in
general, and even vaguely refer
to AT-At type walkers, some of the rules for the
construction and use of walkers really seems more applicable to bipedal
walkers, particularly humanoid mecha. I'm specifically thinking of the special
rules for mounting weapons, arcs of fire, and dual mounts on arms.
In addition, I've also felt that the Infantry
Walker/Combat Walker/Transport Walker distinctions,
and their size limits (eliminating the middle range of size classes
especially) were a little stilted.
So I was thinking of splitting walkers into two mobility types. At first I was
considering Bipedal, and Multipedal (I know, technically Bi is Multi, so if
you can think of a better word....), but then I
realized there are non-humanoid Biped walkers in
fiction (e.g. AT-ST's). So I decided on Humanoid
Walkers (HW'S), and Non-Humanoid Walkers (NHW's) Both
would have the same terrain modifiers. I am torn regarding actual movement
points. HW's would use the canon rules regarding mounting of weapons, whereas
NHW's would use standard vehicle rules for mounting weapons. Only NHW's would
be allowed to carry infantry. (alternatively, for you Battletech fans, allow
HW's to carry PA, and limit leg infantry to NHW's)
I'm also tempted to remove the +1 signature rules from
NHW's, since they don't have to stand quite as upright as BPW's. Sure, there
are fictional examples, such as
AT-AT's and Battletech Behemoths, but they're just
silly looking compared to, say, Btech Scorpions and Tarantulas. You could keep
the signature limitation
in place and use stealth to simulate low-slung
designs, but I have been converted to the church of stealth is Overpriced. If
stealth were fixed, that would be the perfect solution.
On Thu, 6 Feb 2003 17:10:09 -0800 (PST) Brian Bilderback
> <greywanderer987@yahoo.com> writes:
<snip>
> In addition, I've also felt that the Infantry
Hey, Oh Glorious One who provides the mana for our addict... hobby (alias John
T.), when (eventually) you get to DS3 I really would like to see this
addressed even though only the IJK (and they generally stay out of
the fights were possible - mostly because they are the most incomplete
force I am working on) uses Tin Samurai in my scenarios. It's a logical and
logistical inconsistency that simply should be dealt with, please.
Gracias,
In article <20030207011009.11384.qmail@web20308.mail.yahoo.com>, Brian
Bilderback <greywanderer987@yahoo.com> writes
> First let me reiterate that I am a Battletech escapee
You may find this interesting from my DS5W then:-
Walking Vehicles
DSII has pretty reasonable rules for Walkers, although it falls into the
'excellent in all terrain' trap that seems to come from nowhere except
companies trying to develop these white elephants (recent legged vehicles seem
hardly better than when first tried out in the late sixties). Honestly, human
legs are known to be bad in mud, snow, ice and wading in water. Why should
mechanical ones be any better? People fall over often but can usually cope
with this. Will a 'Mech'? A certain Mr.Lucas showed us how Mechs really don't
want to fall over, especially if being stupid enough to 'run'. All that
kinetic energy will do something nasty. A Walker is going to methodically
plod, not run. How can any ground vehicle be better than Grav? Ground pressure
is a problem, careful design of feet can mitigate this, but then you don't
have slim nimble legs to thread through trees anymore and I suspect such a
foot could be disabled easily with machine gun fire. A man wearing snow shoes
isn't nimble, even though he has great ground pressure. Of course, with Grav
technology you can mitigate this, but why put legs on a Grav vehicle? All
those subassemblies and joints can be armoured, but never as well as a front
glassis plate. A walking vehicle will have shot traps galore. You are never
going to be able to mount as much equipment on a walking vehicle as you can a
more conventional one. In short, walking vehicles are possible but never as
good as the alternatives. Oh, and we don't see them in B5. Observant players
will notice the abysmal combat characteristics of walkers but for those that
insist and wish to hand victory to their opponents.
Walkers should be constructed as detailed in DSII pages 14 and 52, with the
following exceptions.
