> Aaron Teske wrote:
> At 07:40 PM 12/5/00 -0800, Laserlight wrote:
<<SNIP>>
> Aaron
Realistically, Star Wars is a great story backed by strong visual
presentation. The Postman, Uplift, etc. are great books. For pure fun I take
the former, but I have a greater respect for and spend more time on
the latter.
As for an Uplift conversion. Start with the books for flavor but check out the
GURPS Uplift supplement. They are fairly brief, but the base GURPS rules are
there regarding space combat and some of the more exotic
devices Brin provides: Reality Anchors, Probability weapons (nasty, nasty toys
these), antiparticle beams,...
--
The Middle Ages were a great time to be alive, because if you weren't wiped
out by the Plague or impaled by some marauding barbarian, then yippee.
"chocolate covered musings"
(http://www.amused.com/nick.html)
From - Wed Dec 06 17:42:02 2000
Return-Path: <owner-gzg-l@scotch.csua.berkeley.edu>
Received: from scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (scotch.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
[128.32.43.51])
by lilac.propagation.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id VAA18798;
Tue, 5 Dec 2000 21:32:52 -0600
Received: from localhost (daemon@localhost)
by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.0) with SMTP id
eB63TD122696;
Tue, 5 Dec 2000 19:29:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (bulk_mailer v1.12); Tue, 5 Dec
2000 19:29:07 -0800
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.0) id eB63T6G22672
for gzg-l-outgoing; Tue, 5 Dec 2000 19:29:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: from soda.csua.berkeley.edu
(IDENT:dY1CD9O96dD4Xq/Curu5dlxZlecFesFT@soda.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
[128.32.43.52])
by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id
eB63T5P22665
for <gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU>; Tue, 5 Dec 2000 19:29:05
-0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp4.quixnet.net (psmtp4.array3.laserlink.net
[63.65.123.54] (may be forged))
by soda.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.1) with ESMTP id
eB63T1f67272
for <gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu>; Tue, 5 Dec 2000 19:29:01 -0800
(PST)
(envelope-from laserlight@quixnet.net)
Received: from pavilion (1Cust241.tnt8.princess-anne.va.da.uu.net
[63.26.238.241])
by smtp4.quixnet.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id WAA01151
for <gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu>; Tue, 5 Dec 2000 22:09:44 -0500
(EST)
Message-ID: <000901c05f4b$008cfe80$f1ee1a3f@pavilion>
From: "Laserlight" <laserlight@quixnet.net>
To: <gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu>
References:
<20001129195105.28051.cpmta@c008.sfo.cp.net><3A2C222B.ABB975C8@brewer.to
> <3A2D868C.1B256632@sympatico.ca>
<3.0.5.32.20001205212355.00a17a70@mail.HICom.net>
Subject: Re: Uplift FT (was Re: Am I a Republic revisionist?)
Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2000 22:08:48 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200
Sender: owner-gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
Reply-To: gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu
Delivered-To: gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu
Status:
X-Mozilla-Status: 0000
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
X-UIDL: 39d245de00000760
Aaron said:
> Come to think of it, the one game that was discussed a while back,
Recent. Try October00 archives.
> Of course, thinking about the different Uplift races... working them
(Why
> do I always come up with SG/FMA scenarios when nearly all my minis are
There are a couple of seemingly Uplift "inspired" minis on the 100 Club
listing at Eureka... http://www.eurekamin.com.au
(I saw one "dolphin in walking harness")
JS Jeremy Sadler stargrunt.com webmaster
http://www.stargrunt.com
From - Wed Dec 06 17:42:07 2000
Return-Path: <owner-gzg-l@scotch.csua.berkeley.edu>
Received: from scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (scotch.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
[128.32.43.51])
by lilac.propagation.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id DAA23429;
Wed, 6 Dec 2000 03:13:58 -0600
Received: from localhost (daemon@localhost)
by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.0) with SMTP id
eB699cw33265;
Wed, 6 Dec 2000 01:09:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (bulk_mailer v1.12); Wed, 6 Dec
2000 01:09:38 -0800
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.0) id eB699bA33244
for gzg-l-outgoing; Wed, 6 Dec 2000 01:09:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: from soda.csua.berkeley.edu
(IDENT:KKjqOvoSaSIEwPiJkzRAXRssEVW/wkqH@soda.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
[128.32.43.52])
by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id
eB699ZP33238
for <gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU>; Wed, 6 Dec 2000 01:09:35
-0800 (PST)
Received: from mr14.vic-remote.bigpond.net.au
(mr14.vic-remote.bigpond.net.au [24.192.1.29])
by soda.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.1) with ESMTP id
eB699Yf33872
for <gzg-l@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU>; Wed, 6 Dec 2000 01:09:34 -0800
(PST)
(envelope-from oglover@bigpond.net.au)
Received: from homeii (CPE-144-132-109-193.vic.bigpond.net.au
[144.132.109.193])
by mr14.vic-remote.bigpond.net.au (Pro-8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id
UAA17111
for <gzg-l@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU>; Wed, 6 Dec 2000 20:09:25 +1100
(EDT)
From: "Owen Glover" <oglover@bigpond.net.au>
To: <gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu>
Subject: RE: Mobile infantry in SG2
Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2000 20:07:49 +1100
Message-ID: <001801c05f64$01b23b40$c16d8490@homeii.vic.bigpond.net.au>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2173.0
Importance: Normal
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3
In-Reply-To: <200012052039.PAA01406@okura.cowell.org>
Sender: owner-gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
Reply-To: gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu
Delivered-To: gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu
Status:
X-Mozilla-Status: 0000
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
X-UIDL: 39d245de0000076e
Hi Andy,
The sample lists in the back of the rules actually give two options! I think
it all depends on how your doctrine is played out.
