[DSIII] was RE: [OFFICIAL-COMMERCIAL] More Slammers figs out !

7 posts ยท Feb 21 2003 to Feb 22 2003

From: Bradley, Jason (US - Minneapolis) <jabradley@d...>

Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 08:00:53 -0800

Subject: RE: [DSIII] was RE: [OFFICIAL-COMMERCIAL] More Slammers figs out !

I wouldn't mind seeing a new release of the rules. I think they are pretty
good as they are really but still...

Jason

[quoted original message omitted]

From: Bradley, Jason (US - Minneapolis) <jabradley@d...>

Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 15:01:49 -0800

Subject: RE: [DSIII] was RE: [OFFICIAL-COMMERCIAL] More Slammers figs out !

Now that I think of it, getting rid of the chit damage system wouldn't bother
me so much.

Jason

[quoted original message omitted]

From: Brian Bilderback <bbilderback@h...>

Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 15:10:28 -0800 (PST)

Subject: RE: [DSIII] was RE: [OFFICIAL-COMMERCIAL] More Slammers figs out !

--- "Bradley, Jason (US - Minneapolis)"
> <jabradley@deloitte.com> wrote:

GMTA

From: Bradley, Jason (US - Minneapolis) <jabradley@d...>

Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 15:13:57 -0800

Subject: RE: [DSIII] was RE: [OFFICIAL-COMMERCIAL] More Slammers figs out !

"I.e. amount of armor should have a bearing on speed, maneuverability,
etc."

Why is this a must? It is a sci fi game after all and you could reasonably
explain good armor that is light in weight without having to get into the
fantastic.

From: bbrush@u...

Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 17:32:31 -0600

Subject: RE: [DSIII] was RE: [OFFICIAL-COMMERCIAL] More Slammers figs out !

I think you're reading too much into my comment.

"Have a bearing" does not necessarily mean that heavy armor, high speed, and
maneuverability are mutually exclusive. Look at the M1A1 for a mondern day
example of a fast, heavily armored, and comparatively agile AFV. Now what is
the downside of the M1A1? It's EXPENSIVE compared to a slower, less armored
AFV.

I don't care if someone builds the "ultimate" AFV, but it should be balanced
in such a way that it's not unbeatable.

Consider also that "light", "good" armor is relative. At one point light, good
armor would have been bronze. Now it's kevlar. In the future our nifty CHOBHAM
armor will be considered excessively heavy and clunky but that doesn't mean
that something similar won't still be used.

Bill

> "I.e. amount of armor should have a bearing on speed,

From: Bradley, Jason (US - Minneapolis) <jabradley@d...>

Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 15:35:10 -0800

Subject: RE: [DSIII] was RE: [OFFICIAL-COMMERCIAL] More Slammers figs out !

I see what your saying, however, doesn't the point system compensate for this
by raising the points on high armor, faster speeds etc...?

Jason

[quoted original message omitted]

From: Brian Bilderback <bbilderback@h...>

Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 17:12:29 -0800 (PST)

Subject: RE: [DSIII] was RE: [OFFICIAL-COMMERCIAL] More Slammers figs out !

--- "Bradley, Jason (US - Minneapolis)"
> <jabradley@deloitte.com> wrote:

You could, if you wanted. That's why how MUCH the armor has a bearing on
speed, etc. can be covered in a capacity system by varying the amount of
capacity
armor costs (you want super light armor? Fine --
charge very few capacity spaces for armor).

However, WRT a points system, the value of armor will be a constant, since the
amount of survivability it provides the vehicle will be constant for any given
speed/weapons load etc. regardless of how you reached
that amount of armor.