Combat Walkers should be considered erect and mostly bipedal. Transport
walkers usually have four or more legs, a more conventional appearance and be
a more rational choice. Signature is one higher than the Size Class of the
Walker. Walkers are easy targets so go heavy on the Stealth technology.
Maximum Armour is one less than Size Class. Side, Rear, Top and Bottom Armour
is determined as for any normal vehicle. A combat walker that takes a Mobility
hit cannot fire any weaponry. It has fallen over. Other walkers that take a
Mobility hit must make a Quality Roll with a Target of four. Failure means
they too have fallen over and must take the consequences. Infantry walkers can
only mount Class one weaponry. Combat and Transport Walkers can mount Class
one weapons as desired but other weapons are more restricted. Maximum turret
weapon Class is two less than the walker Size. Maximum 'arm' weapon Class is
one less than the Walker Size. Maximum Weapon size is equal to the walker
size. Missiles are exempt from these additional restrictions however. Walkers
aren't good at absorbing recoil, not optimally designed for mounting weapons
and have to keep their weight down.
Movement Infantry walkers use mechanised movement characteristics and have an
MV of four which costs 80% of BPV. All other walkers have a speed of six, or
eight if enhanced. They certainly cannot run. Walker movement costs 100% of
BPV or 120% if Enhanced. Walking vehicles have much more trouble than other
vehicles when faced with the possibility of Miring. In conditions where a
walker might be subject to Miring, it rolls a Quality die. If the roll is less
than or equal to the walkers Size Class then it is immobilised as the damage
Chit. A walker that Mires must roll again. A second Mire result means that the
Walker has fallen over or is up to it's neck in something. If it survives the
fall, it still counts as destroyed as it will require disproportionate effort
to recover and may have taken substantial damage. An AEV or ARV will be
required to 'pull out' a mired walker, but it requires time outside a scenario
and the use
of an ARV to recover a 'double-mired' walker. Walkers may not self-
recover from miring.
Walkers
Easy N/a
Normal Open, Roads
Poor Hills, Sand, Cultivated, Light Scrub, Rough, Rivers/Streams at
a ford Difficult Light woods, Dunes*, Urban*, Swamp*, Open water* Impassable
Mountains, Dense woods
* A Miring roll is always required at the mid point of movement.
Falling Over A hazard glossed over in most Mech games. To resolve a fall, draw
chits equal to Size Class, with Red and Special Chits valid. If the walker
survives this abuse, it will need the assistance of an ARV of equal or greater
size to regain it's feet.
Cheers
> From a realism standpoint it's arguably very
Most of my complaints about Battletech had to do with the tedium level
associated with resolving damage. (we usually spent more time marking little
boxes than actually manouvering and firing).
And while I felt they favored necha TOO heavily, they were what the game was
about, and some people like
them -- so I'd rather see them as a balanced option,
with strengths and drawbacks, not something that's overpowering to the point
of dominance, NOR restricted to the point of irrelevance.
> --- Symon Cook <Symon@ereshkigal.demon.co.uk> wrote:
<20030207011009.11384.qmail@web20308.mail.yahoo.com>,
> Brian
--- Brian Bilderback <greywanderer987@yahoo.com>
wrote:
> AT-AT's and Battletech Behemoths,
Goliaths, not Behemoths. Sorry.
=====
Qui me amat, amet et canem meum.
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
http://mailplus.yahoo.com
> --- Symon Cook <Symon@ereshkigal.demon.co.uk> wrote:
A
> combat walker that
I'd go with a target roll equal to their size class -
the bigger they are, the harder it is to keep them up due to increase in
center of gravity.
In article <20030207174857.74158.qmail@web20310.mail.yahoo.com>, Brian
Bilderback <greywanderer987@yahoo.com> writes
> From a realism standpoint it's arguably very
Thank you.
> From a gaming standpoint, it may be
I do. Actually, one other thing I need to incorporate is the difficulty
something that high off the ground (especially if bipedal) will have in
finding hull down positions. (Snicker, that's another one mech games seem to
overlook!)