For truly Mechanised Infantry, the APC should be part of the squad and you
probably need a couple of house rules to work this effectively. We use a
modified Detachment Rule that gives the Det an autoamtic one Action regardless
of the distance from parent body; BUT detachments can only be formed if for a
"reasonable" tactical reason. The parent body can transfer one of its two
Actions to the Detachment; this way both entities have at least one action.(We
play the game and discuss ANY sticking points rationally and logically. If it
gets to an ARGUMENT or heated discussion then it isn't reasonable and don't
happen!)
If the APC is simply a battle taxi then once the Infantry have dismounted then
it is a separate unit etc.
That's our take on it.
Back to you.
Owen
> -----Original Message-----
From - Wed Dec 06 17:42:07 2000
Return-Path: <owner-gzg-l@scotch.csua.berkeley.edu>
Received: from scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (scotch.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
[128.32.43.51])
by lilac.propagation.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id DAA24160;
Wed, 6 Dec 2000 03:18:45 -0600
Received: from localhost (daemon@localhost)
by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.0) with SMTP id
eB69IKf33505;
Wed, 6 Dec 2000 01:18:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (bulk_mailer v1.12); Wed, 6 Dec
2000 01:18:19 -0800
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.0) id eB69II833483
for gzg-l-outgoing; Wed, 6 Dec 2000 01:18:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: from cambr-exch1.adaptivebroadband.com
(berlin.adaptivebroadband.com [193.131.186.254])
by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id
eB69IGP33474
for <gzg-l@scotch.csua.berkeley.edu>; Wed, 6 Dec 2000 01:18:16
-0800 (PST)
Received: by cambr-exch1.cambridge.adaptivebroadband.com with Internet
Mail Service (5.5.2650.21)
id <W4S12NXH>; Wed, 6 Dec 2000 09:18:09 -0000
Message-ID:
<35940AC31FFCD311AAF8009027D0D07D537B8F@cambr-exch1.cambridge.adaptivebr
oadband.com>
From: "Jones, Tim" <tjones@adaptivebroadband.com>
To: "'gzg-l@scotch.csua.berkeley.edu'" <gzg-l@scotch.csua.berkeley.edu>
Subject: RE: FT: Question that may be really *old*...
Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2000 09:18:05 -0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21)
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Sender: owner-gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
Reply-To: gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu
Delivered-To: gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu
Status:
X-Mozilla-Status: 0000
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
X-UIDL: 39d245de0000076f
Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2000 10:08:23 -0500
From: "Stark, Luke" <lcs@intonet.com>
Subject: RE: FT: Question that may be really *old*...
> I had planned on posting the design specification to the list/web and
I would restrict design sessions to the computer list - address at the
computer core it used to be quite active but no one has any time left so it
got quiet if we have some new blood all the better.
> I had /not/ planned an AI. I do not wish to play this game alone. What
I agree don't bother with AI in v1.0. Just hosting simple network games with
live players is what you want. Something like a FT version of nettrek would be
what I would go for or something to play on the PC at home to try out designs
and scenarios.
There have been a lot of attempts to do this in the past and nothing to date
has been released that is usable or used, just a word to the wise.
--
Tim
From - Wed Dec 06 17:42:07 2000
Return-Path: <owner-gzg-l@scotch.csua.berkeley.edu>
Received: from scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (scotch.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
[128.32.43.51])
by lilac.propagation.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id DAA24967;
Wed, 6 Dec 2000 03:21:30 -0600
Received: from localhost (daemon@localhost)
by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.0) with SMTP id
eB69LD233638;
Wed, 6 Dec 2000 01:21:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (bulk_mailer v1.12); Wed, 6 Dec
2000 01:21:12 -0800
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.0) id eB69LBC33617
for gzg-l-outgoing; Wed, 6 Dec 2000 01:21:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: from cambr-exch1.adaptivebroadband.com
(berlin.adaptivebroadband.com [193.131.186.254])
by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id
eB69L9P33612
for <gzg-l@scotch.csua.berkeley.edu>; Wed, 6 Dec 2000 01:21:09
-0800 (PST)
Received: by cambr-exch1.cambridge.adaptivebroadband.com with Internet
Mail Service (5.5.2650.21)
id <W4S12NXM>; Wed, 6 Dec 2000 09:21:03 -0000
Message-ID:
<35940AC31FFCD311AAF8009027D0D07D537B90@cambr-exch1.cambridge.adaptivebr
oadband.com>
From: "Jones, Tim" <tjones@adaptivebroadband.com>
To: "'gzg-l@scotch.csua.berkeley.edu'" <gzg-l@scotch.csua.berkeley.edu>
Subject: FT: GZF format...anything use it?
Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2000 09:21:01 -0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21)
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Sender: owner-gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
Reply-To: gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu
Delivered-To: gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu
Status:
X-Mozilla-Status: 0000
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
X-UIDL: 39d245de00000770
> I haven't seen anythig new using the GZF format release in the last
nothing released, the new version of ftmap in development is using it, and
several people are still writing tools using it as I have had various
questions by email from them.
> Just wanting to know if GZF formats are widely used, or if it was a
Not widely used, but it is a standard (as such) so why re-invent the
wheel? The grand vision is for a suite of tools that interoperate using GZF,
its still a good idea.
__
Tim
From - Wed Dec 06 17:42:08 2000
Return-Path: <owner-gzg-l@scotch.csua.berkeley.edu>
Received: from scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (scotch.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
[128.32.43.51])
by lilac.propagation.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id DAA25827;
Wed, 6 Dec 2000 03:26:30 -0600
Received: from localhost (daemon@localhost)
by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.0) with SMTP id
eB69Pnc33767;
Wed, 6 Dec 2000 01:25:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (bulk_mailer v1.12); Wed, 6 Dec
2000 01:25:48 -0800
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.0) id eB69PlV33745
for gzg-l-outgoing; Wed, 6 Dec 2000 01:25:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: from cambr-exch1.adaptivebroadband.com
(berlin.adaptivebroadband.com [193.131.186.254])
by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id
eB69PjP33740
for <gzg-l@scotch.csua.berkeley.edu>; Wed, 6 Dec 2000 01:25:45
-0800 (PST)
Received: by cambr-exch1.cambridge.adaptivebroadband.com with Internet
Mail Service (5.5.2650.21)
id <W4S12NXR>; Wed, 6 Dec 2000 09:25:39 -0000
Message-ID:
<35940AC31FFCD311AAF8009027D0D07D537B91@cambr-exch1.cambridge.adaptivebr
oadband.com>
From: "Jones, Tim" <tjones@adaptivebroadband.com>
To: "'gzg-l@scotch.csua.berkeley.edu'" <gzg-l@scotch.csua.berkeley.edu>
Subject: Re: [FT] Can't access FT Computer Core
Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2000 09:25:38 -0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21)
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Sender: owner-gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
Reply-To: gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu
Delivered-To: gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu
Status:
X-Mozilla-Status: 0000
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
X-UIDL: 39d245de00000771
> Style.css exists. GeoCities servers are case sensitive so if the page
Thanks for the info. This gives a logical explanation to the cause of the
problem.
> It's a really stupid bug in Netscape 4.x that causes it display a 404
really dumb indeed
> I see that the reference to STYLE.CSS has been removed which should
yup hopefully
> For complex historical reasons, Netscape 4.x also uses JavaScript to
> None of the above holds for Netscape 6 or for any non-Netscape
This is what makes the world of web development such an interesting
challenge :-)
Thanks webspert
--
Tim
From - Wed Dec 06 17:42:08 2000
Return-Path: <owner-gzg-l@scotch.csua.berkeley.edu>
Received: from scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (scotch.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
[128.32.43.51])
by lilac.propagation.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id EAA00184;
Wed, 6 Dec 2000 04:07:32 -0600
Received: from localhost (daemon@localhost)
by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.0) with SMTP id
eB69XVL33941;
Wed, 6 Dec 2000 01:33:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (bulk_mailer v1.12); Wed, 6 Dec
2000 01:33:25 -0800
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.0) id eB69XOb33919
for gzg-l-outgoing; Wed, 6 Dec 2000 01:33:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from soda.csua.berkeley.edu
(IDENT:K7Za3nXTlsd0bj04tSeiTe6qOdpjDgn1@soda.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
[128.32.43.52])
by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id
eB69XNP33914
for <gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU>; Wed, 6 Dec 2000 01:33:23
-0800 (PST)
Received: from d06lmsgate-3.uk.ibm.com (d06lmsgate-3.uk.ibm.com
[195.212.29.3])
by soda.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.1) with ESMTP id
eB69XIf38415
for <gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu>; Wed, 6 Dec 2000 01:33:22 -0800
(PST)
(envelope-from cpaludan@worldonline.dk)
Received: from d06relay01.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com
(d06relay01.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.166.84.147])
by d06lmsgate-3.uk.ibm.com (1.0.0) with ESMTP id JAA132518
for <gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu>; Wed, 6 Dec 2000 09:24:43 GMT
Received: from paludan (se07875.dyn2.alr.dk.ibm.com [9.166.255.38])
by d06relay01.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.8.8m3/NCO v4.95) with
SMTP id JAA63276
for <gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu>; Wed, 6 Dec 2000 09:33:05 GMT
Message-ID: <00b301c05f67$7ad00fe0$26ffa609@alr.dk.ibm.com>
From: "Claus Paludan" <cpaludan@worldonline.dk>
To: <gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu>
References: <B18DDC5F1158D311A66900805FD47181C89D0F@VSTASV1>
<001f01c05f62$75aa4260$0100a8c0@brodm1.vic.optushome.com.au>
Subject: Re: Bridge Crew
Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2000 10:32:40 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400
Sender: owner-gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
Reply-To: gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu
Delivered-To: gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu
Status:
X-Mozilla-Status: 0000
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
X-UIDL: 39d245de00000772
Oh bad thing happended to me!! I Actually deleted the post where the url was!
