 | | | | | | |
| |
|
> ...I found the weapons a mess to deal with. We were always trying to remember • what the
> weapons were (2 pieces is impact pistol or gyro pistol?) and then figuring
Well, the whole 'pieces' thing is just a suggestion, if you have some other
way to keep track of which pistol (or any other type of weapon) is which then
of course feel free to use it.
out the to-hits
> and ranges and damages for assorted different weapons. And we never could • remember exactly
> what major guns were on our mecha... and what ranges things shot at were • weird and all
> over the place...
>
> ...The net result is we spent valuable play time looking up things :-/
Yeah, that can be a problem the first few games. What you'll want to do is
draw up a 'spec sheet' for each of your big vehicles, so you have all their
weapon stats handy along with their Move and Armor ratings. As for regular
troops, if you aren't used to all the different weapons yet, each player
should try to equip his troops in a fairly similar fashion to limit the number
of different weapon types to keep track of.
> ...So anyway, I propose a streamlining of the weapons. It does take some • variability from
> the game, but replaces it with simplicity to make the games go a bit faster • so you can
> concentrate on mass killing the opponent!
To some extent I feel the same way, but I would get so many complaint letters,
I'll never do it. Even now people are always mailing me wanting me to make
more and more specific stats some random and esoteric weapon or another.
There's nothing stopping you from just refraining from fielding a lot of
different kinds of weapons though, if you want to simplify your life.
> ...For vehicles, I propose simplifying the weapons there too. Rather than • list different
> weapons, have larger weapons just be increments of a basic weapon. A MKIII • laser is just
> 3x a MKI laser.
Nothing stopping you from buying three MKI Lasers and firing them all at the
same time, either.
I agree with your sentiment that the game is way too complicated in some
regards, but all these extra stats and equipment and rules and everything
else, they're just provided as options, nobody has to use them if they don't
want, and a simple, straightforward standardized army is not really at any
significant disadvantage to a super-customized and specialized army. It just
depends on each player's comfort level with how much complexity he's willing
to put up with.
> ...lastly, squads:
>
> ...We had a couple times where we all ganged up to take down things.
> This isn't such a bad thing, but doesn't seem right. So how bout squads
> be identified either by the colour of the plate they stand on, or a
> group of the same type figs, etc... Only members of the same squad can
> gang up to fire on a single target. Multiple squads can all fire at the
> same target, but they cant combine together.
The boys over at NELUG used a similar rule and I wrote it into the next
revision as soon as I heard about it. I'll quote it here for you so you don't
have to wait for the html revision (which would probably be about a month or
two unless something goes wrong). It's an optional rule under 3.3.1:
Cumulative Damage / Combined Fire.
<begin quote>
Optional Rule: Organized Attacks
You may decide that soldiers can only do Cumulative Damage if someone
organizes the operation - combined assaults cannot happen at random. In this
case, a minifig may only order a combined attack if:
- he is a Squad's communications officer (he has a radio), in which case any
member of the squad within shouting distance (8") may take part in the
combined attack;
- he is piloting a vehicle with radio communication, in which case any other
vehicle with radio communication may join him in a combined attack;
- he is a Hero, a Champion, or an authority figure in general, in which case
he can order any subordinate units within communication range to join in a
combined attack. Communication range will vary depending on the communication
equipment used (2.4.2: Equipment).
<end quote>
Are there going to be any battle report pages?
- Mike Rayhawk.
--------------------------------------------------
Check out the Official BrikWars Home Page at
http://www.teleport.com/~rayhawks/brikwars.htm
--------------------------------------------------
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Subject:
|
Re: brikwars...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.gaming
|
Date:
|
Thu, 20 Apr 2000 12:27:46 GMT
|
Reply-To:
|
wubwub@wildlink.STOPSPAMcom
|
Viewed:
|
1267 times
|
| |
|
"Mike Rayhawk" <mjr22@cornell.edu> wrote:
> > ...I found the weapons a mess to deal with. We were always trying to remember • what the
> > weapons were (2 pieces is impact pistol or gyro pistol?) and then figuring
>
> Well, the whole 'pieces' thing is just a suggestion, if you have some other
> way to keep track of which pistol (or any other type of weapon) is which then
> of course feel free to use it.
