> At 01:04 PM 2004-07-27 -0700, you wrote:
Problem is that when you're planning your move, you may need to check all your
opponent vehicule armor value to be sure to be at the right place when you
fire. That's means a lot more planning and longer game turns. I'm not sure
this will enhance the game experience that much for the additionnal time
spent.
> - Might create more argument about the angle of
The movement system is quite abstract (you can change your ending facing).
Putting more importance on angle of attack would likely means you need a more
complexe movement system.
> - Having bigger front armor value will make the
Changing the "default" length of the game can be serious. If new people try
this game and find it last forever (or too short), it's not good. I find DS2
to be quite ideal in game length. People I show the game also find this a
selling point.
Sure, you say people can put limitation on design, but you should see if the
majority prefer longer game or not. If not, people who prefer longer game
could do the tweak themself.
> Yves Lefebvre wrote:
I say, play this out, see what it *really* is like, instead of
all of us postulating. :-) We all have our gut feelings about
how we *think* it'll play (or drag, or whatever), but until we as a group
start sitting down and *playing* it, we won't really
know, will we? :-)
Of course, the trick [at least for me] is to find that time to
sit down and play. :-/
> >> - Might create more argument about the angle of
Again, I'm going to lean towards the 'play it out' camp on this. That said,
Ithink if there is more importance on the angle of attack, you will see more
concerted efforts at getting to the flanks of enemy units whenever possible.
Mk
> --- Yves Lefebvre <ivanohe@abacom.com> wrote:
> Problem is that when you're planning your move, you
If you're spending inordinate amounts of time weighing individual enemy units'
armor prior to movement, the problem may not lie in the game mechanics....
I'm not
> sure this will enhance the game experience that much
And I disagree. I'm more than happy to spend an extra few minutes playing in
order to have a greater variety of design options when I build my vehicles.
> >So establish a clearer more definitive rule for
Not that much more complex, if at all. As it has been stated, the rules
regarding determining facing are
already pretty clear-cut.
> Changing the "default" length of the game can be
Again, if it's that serious a concern for you, and the greater variety slows
things down that much, then in YOUR setting's design rules, limit it.
> Sure, you say people can put limitation on design,
Or how about this? You design a game that will allow people to play longer OR
shorter games, and let them decide? Then you don't have to eliminate ANY
significant portion of the consumer base.
> If not,
Again, the point must have several levels of stealth, because you missed it
WIDE. By allowing any configuration of armor, and providing a well thought
out, accurate points costing system, then the players who prefer short games
can use a design system that limits armor, and the people who prefer long
games can use a design system that allows greater levels of armor. In other
words, by establishing a costing system independent of a design system, you've
made a quantum leap toards the goal of a generic system.
Comments inline.
> On Wed, 28 Jul 2004, Yves Lefebvre wrote:
> At 01:04 PM 2004-07-27 -0700, you wrote:
And where exactly does it say that you can look at my sheets to determine what
my armor is on any given vehicle at any given time? I know that it
doesn't say that you can't do it, but quite frankly, if my opponent demanded
to look over my sheets during the game, and spent extra time to
plan his attacks to be opimized for my armor, I'd be finding new opponents.
> - Might create more argument about the angle of >>> attack : Since
No it doesn't. Yes, you can set your facing however you want at the end
of your move, but it's FIFTEEN MINUTE TURN. Hell, I can face my car anyway I
want in a small alley in under 1 minute. You can't do this on open ground with
a tank??
Once the oppenent has moved, if you *had the movement* to get into a flanking
position, then you could react and do flanking shots. I stand my earlier
contention that the movement rates in the game combined with the
weapons ranges inhibit the ability to outflank anything. The general movement
system doesn't need to be changed to be more restrictive unless
you adjust the time scale to make it more realistic.
> - Having bigger front armor value will make the
Yes, it can. And if anything, DSII resolves too slowly. I'm strongly opposed
to anything that will slow it down further.
> Sure, you say people can put limitation on design, but you should see
I don't agree that most of what has been discussed would lengthen the game
significantly, unless you were allow for a significant increase in frontal
armor without adjusting speeds to allow for flanking fire.
<shrug>
J
G'day,
> Yes, it can. And if anything, DSII resolves too slowly. I'm strongly
> opposed to anything that will slow it down further.
For what's it worth Derek and I have played a few games (two so not
exactly exhaustive) with front/side/rear/bottom/top ratongs that didn't
have to be the same and you could have what you want but the max any one
side could be was 2x size class of vehicle (i.e. we were after the 6/2/1
spread Indy was saying). We didn't find it any slower actually, you already
have to say what angle of attack was under the current rules and its not hard
to say that's side or that's front etc. Wasn't hard to remember the armour
either (no more difficult then me already having to remember the DS2
progression of armour ratings from top, side, bottom
etc).
As to movement, I like the idea of buy per inch. Though I'd like to see how
this works in practice as I think you'll find if you up speeds in DS by too
much (say more than 2x or maybe 3x) it won't actually be as much
fun anymore as there will be no build-up. We've tinkered a bit there
too, but not enough to say anything definitive as yet.
Cheers