Would someone please post it again?? Sounds like a fun game!
/claus
[quoted original message omitted]
> > There are a couple of seemingly Uplift "inspired" minis on the 100
Also for Nueva Puebla de Nuestra Senora de Los Angeles y Todos Santos (New LA)
in Alarish
From - Wed Dec 13 16:38:17 2000
Return-Path: <owner-gzg-l@scotch.csua.berkeley.edu>
Received: from scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (scotch.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
[128.32.43.51])
by lilac.propagation.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id MAA23512;
Thu, 7 Dec 2000 12:07:09 -0600
Received: from localhost (daemon@localhost)
by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.0) with SMTP id
eB7I66f95108;
Thu, 7 Dec 2000 10:06:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (bulk_mailer v1.12); Thu, 7 Dec
2000 10:06:03 -0800
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.0) id eB7I62C95087
for gzg-l-outgoing; Thu, 7 Dec 2000 10:06:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: from soda.csua.berkeley.edu
(IDENT:ahXdvIzGQPJJb/4KdNUTGrXilOTk9wUJ@soda.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
[128.32.43.52])
by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id
eB7I60P95082
for <gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU>; Thu, 7 Dec 2000 10:06:00
-0800 (PST)
Received: from exsrv.bitheads.com (mail.bitheads.com [64.26.142.194])
by soda.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.1) with ESMTP id
eB7I5xf05820
for <GZG-L@csua.berkeley.edu>; Thu, 7 Dec 2000 10:06:00 -0800
(PST)
(envelope-from tomb@bitheads.com)
Received: by host-253.bitheads.com with Internet Mail Service
(5.5.2448.0)
id <YM7VQ0VD>; Thu, 7 Dec 2000 13:05:54 -0500
Message-ID:
<417DEC289A05D4118408000102362E0A34D07A@host-253.bitheads.com>
From: "Barclay, Tom" <tomb@bitheads.com>
To: "Gzg Digest (E-mail)" <GZG-L@csua.berkeley.edu>
Subject: In search of images
Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2000 13:05:53 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0)
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Sender: owner-gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
Reply-To: gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu
Delivered-To: gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu
Status:
X-Mozilla-Status: 0000
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
X-UIDL: 39d245de000007cf
I'm looking for some pics (so I can decide what to buy) of the following
Future Wars DS2 figures:
DSM-102 AV6 Troop Transport VTOL - pack of 3 (SF25-35)
DSM-143 Pkz VII STURMKAMPFER Infantry Walkers - pack of 6
DF-T03 DEIMOS heavy GEV/Grav tank (pack of 2)
DF-T04 GANYMEDE super heavy GEV/Grav tank (pack of 2)
DF-T14 PUMA Grav Tank (pack of 4)
DF-T20 GANYMEDE-EX GEV/Grav tank with twin gun turret (pack of 2)
DF-A03 DEIMOS GEV/Grav heavy SP artillery (pack of 2)
DF-A04 PUMA Grav SP artillery (pack of 3)
DF-V02 AV-72 anti-tank VTOL (pack of 2)
DF-V03 AV-80 close support VTOL (pack of 2)
DF-V04 VT-40 BOXCAR infantry transport VTOL (pack of 2)
DF-V06 ARIES attack VTOL (pack of 2)
DF-V08 SV-12 scout/recon VTOL (pack of 2)
DF-V11 AV-98 scout./recon VTOL (pack of 2)
DF-S14 Light GEV recon vehicle (pack of 5)
Also, if anyone knowns of appropriate C&C, CBR, and transport vehicles that
are GEVs.... I have the idea what I want for tanks and artillery and IFVs, but
I don't have much idea of what I'm gonna do for the other fill ins such as
C&C, CBR, Transport, CEV, Recovery, and ADA.....