> And while I felt they favored necha TOO heavily, they
Many years ago (pre Clan) I read a very interesting series of Battletech
design philosophy articles by a veteran player in a magazine. His final
article covered his discovery that a well designed force of GEV could take out
an equivalent or 'superior' force of mechs EVERY time. He apparently used to
demonstrate this at clubs and cons. I was amazed that actually Battletech had
got something plausible. Cheers
In article <20030207181301.34103.qmail@web20305.mail.yahoo.com>, Brian
Bilderback <greywanderer987@yahoo.com> writes
> --- Symon Cook <Symon@ereshkigal.demon.co.uk> wrote:
Good idea, I may well do that. Cheers
In article <20030207181301.34103.qmail@web20305.mail.yahoo.com>, Brian
Bilderback <greywanderer987@yahoo.com> writes
> --- Symon Cook <Symon@ereshkigal.demon.co.uk> wrote:
"Other walkers that take a Mobility hit must make a Quality Roll and exceed
their Size Class. Failure means they too have fallen over and must take the
consequences."
Thanks, you're in the Credits. Cheers
> --- Symon Cook <Symon@ereshkigal.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> "Other walkers that take a Mobility hit must make a
Woo Hoo! I'm honored. thank you. :-)
> --- Symon Cook <Symon@ereshkigal.demon.co.uk> wrote:
<20030207174857.74158.qmail@web20310.mail.yahoo.com>,
> Brian
In which ccase, you nailed it.
Actually, one other thing I need to
> incorporate is the difficulty
give me some time to work on that one, I'll get back to you.
> I was amazed that
I once let an opponent have any light mech he wanted, any tech level. I ran a
lance of Savannah Masters against him. Cleaned the floor with him. He never
played me again. ;-)
Having said that, for the player who WANTS walkers to be powerful, there
should be ways of simulating that, too.
> On 2/7/03 15:31, "Symon Cook" <Symon@ereshkigal.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> Many years ago (pre Clan) I read a very interesting series of
The magical vehicle in the game was the VTOL. It was possible to create
a 5 ton vtol that cost next to nothing -- mounting a single LRM-5 missle
rack.
People didn't take them too often because, well, they were easy to kill
-- but when massed together they cause some major damage.
Damo
I noticed the same thing. Horribly easy to kill, but one could design a VTOL
with quite a bit of punch, lots of armor (for a VTOL) and more speed than it
would ever need...
Basically, the VTOL hides on every turn he didn't have the initiative or a
"free shot" at an NME's back, when he did... zoom in and blast away, zipping
off at his earliest opportunity before the enemy could bring weapons to bear.
It wasn't perfect, and it couldn't pull it off alone, but boy the damage it
could inflict with minimal risk to itself.
Naturally, my gaming group banned VTOLs, citing that every game occurred in
"VTOL Hostile" atmospheres. I didn't mind, as the game is supposed to be
about Mechs, and I didn't play B-Tech that much after the VTOL rules
came out.
--Tim
> On Friday 07 February 2003 04:26 pm, Damond Walker wrote:
--- Flak Magnet <flakmagnet@tabletop-battlezone.com>
wrote:
> Naturally, my gaming group banned VTOLs, citing that
Heh.... sounds like they decided the only worlds they
could hold against you were atmosphereless rocks. ;-)
--- Brian Bilderback <greywanderer987@yahoo.com>
wrote:
> And while I felt they favored necha TOO heavily,
Players favored mecha too heavily. Last time I played Battletech my opponent
conceeded 2 games in a row in the deployment phase, and lost the third one
badly. BTech vehicles, especially GEVs, are fraggin' nasty if designed and
used correctly.
My favorite was a personal design--50 tons, 1 gauss
rifle, couple tons of ammo, 6/9 movement (I think,
it's been a long time) and the rest in armor.
Won one game with nothing but IS battlearmor.
> were what the game was about, and some people like
There's a fine line to walk here. I enjoy designing vehicles. Even more do I
enjoy working out the interrelations between various vehicle designs, where
vehicles fit on the MTOE, what their battlefield role is, and what doctrine
they would need.