...The pieces thing is a great idea, conceptually, it makes it easy to tell weapons apart
without making them all the exact same... It just didn't work rite in practice...
> out the to-hits
> > and ranges and damages for assorted different weapons. And we never could • remember exactly
> > what major guns were on our mecha... and what ranges things shot at were • weird and all
> > over the place...
> >
> > ...The net result is we spent valuable play time looking up things :-/
>
> Yeah, that can be a problem the first few games. What you'll want to do is
> draw up a 'spec sheet' for each of your big vehicles, so you have all their
> weapon stats handy along with their Move and Armor ratings. As for regular
> troops, if you aren't used to all the different weapons yet, each player
> should try to equip his troops in a fairly similar fashion to limit the number
> of different weapon types to keep track of.
...I wanted to avoid paper as much as possible, mostly in the spirit of the game. BW is
about figs and dice and blowing things up, not paper. When I played WH40K, all the little
index cards with stats used to drive me crazy! (crazy to the point that I stopped playing
cuz too many little variations in basic weapons and fig stats that it was impossible to
keep up...
...Another reason I proposed the streamlining thing was to make it lots easier to throw
together a quick battle. Sure if you prepare before hand you can have stats cards ready,
but if u just are sitting around a table with some figs and some dice there should be some
easy way to play a battle without much trouble. imho at least.
> > ...So anyway, I propose a streamlining of the weapons. It does take some • variability from
> > the game, but replaces it with simplicity to make the games go a bit faster • so you can
> > concentrate on mass killing the opponent!
>
> To some extent I feel the same way, but I would get so many complaint letters,
> I'll never do it. Even now people are always mailing me wanting me to make
> more and more specific stats some random and esoteric weapon or another.
> There's nothing stopping you from just refraining from fielding a lot of
> different kinds of weapons though, if you want to simplify your life.
...This borrowed also from my old GURPS supers days. In GURPS, the rules didn't define how
the powers worked, just some broad concept on basic stats (to hit/damage/etc). Perhaps
define 3 basic weapon classes, then optionally lots of mods to those basic ones so people
could tune the basic weapon to reach the end concept they wanted? If they want flame
throwers, buy the 'flamethrower' option to the basic rifle.
...IMHO, this would leave the players able to come up with weapons specific to their
army/race/whatever. To an extent, you start that path with close combat siege weapons.
Take that concept to a compleation and use it in the other weapons categories. Define
basic stats for certain classes, then mods and etc for 'special effects' and whatever...
...oooh... now I'm percolating :-)
> > ...For vehicles, I propose simplifying the weapons there too. Rather than • list different
> > weapons, have larger weapons just be increments of a basic weapon. A MKIII • laser is just
> > 3x a MKI laser.
>
> Nothing stopping you from buying three MKI Lasers and firing them all at the
> same time, either.
...well, true :-)
> I agree with your sentiment that the game is way too complicated in some
> regards, but all these extra stats and equipment and rules and everything
> else, they're just provided as options, nobody has to use them if they don't
> want, and a simple, straightforward standardized army is not really at any
> significant disadvantage to a super-customized and specialized army. It just
> depends on each player's comfort level with how much complexity he's willing
> to put up with.
>
> > ...lastly, squads:
> >
> > ...We had a couple times where we all ganged up to take down things.
> > This isn't such a bad thing, but doesn't seem right. So how bout squads
> > be identified either by the colour of the plate they stand on, or a
> > group of the same type figs, etc... Only members of the same squad can
> > gang up to fire on a single target. Multiple squads can all fire at the
> > same target, but they cant combine together.