Tom
> On Tue, 12 December 2000, Corey Burger wrote:
> Hey, us Canucks get even less for our dollar!
Uh... no we don't.
I did a currency conversion from the Bank of Canada's web site (as of today's
n oon time rate). $1 Canadian equals $0.6559 US. $1 Australian equals $.05421
US. $1 Canadian gets $1.2099 Australian.
Of course, the silly thing is that this means nothing. Our dollar isn't "worth
less" just because it doesn't trade at 1-to-1 with the US. It's worth
less if t he average person has less buying power in one country than another.
I've found most people have an understanding of this (as they have to do
currency convers ion all the time). However, I've met a lot of Americans who
laugh at us because our dollar is "worth less" than theirs. (They are usually
stunned, though, to find out how much cheaper CDs and DVDs are up here,
though, so we do get SOMETH ING out of the deal. *G*).
I wish we had called our dollar something else... like the Loon or something
(i nside joke. *G*).
Allan Goodall - agoodall@canada.com
__________________________________________________________
Get your FREE personalized e-mail at http://www.canada.com
From - Wed Dec 13 16:39:13 2000
Return-Path: <owner-gzg-l@scotch.csua.berkeley.edu>
Received: from scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (scotch.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
[128.32.43.51])
by lilac.propagation.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id NAA29352;
Tue, 12 Dec 2000 13:51:31 -0600
Received: from localhost (daemon@localhost)
by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.0) with SMTP id
eBCJp2058674;
Tue, 12 Dec 2000 11:51:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (bulk_mailer v1.12); Tue, 12 Dec
2000 11:51:01 -0800
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.0) id eBCJp0i58653
for gzg-l-outgoing; Tue, 12 Dec 2000 11:51:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: from soda.csua.berkeley.edu
(IDENT:wtutrbgBPogIIj/d3rpoSH2OdhicY38o@soda.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
[128.32.43.52])
by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id
eBCJowP58647
for <gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU>; Tue, 12 Dec 2000 11:50:58
-0800 (PST)
Received: from babu.pcisys.net (stanczyk@babu.pcisys.net
[207.76.102.243])
by soda.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.1) with ESMTP id
eBCJovf24693
for <gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu>; Tue, 12 Dec 2000 11:50:58 -0800
(PST)
(envelope-from stanczyk@babu.pcisys.net)
Received: from localhost (stanczyk@localhost)
by babu.pcisys.net (8.9.0/8.9.0) with ESMTP id MAA09088
for <gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu>; Tue, 12 Dec 2000 12:50:55 -0700
(MST)
Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2000 12:50:55 -0700 (MST)
From: Mike Stanczyk <stanczyk@pcisys.net>
To: gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: Uplift FT (was Re: Am I a Republic revisionist?)
In-Reply-To:
<4.3.2.7.0.20001212092504.00abc7d0@burgundavia@pop.crosswinds.net>
Message-ID: <Pine.SOL.4.05.10012121237380.8974-100000@babu.pcisys.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: owner-gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
Reply-To: gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu
Delivered-To: gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu
Status:
X-Mozilla-Status: 0000
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
X-UIDL: 39d245de00000869
Sorry but I lost the original poster:
> >
I can believe that. But I'm always willing to pay a little more so that the
good shops can stay in business. Unless I'm really in a crunch, I'll always
order from GeoHex and KR before my local games stores.
*start venting*
What I find to be scary is that I can order direct from GeoHex and have the
latest stuff next week, or I can order through my local games store and have
it next September. *Sheesh* "What do you mean you couldn't order it? They say
it doesn't exist? What is this book I'm holding in my hands then? A figment of
your deluded imagination?"
I needed lots of ship stands and got an awesome deal with Tony at Brigade
Models. Paid with PayPal, and even considering they came from down under, had
them in less than two weeks! It took my local game store a week of fighting
with suppliers to tell me they couldn't order anything similar, even from
Games Workshop. *aarrrggghhh*
*end venting*
Mike
From - Wed Dec 13 16:39:14 2000
Return-Path: <owner-gzg-l@scotch.csua.berkeley.edu>
Received: from scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (scotch.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
[128.32.43.51])
by lilac.propagation.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id OAA01303;
Tue, 12 Dec 2000 14:13:45 -0600
Received: from localhost (daemon@localhost)
by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.0) with SMTP id
eBCKAUb59067;
Tue, 12 Dec 2000 12:10:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (bulk_mailer v1.12); Tue, 12 Dec
2000 12:10:29 -0800
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.0) id eBCKARr59039
for gzg-l-outgoing; Tue, 12 Dec 2000 12:10:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from soda.csua.berkeley.edu
(IDENT:E4ZxVwfZ6JofB8OK4Y+A94jnP0gaM9Tl@soda.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
[128.32.43.52])
by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id
eBCKAPP59034
for <gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU>; Tue, 12 Dec 2000 12:10:25
-0800 (PST)
Received: from maila.telia.com (maila.telia.com [194.22.194.231])
by soda.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.1) with ESMTP id
eBCKAOf28903
for <gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu>; Tue, 12 Dec 2000 12:10:24 -0800
(PST)
(envelope-from oerjan.ohlson@telia.com)
Received: from default (t1o901p41.telia.com [62.20.252.41])
by maila.telia.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA10465
for <gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu>; Tue, 12 Dec 2000 21:10:20 +0100
(CET)
Message-Id: <200012122010.VAA10465@maila.telia.com>
From: "Oerjan Ohlson" <oerjan.ohlson@telia.com>
To: <gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu>
Subject: Re: FT: Question that may be really *old*...
Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2000 20:55:11 +0100
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Priority: 3
X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1157
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
Reply-To: gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu
Delivered-To: gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu
Status:
X-Mozilla-Status: 0000
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
X-UIDL: 39d245de0000086b
Richard Bell wrote, though not entirely in the order I quote it (I've
reordered them a bit to avoid having to refer forward and back in this
post - some of the comments below got rather... long <g>):
[My post snipped - I expand on it below anyway]
> In short, try replacing 20-40 hull boxes on each test SDN with beam
[and the reason for that was that Richard thinks that:]
> Unless you can multi-layer armor, or are certain that your opponent
Not entirely true, I'm afraid. Three points here:
* P-torps, missiles, K-guns and beam re-rolls all ignore screens
completely; the only of these which ignore armour completely is the
beam re-roll (though large K-guns come close as well). If your opponent
uses any of these in serious amounts (in the beam case, that probably
means he's Aaron ;-) ) you're almost certainly better off with armour
than with screens anyway.
* If your opponent uses a mix of P-torps/missiles and beams, the "safe"
amount of armour before you start suffering excessive numbers of "indignities"
(ie., enough to significantly change the average battle
outcomes) varies with the number of P-torps/missiles he uses. If he
goes all-out on these weapons you can still quite safely have some
20-30% more armour than 1st-row hull boxes (the lower value for
missiles, the higher for P-torps), at least on the bigger ships
(cruisers and up) since he is rather unlikely to get even results on all his
damage dice. This figure increases to about 100% more armour
than 1st-row hull boxes if he only uses beams. Of course, this depends
on your definition of "serious risk"; my own definition is "less often
than one ship in thirty-six damaged ones, and no more than 10% of the
armour boxes bypassed by the 1st threshold". (The only time I've ever exceeded
this limit was in my earliest Phalon playtest battles, but those Phalon ships
had about as much armour as they had hull boxes *in total* so it wasn't quite
unexpected <g>)
There is a *potential* to take the 1st threshold prematurely, certainly, but
unless your ships are small the probability of this potential actually being
*realised* is quite small (unless your ships
are as heavily armoured as those proto-Phalons, of course!). If you use
beam re-rolls it also exists for beams, though it is even smaller -
I've seen a previously undamaged Valley Forge NAC SDN take its 1st threshold
from a single beam die; the player rolled 9 '6's in a row, with 7 different
dice... that's just under one chance in ten million.
Talk about "indignity" :-7
* Occasionally taking the 1st threshold after losing all but a couple of the
ten or twenty armour boxes on your test SDNs and having the
remaining 1-2 armour boxes flesh out the 2nd hull row instead has a
rather small impact on the battle. In order for the premature threshold checks
to be noticable, it needs to one or more of:
- happen to the majority of the ships (in all your battles taken
together), or
- be more than about one-third of the armour that's bypassed, or
- be the *2nd* (or later) threshold which is taken before all armour is
gone (usually coincides with the previous point). These can happen to just
about any ship with more than 2 pts of armour
if the enemy has a Teske Field or large enough K-guns; for P-torps and
missiles it needs rather more armour. If you stay safely below the percentages
I outlined above the potential for "indignities" is small
enough that the only real casualty is the player's self-esteem, not his
fleet's performance (unless he screws up from sheer embarrassment, of course
<g>).
All in all, I belive that you overestimate both the risk for and the
importance of premature 1st thresholds quite a lot. This is unfortunate, since
it seems to have caused you to ignore varying the
hull strengths in your simulations - and the efficiency of screens
depends on the hull strength to a considerably higher degree than the
efficiency of the same Mass of armour does.
> [the amount of armour was chosen to] equal to the mass of the >screens
Makes the comparison simpler to implement, certainly. I consider cost for cost
comparisons to be more accurate, but then you need to look at the cost of the
entire ship rather than just of the screen or armour
itself - in your test case, you'd need to pit a TMF 200 SDN with
level-1 screens against a TMF 203 SDN with 13 boxes of armour, not a
TMF 200 one with 10 armour. With the unmodified FB1 rules the armoured SDN
would have 12 pts of armour and 1 extra hull box, but the effect is
the same. (...and the corresponding design pairs for level-2 screens,
etc.)