If you make the rules so fuzzy that bad design choices aren't penalized then
it takes away a lot of the fun for me. I realize this approach occasionally
results in fights being won before a single dice is rolled, but then again
didn't Sun Tzu say the highest achievement of skill is to win without
fighting?
> At 05:10 PM 2/6/03 -0800, you wrote:
Last few DSII games I've run, I've chucked the point system, carrying
capacity, and hull restrictions out the window. It's worked well; I've had to
guesstimate game balance, but the last scenario worked out so very closely as
to pretty much validate my lack of concern.
This allows me to, say, make Mechs as effective as I'd like them to be for a
given scenario...which may be more or less effective than DSII standard,
according to my current whim.
If you're the one doing all the design work, as I am at the moment, this
obviously isn't a problem. If you're designing your troops while your
opponenet is designing his own...well, if you're both reasonable folks, and
willing/able to discuss things before gaming, I wouldn't imagine there'd
be much of a problem.
> --- John Crimmins <johncrim@voicenet.com> wrote:
> If you're the one doing all the design work, as I am
That's a big "if," sadly.
> --- John Atkinson <johnmatkinson@yahoo.com> wrote:
The rules did to a certain extent too. certain rules about how damage is
resolved, for instance, made it easier to kill a vehicle if you hit it than to
kill a mech if you hit it.
Last time I
> played
Imagine how much nastier if the above mentioned restrictions had not been in
place.
> My favorite was a personal design--50 tons, 1 gauss
Elegant.
> There's a fine line to walk here. I enjoy designing
As do I, though I suspect you're much better at it than I (given our different
levels of real life and gaming experience, that is to be expected).
> If you make the rules so fuzzy that bad design
Agreed. I'm just saying there should be ways of preventing walkers from being
an automatic bad design choice just by merit of being a walker. Give it
advantages in certain situations, and disadvantages in others, so that it's
merit as a design choice is as dependent on the situation and other
considerations as it is for any other vehicle type. For instance, if you give
walkers slower actual MP's, but make certain terrains like mountains, forests,
or cities easier for them to traverse, then things get more interesting: Open
plains, I'm going to run GEV or Grav before I'll take a walker. Fighting on
the Olympic peninsula of Washington? Walkers backed by VTOL. *shrug* just a
possible variation on the theme. Tomb and I had a talk about this, and how a
smart army's going to have
several different types of vehicles up it's sleeve -
even the highest tech force around won't run pure grav.
I realize this approach occasionally
> results
He did indeed.
The problem seems to be that optimal designs are all that get used. I prefer a
game where the choice of design is partially removed from the player i.e. WWII
Germans using PzIII against Soviet T-34 instead of Panthers, or Shermans
in
general:).
An M1 may be the optimal MBT, but what if the deployment had to be air only?
"Your Task Force will be deployed to Shazbat 7, but due to cargo restraints we
are limited to size 2 vehicles, the Euries have a tank plant on planet so we
can expect to see T-2144s (Size 5). Select your force from these three
(pre-generated) models."
I like sub optimal designs and I like Walkers (especially early [Unseen]
Battletech). I know that Walkers are absurd, but they look COOOL. With in the
framework of a game it works.
I guess what I'm trying to get at is that design systems and point values tend
to pull min-maxers out of the woodwork.
Michael Brown
[quoted original message omitted]
> On 2/7/03 19:11, "Brian Bilderback" <greywanderer987@yahoo.com> wrote:
> The rules did to a certain extent too. certain rules
You're darn right the rules favored mechs. It was possible to cripple a
vehicle in one or two shots while a mech had to be chipped away at. Strip the
armor, cause internals, strip internals, move to next section.
Ammo explosions were neato to play out.:)
Damo
Some very good and (real world wise) realistic set of points. They are also
some great scenario generators...)
> --- Michael Brown <mwbrown@sonic.net> wrote:
Mini-maxers will find a way to rape any system, except
for preset scenario forces where you have NO choice as to what you bring.
Scenario limitations are fine, and definitely have a
use. But they can also be over-used to the point of
making a player feel constricted. That fine balancing act John refers to is
common in all areas of gaming.