>
> The boys over at NELUG used a similar rule and I wrote it into the next
> revision as soon as I heard about it. I'll quote it here for you so you don't
> have to wait for the html revision (which would probably be about a month or
> two unless something goes wrong). It's an optional rule under 3.3.1:
> Cumulative Damage / Combined Fire.
>
> <begin quote>
>
> Optional Rule: Organized Attacks
> You may decide that soldiers can only do Cumulative Damage if someone
> organizes the operation - combined assaults cannot happen at random. In this
> case, a minifig may only order a combined attack if:
>
> - he is a Squad's communications officer (he has a radio), in which case any
> member of the squad within shouting distance (8") may take part in the
> combined attack;
> - he is piloting a vehicle with radio communication, in which case any other
> vehicle with radio communication may join him in a combined attack;
> - he is a Hero, a Champion, or an authority figure in general, in which case
> he can order any subordinate units within communication range to join in a
> combined attack. Communication range will vary depending on the communication
> equipment used (2.4.2: Equipment).
>
> <end quote>
...Sounds good to me! With the Comm officer, I'd say that if he gets shot, his radio falls
and the next nearest guy in his squad automatically picks it up (perhaps they all have
small transceivers and the next guy in line automatically gets promoted to comm officer).
This would prevent the comm officer from being too much a target :-)
> Are there going to be any battle report pages?
...Eventually :-) I'm slow :-)
...you can go back to ignoring me now...
wubwub
stephen f roberts
wamalug guy (http://wamalug.org)
wildlink.com
lugnet #160
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Subject:
|
Re: brikwars...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.gaming
|
Date:
|
Thu, 20 Apr 2000 14:29:18 GMT
|
Reply-To:
|
regult@aol=AntiSpam=.com
|
Viewed:
|
1325 times
|
| |
|
On Thu, 20 Apr 2000 12:27:46 GMT, Stephen F Roberts
<wubwub@wildlink.com> wrote:
> "Mike Rayhawk" <mjr22@cornell.edu> wrote:
> > <begin quote>
> >
> > Optional Rule: Organized Attacks
> > You may decide that soldiers can only do Cumulative Damage if someone
> > organizes the operation - combined assaults cannot happen at random. In this
> > case, a minifig may only order a combined attack if:
> >
> > - he is a Squad's communications officer (he has a radio), in which case any
> > member of the squad within shouting distance (8") may take part in the
> > combined attack;
> > - he is piloting a vehicle with radio communication, in which case any other
> > vehicle with radio communication may join him in a combined attack;
> > - he is a Hero, a Champion, or an authority figure in general, in which case
> > he can order any subordinate units within communication range to join in a
> > combined attack. Communication range will vary depending on the communication
> > equipment used (2.4.2: Equipment).
> >
> > <end quote>
>
> ...Sounds good to me! With the Comm officer, I'd say that if he gets shot, his radio falls
> and the next nearest guy in his squad automatically picks it up (perhaps they all have
> small transceivers and the next guy in line automatically gets promoted to comm officer).
> This would prevent the comm officer from being too much a target :-)
The organized attack rules might be good for lower Tech Level games,
but at higher levels I would think nearly anybody would be able to
organize a combined attack.
From the upper end of TL4 and higher I'd say that nearly every soldier
would have a radio built into his/her helmet. This makes it easier to
break the hard and fast squad rules of the original L-Wars game. This
would enable any soldier to operate as the comm officer. Perhaps if
this were the case, you'd have to spend extra CP's if you wanted every
soldier to have a radio built in.
In the future, there might not even be a need for the comm officer
anyway, with everyone having a radio, and a personal data and location
transmitter or something like that, generals would be able to know
where everyone is on the battlefield, and would be able to transmit
orders enmasse to every soldier on the battlefield, or just to a
specific squad or platoon. Enemy locations would also be fairly
obvious with advances in passive and active detection systems.
Jeff Christner
Visit Sixby Fire Tech at - http://members.aol.com/regult/
Help support my LEGO habit. Ship by rail.