> I chose SDN's to level out luck and reduce the number of runs needed
No argument with this. My point is that *if your test ships had had
weaker hulls*, you would've gotten different results - ie., you would
have seen the screens decline compared to armour as the hull strength went
down. Since you don't seem to have done comparisons for weaker hulls yet, I
think that your simulation is currently somewhat incomplete.
*Incomplete*, mind, not *wrong*. It does seem accurate (or at least fairly
accurate; see below) for the particular designs you used in it; and they may
well be representative for the designs you usually use in your gaming group
(the only design I've seen that I'm aware is yours is the Sa'Vasku
Starstreak). However, they're not very representative for the mainstream
designs I see on the web or in our local games: of the
726 legal non-SV FBx designs of TMF 60+ that I've seen to date, only 80
have strong enough hulls that your simulation is valid for them. For the other
almost 90% of the cruiser and capital designs I've seen, your simulation
results aren't valid simply because they're too different from your test
designs.
> In the pure beam case, the armor does not even delay the first
Hm? If your simulator says this, there's either something strange with
it or you don't use re-rolls for beams - the latter would explain quite
a bit, of course. Lessee:
Your test ships are TMF 200, so each level of screens use up 10 Mass. Each
damage row has 20 hull boxes.
Level-1 screens will delay the 1st threshold by on average 20*0.263 =
5.3 pts of beam damage if you use re-rolls, or 6.67 pts if you don't
use them. The equivalent Mass of armour delays the same threshold by 10 pts of
any damage, not just beams. 5.3 isn't the same as 10; the difference is almost
half the total armour, which is quite enough to be worrying for the screened
ship. 6.67 is closer to 10, but still different enough to have some effect.
If you use re-rolls for beam dice, your lvl-1-screened test SDN will
have the *2nd* threshold delayed by almost exactly the same number of damage
points as the armoured one (10.6 vs 10, assuming the screen
doesn't go down or - if it does - is repaired immediately). The screen
only has an advantage after the 2nd threshold, and then only if it
remains operable - which means that you need to give it DCP priority
over downed weapons. The armoured ship can devote all its surviving DCPs to
its weapons and FCSs, which means that it will statistically
have more dice to fire; with your strong-hulled test designs this edge
isn't large enough to allow it to win the battle, but for weaker-hulled
ones it certainly does. If you don't use re-rolls the screen clearly
wins by 13.3 deflected points to the armour's 10.
Lvl-2 screens delay the 1st threshold by on average 20*0.714 = 14.3 pts
of damage, compared to the armour's 20 pts. Better than for lvl-1
screens; the difference is only 2/7, just on the border of being
significant. If you don't use re-rolls, the two ships both reach the
1st threshold after 20 pts - but this is the *only* one of these four
cases where armour and screens reach the 1st threshold at the same time. In
the other three cases, armour delays the 1st threshold for a
longer time than the screen. For a hull this strong, the level-2
screens will beat armour to the other three thresholds; in the absence
of screen-skipping weapons the screened ship will almost certainly win.
(In a cost-for-cost comparison, the screen-induced delays don't change
but the armour delays are 13 and 24 pts respectively (FB2 design rules
used for simplicity) - ie., the lvl-1 screen only "catches up" after
the 2nd threshold (with re-rolls; without them the armour matches the
screen to the 2nd threshold) while the lvl-2 screen "catches up" just
before the 2nd threshold. Both cases show a noticable shift in favour of the
armour.)
However, the interesting bit is what happens if you use less hull boxes. Here
I assume that
* you do use beam re-rolls (to cut the size of the examples in half
<g>), and
* neither side uses K-guns, missiles or P-torps, since they all reduce
the screen-induced threshold delays by a larger number of damage points
than they reduce the armour-induced delays.
TMF 200, Average hull (60 hull boxes, 15 per row). 10 pts of armour delay the
first and all subsequent thresholds by 10
pts of damage. Lvl-1 screens only delay the 1st threshold by 3.95 pts,
the 2nd by 7.90 pts (if it stays operating)... it delays the 3rd threshold and
the ship's destruction by more than the armour can (11.85 and 15.8 pts
respectively), but these late contributions are usually only enough to even
the odds rather than to push them clearly in favour of the screened ship.
Level-2 screens delay the 1st threshold by on average 10.7 beam pts; 20
pts of armour will almost certainly delay it by 20 pts. This difference is
significant, particularly since the odds of losing one of your screen
generators is fairly large (which forces you to divert them from the weapons
or FCSs they'd otherwise be repairing). If you can keep them working, and
still have as many weapons operating as your
opponent's ship, the lvl-2 screens catches up with the armour just
before the 2nd threshold.... *can* be enough to let the ship win, but in my
experience the odds slightly favour the armoured ship.