> --- Damond Walker <dwalker@syncreticsoft.com> wrote:
> You're darn right the rules favored mechs. It
Ah, yes, the other disadvantage of vehicles: IIRC, no CASE for vehicles. That
seemed silly and arbitrary to me (given it's based on technology in real life
use
today...).
> --- Michael Brown <mwbrown@sonic.net> wrote:
If I want a challenge I run my border guards. All
size-2 vehicles (the minis are all LAV variants).
So far, they have a pretty damn good track record.
> "Your Task Force will be deployed to Shazbat 7, but
The tank hunter with the twin GMS/H launchers sounds
nice. Also plenty of scatterable minefields, Towed artillery (since SP won't
fit), and VTOL support. I can eat 'em for lunch.
> I like sub optimal designs
I don't. I do like putting designs in situations that they weren't really
intended for and seeing if they can cope. See my comments re: border guards.
http://www.angelfire.com/va/basileus/Akritai.html
> --- John Atkinson <johnmatkinson@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > I like sub optimal designs
I have to agree with John on this one. now, if you're in a campaign setting,
and you're playing a power that has specific technological, economic, or
resource limitations, precluding you from using certain
mobility types and/or weapons, then you design
something that will do the job best with what you have. That's optimal for
you, even if it isn't optimal for everyone. That's different than
intentionally designing a vehicle with flaws.
> At 03:58 PM 2/7/03 -0800, you wrote:
The latter, you mean? Understandable -- it's easy enough to cooperate
with yourself; when you add in extra people it becomes significantly more
difficult.... But surely, setting some ground rules wouldn't be impossible,
would it? Especially if you're working from a common background.
I'm not talking, you understand, about designing size one vehicles that mount
half a dozen class 5 HKPs. I did things like:
Give the Grav tanks -- the fastest things on the board -- armor much
lighter than they could carry under the rules. Size 4 vehicles with level 3
armor in the front facing, for example.
Allow Slow Tracked vehicles to have *heavier* armor than than the rules allow,
along with bigger guns (this turned out to be a bit excessive, but
not as overwhelming as it could have been -- one or the other next time,
not both....)
Gave vehicles with fixed gun an automatic level of steath to reflect their
lower profile.
...and suchlike.
I've also got a scenario that I want to run that will pit a low-tech
army
against a much smaller force of Ultra-tech tanks. The advanced force is
going to have MBTs that use VTOL movement -- FULL anti-gravity, as I see
it. This one will require a lot of play-testing, mind, and some tweaks
regarding fire against VTOLs...but damn, it should be a lot of fun. I'll
run the low-tech troops -- I love playing the underdog. Really gives
you something to strive for.
In article <20030207211137.41979.qmail@web20306.mail.yahoo.com>, Brian
Bilderback <greywanderer987@yahoo.com> writes
> --- Symon Cook <Symon@ereshkigal.demon.co.uk> wrote:
Thanks. No giant stompy robots I say!
> Actually, one other thing I need to
Currently, I'm going with this:-
Hull Down
Combat and Transport Walkers are at a notable disadvantage when seeking cover.
First, any roll to acquire cover is subject to an unfavourable Die Shift of
One. Second, any Secondary defensive rolls for Soft Cover and Hull Down are
penalised by one Die Type. I.E. Soft Cover gains D4 and Hull Down a D8.
Cheers
> Symon Cook wrote:
I recall these. I don't recall the publication name but I think they were
written by Glenn Wallbridge. For "design philosophy" I would substitute "power
gaming" or "minimaxing".
The GEV force exploited a rules bug regarding hit modifiers applied regarding
shooter and target speed. The shooter is penalised according to whether his
own speed is walk or run for that design (was it flank and cruise for
vehicles? it's been a good few years), but penalised according to the absolute
speed of the target. If a design is capable of a very high speed it becomes
impossible to be targeted by any enemy but still it has a slight chance of
hitting a slow target.