On a Weak hull (40 hull boxes, 10 per row) the lvl-1 screen only delays
the 1st, 2nd, 3rd and fatal thresholds by 2.6, 5.3, 7.9 and 10.5 pts
respectively. 10 Mass of armour delays them by 10, 10, 10 and 10 pts
respectively, so the screened ship only "catches up" the seconds before
it dies - and since it is likely to have a few weapons less in
operation for most of that time (since it takes its thresholds earlier and may
need to devote DCPs to repairing the screens), the armoured ship will win the
majority of these battles. Against beams, 20 pts of armour will almost always
delay the 1st threshold by 20 pts and is almost guaranteed to delay the other
three
ones by 20 pts. The lvl-2 screens delays the thresholds by 7.1, 14.3,
21.4 and 28.6 beam pts, ie. they "catch up" with the armour just before the
*3rd* threshold (again ignoring the fact that the armoured ship has had more
weapons operable for most of this time, so is likely to be ahead anyway)... IF
the screens remain operable all the time. Unfortunately that's not very
likely, and my money is firmly on the
armoured ship. Against K-guns, P-torps and missiles *both* of these
ships will suffer badly, but the armoured ship will suffer less badly
than the screened one - not that much less against K-guns, but
considerably less against the human weapons.
So, to summarize (actually paraphrase the posts that started this part of the
thread):
"[RB]> Screens win until you up number of p-torps
[OO]...provided that your hull is strong enough"
If your hull *isn't* strong enough, armour beats screens even if there
are no P-torps at all.
'Course, the best bet is to use both armour *and* screens, except against
Kra'Vak <G>
Regards,
Oerjan Ohlson oerjan.ohlson@telia.com
"Life is like a sewer. What you get out of it, depends on what you put into
it."
- Hen3ry
From - Wed Dec 13 16:39:14 2000
Return-Path: <owner-gzg-l@scotch.csua.berkeley.edu>
Received: from scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (scotch.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
[128.32.43.51])
by lilac.propagation.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id OAA01052;
Tue, 12 Dec 2000 14:11:59 -0600
Received: from localhost (daemon@localhost)
by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.0) with SMTP id
eBCKAKB59028;
Tue, 12 Dec 2000 12:10:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (bulk_mailer v1.12); Tue, 12 Dec
2000 12:10:19 -0800
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.0) id eBCKAIZ59006
for gzg-l-outgoing; Tue, 12 Dec 2000 12:10:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: from soda.csua.berkeley.edu
(IDENT:Yv1K2mbB2Tl8mh65AnZ6jIEMdTviBUrF@soda.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
[128.32.43.52])
by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id
eBCKAGP59001
for <gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU>; Tue, 12 Dec 2000 12:10:17
-0800 (PST)
Received: from saluki-mailsmtp.siu.edu (saluki-mailsmtp.siu.edu
[131.230.252.26])
by soda.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.1) with ESMTP id
eBCKAFf28875
for <gzg-l@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU>; Tue, 12 Dec 2000 12:10:16 -0800
(PST)
(envelope-from jdarnold@siu.edu)
Received: from saluki-mail.siu.edu (saluki-mail.siu.edu
[131.230.252.17])
by saluki-mailsmtp.siu.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id OAA40486
for <gzg-l@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU>; Tue, 12 Dec 2000 14:07:41 -0600
Received: from deathstar (port85.aixdialin.siu.edu [131.230.253.85])
by saluki-mail.siu.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) with SMTP id OAA21580
for <gzg-l@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU>; Tue, 12 Dec 2000 14:07:39 -0600
From: "Jay Arnold" <jdarnold@siu.edu>
To: <gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu>
Subject: retail woes [was RE: Uplift FT (was Re: Am I a Republic
revisionist?)]
Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2000 14:08:46 -0600
Message-ID: <NEBBKHOOCLECLODFJBHIIEIECBAA.jdarnold@siu.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0)
Importance: Normal
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300
In-Reply-To: <Pine.SOL.4.05.10012121237380.8974-100000@babu.pcisys.net>
Sender: owner-gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
Reply-To: gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu
Delivered-To: gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu
Status:
X-Mozilla-Status: 0000
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
X-UIDL: 39d245de0000086a
> It took my local game store a week of
There's the problem. The good and bad thing about running a game store is
that you work through suppliers (often 2-3, not counting GW). More often
than not, a retailer should be able to order something from one of their
distributors and get it within a week. If one can not, then the retailer has
the option of "shopping around" to the other distributors and getting it form
on of them. However, some suppliers have minimum order limits (GW, for
example) or tell the retailer that they have it when they really mean they can
get it. Also, some stores have an "order day" when they make all their orders
for the upcoming week (usually after they have sold enough to fill a minimum
order). Unfulfilled orders were almost the norm when I helped run a store in
North Carolina (Gamer's Guild, Fayetteville, sadly now defunct). Don't blame
your retailer. If there is something you absolutely can not live a week
without, sure go direct to the source, but please support your local retailer.
I'm sure you do this already, but the text of your message is a little vague
on this point. Jay
[quoted original message omitted]