This GEV force ("Iron Wolves", IIRC) would "win" by inflicting a small amount
of damage by throwing SRMs about and then running away to reload. Their enemy
could plausibly push the hit modifiers to the point where the GEVs couldn't
hit them either by skulking in heavy woods so the GEVs had to include a
proportion of flamers (to burn them out), further diluting their rather wan
firepower.
Something like that anyway, it has been ten years, plus.
--- Brian Bilderback <greywanderer987@yahoo.com>
wrote:
> --- John Atkinson <johnmatkinson@yahoo.com> wrote:
That's why I don't play Heavy Gear. To the clowns that do, designing a vehicle
that made sense from a soldier's standpoint immediately draws cries of
"munchkin" and "cheesy". So I decided to go with DSII full time. They confused
having character with being stupid.
In article <3E446D9B.C343A9B6@blueyonder.co.uk>, David Brewer
<davidbrewer@blueyonder.co.uk> writes
> Symon Cook wrote:
Depends if you can defend the production of inferior designs I suppose. Not
being a Battletech player, I couldn't tell the difference between rational
optimized design and rules exploiting design.
> The GEV force exploited a rules bug regarding hit modifiers
That's the one. I've still got the magazines somewhere.
> would "win" by inflicting a
Is it really that long? (Sigh)
Cheers
> On Fri, 7 Feb 2003, John Atkinson wrote:
> --- Brian Bilderback <greywanderer987@yahoo.com>
When I played Battletech, I did favour mechs over infantry and vehicles,
mostly because I didn't think the game was supposed be "realistic". The
background says mechs are the ultimate fighting machine. Who cares? I just
want to get in my giant robot and beat the shit out of the other guy's giant
robot.
I've played one game where someone took their gauss rifle VTOL against my
mech. Every time he'd lose initiative, he'd hide. Everytime he'd win, he'd
manuever for a back shot with the gauss. Did it make sense for him to fight
that way? You bet. Was it a really boring game? Oh yeah.
I'd rather play stand up fights between mech companies than games of "add up
the firing modifiers" against VTOLs or min maxing the point system. YMMV.
> s666@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca wrote:
[...]
> When I played Battletech, I did favour mechs over infantry and
The
> background says mechs are the ultimate fighting machine. Who cares? I
Back when I played B'tech, that's how I used to do it, too.
"Play the game, not the rules", as Jon T admonishes. :-)
Mk
> Symon Cook wrote:
Again, it's been a long time, but from what I recall of the early background
material there really was no capability in the Inner Sphere to produce mecha
of the styles proposed in the articles, except, perhaps, for those Iron
Wolves. The Battlemechs were aristocratic family heirlooms from an earlier era
that were continually patched up and salvaged from defeated enemies.
Furthermore, the stock designs started out as pictorial designs, often from
Japanese cartoons, and fairly bristled with weapons before the game authors
ran them through the design process, biasing the designs toward too many
weapons (in the wrong positions) and too little armour (and heat sinks), which
is fine as long as everyone chooses from the same pool of designs, or if they
were allocated per scenario.
Not using the sub-optimal stock designs would be something like
having the British Army of 1939 design and build newer and much better tanks
the day before the Germans ploughed into France. Some SF games can justify
this type of play (e.g. Car Wars) but most really can't.
This list has some great gamers on it.... I just wanted to put that out
there...
I have never had the opportunity to make it to a con, but I have been lurking
for about 5 years, if not more... I just got orders to Norfolk, so I hope I'll
eventually get to meet some of you guys (and gals... Beth) at a Con in that
area... The spirit IS in playing the game, not manipulating the
rules...
Joe
> > When I played Battletech, I did favour mechs over infantry and
The
> > background says mechs are the ultimate fighting machine. Who cares?
I just
> > want to get in my giant robot and beat the shit out of the other
I used to play B-Tech quite a bit and it's "Uber-mech" bias always irked
me to no end. I actually dropped most of my playing after Clan tech came out
because it only got worse. (That is NOT to say I don't love the computer
games.... sometimes it's GOOD to be the Mech;o)
I was a little leary about getting into the new Mechwarrior 'clix' game by
WizKids. However it's a VERY well balanced combined-arms game and plays
very well and very fast. (We'll see when the new expansion comes out this
month, some of that artillery is down right scary:o)
But as for DS and walkers, I've decided that in my background, (based on the
Star Frontiers game:o) I'll probably drop most of the signiture and such
'penalties' for having WALKER type movement because my 'walkers' are going to
be multipedal tanks, rather than upright robots. I'm doing this to give the
background 'flavor' as suggested by Jon;o)
The Sathar in the background are the 'enemy' and their personal movement is
like that of a snake or worm. (They 'crawl') Though they CAN use two limbs as
rudimentary legs. I postulate that they took this idea, (they can move bit
faster and 'stand' a bit more stable on thier 'legs) and applied it to thier
vehicle technology. Instead of using 'wheels' they will use multiple legs.
Along with some tracked and hover vehicles.
Randy
The Sathar in the background are the 'enemy' and their personal movement is
like that of a snake or worm. (They 'crawl') Though they CAN use two limbs as
rudimentary legs. I postulate that they took this idea, (they can move bit
faster and 'stand' a bit more stable on thier 'legs) and applied it to thier
vehicle technology. Instead of using 'wheels' they will use multiple legs.
Along with some tracked and hover vehicles.
Randy, Great idea about the Sathar, there one of my favorite bad guys. I'd
love to see what your designs look like when you complete them.
G'day,
> The Sathar in the background are
One of the aliens I play is similar though I ended up giving them GEV vehicles
and octopoid ally that makes up most of the ground forces;)
It was actually their insectoid enemies that got the walkers, which are
radially symmetrical with the same armour rating on all sides. I think
that's one of the best parts of DS/SG etc with very small tweaks you can
give an army a very different flavour.
Cheers
Just for a guy's benefit who played a little Star Frontiers but not enough to
really remember what the Sathar were like... could you relate the general
scheme of things for them?
E (aka Stilt Man)
[quoted original message omitted]
> Just for a guy's benefit who played a little Star Frontiers but not
Until someone who actually knows, or can find their stuff quicker than
I,
as my SO has decided to do some cleaning and rearranging in the basement:
Strange, mysterious was the basic theme I remember. However, they were
portrayed as annelids (segmented worms, think earthworms) with one pair each
of arms and legs. While unclear, it was supposed to be an
empire/nation external to the Federation, having made several large
incursions, but quiet until 'recently'. The two main challenges to the Feds
were external Sathar and internal pirates.
You'll remember the Federation was made up of several species, but the Sathar,
as I recall, came in only one variety. That always seemed ominous.
I always thought the Fed ships tended to Victorian-ish designs, while
the Sathar were comfortably Golden Age of Science Fiction, all curves and
squashed spheres. Someday I'll open my several boxes and get some painted, if
they haven't all rotted to dust, a big problem with the TSR lead of this
period.
The_Beast
> On 2/9/03 9:44, "devans@nebraska.edu" <devans@nebraska.edu> wrote:
> You'll remember the Federation was made up of several species, but the
I played Star Frontiers/Knight Hawks for far too long. :)
If I remember correctly the initial founding of the federation fleet was to
beat back a large Sathar incursion (The First Sathar war).
When you purchased Knight Hawks (an expansion/stand alone game for
Star Frontiers) you got, for the time, a pretty decent set of starship combat
rules and a campaign game where you fought the second Sathar war. It was a
pretty intense fight -- though some of the particulars have been lost to
time (i.e. I played that, oh, about 16 years ago).
But you're right -- the Sathar were the Great Enemy who struck from
the shadows, supplied weapons and such, etc, etc, etc.....
Damo
> On Friday 07 February 2003 04:51 pm, Brian Bilderback wrote:
Just re-read what I'd written and wanted to explain that, though I
didn't play much after the VTOL rules came out, it wasn't because of the VTOL
rules or anything else that changed in the game, it was just the result of a
life-situation.
> Heh.... sounds like they decided the only worlds they
I guess...
> =====