Visit http://www.nscorp.com/ to find out how.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.fun.gaming, Jeff Christner writes:
> The organized attack rules might be good for lower Tech Level games,
> but at higher levels I would think nearly anybody would be able to
> organize a combined attack.
Well, that's why it's an Optional Rule.
> From the upper end of TL4 and higher I'd say that nearly every soldier
> would have a radio built into his/her helmet. This makes it easier to
> break the hard and fast squad rules of the original L-Wars game. This
> would enable any soldier to operate as the comm officer. Perhaps if
> this were the case, you'd have to spend extra CP's if you wanted every
> soldier to have a radio built in.
Nah, no extra CP's. All communications equipment comes for free. There's no
real reason to use Radios if you don't want, I just think it's more fun that
way.
> In the future, there might not even be a need for the comm officer
> anyway, with everyone having a radio, and a personal data and location
> transmitter or something like that, generals would be able to know
> where everyone is on the battlefield, and would be able to transmit
> orders enmasse to every soldier on the battlefield, or just to a
> specific squad or platoon. Enemy locations would also be fairly
> obvious with advances in passive and active detection systems.
Well, that's why the communications and battlefield organization rules are
also optional! :)
- Mike Rayhawk.
--------------------------------------------------
Check out the Official BrikWars Home Page at
http://www.teleport.com/~rayhawks/brikwars.htm
--------------------------------------------------
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Subject:
|
Re: brikwars...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.gaming
|
Date:
|
Mon, 24 Apr 2000 15:55:42 GMT
|
Reply-To:
|
wubwub@(Spamless)wildlink.com
|
Viewed:
|
1440 times
|
| |
|
> > ...Sounds good to me! With the Comm officer, I'd say that if he gets shot, his radio falls
> > and the next nearest guy in his squad automatically picks it up (perhaps they all have
> > small transceivers and the next guy in line automatically gets promoted to comm officer).
> > This would prevent the comm officer from being too much a target :-)
>
> The organized attack rules might be good for lower Tech Level games,
> but at higher levels I would think nearly anybody would be able to
> organize a combined attack.
>
> From the upper end of TL4 and higher I'd say that nearly every soldier
> would have a radio built into his/her helmet. This makes it easier to
> break the hard and fast squad rules of the original L-Wars game. This
> would enable any soldier to operate as the comm officer. Perhaps if
> this were the case, you'd have to spend extra CP's if you wanted every
> soldier to have a radio built in.
>
> In the future, there might not even be a need for the comm officer
> anyway, with everyone having a radio, and a personal data and location
> transmitter or something like that, generals would be able to know
> where everyone is on the battlefield, and would be able to transmit
> orders enmasse to every soldier on the battlefield, or just to a
> specific squad or platoon. Enemy locations would also be fairly
> obvious with advances in passive and active detection systems.
...All the troopers would have a helmet comm, but you would still have chain of command
and distraction. The average field guy does not want to be distracted with the assorted
coordination chatter that would go on at 'command' frequencies, so would turn it off.
He'll be told where to move and where to shoot by his comm-officer who, in turn, would get
his guidance from someone 'upstream'. It is also likely that standard field guys would be
shut out of command frequencies, since at times, generals have to send squads into certain
death situations and its not good for morale to have the field guys hear their fate being
discussed like that.
...So the end effect would be the average fig would not be able to coordinate well with
anyone outside of his squad. Multiple squads could all fire at the same thing, but only
guys close to you or on your frequency would be able to hit the same place on that target
to be able to add up and hurt it. (not to mention the squad has trained together, so know
each other and act as 'one fig').
...you can go back to ignoring me now...
wubwub
stephen f roberts
wamalug guy (http://wamalug.org)
wildlink.com
lugnet #160
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
Stephen F. Roberts wrote:
> ....All the troopers would have a helmet comm, but you would still have chain of command
> and distraction. The average field guy does not want to be distracted with the assorted
> coordination chatter that would go on at 'command' frequencies, so would turn it off.
> He'll be told where to move and where to shoot by his comm-officer who, in turn, would get
> his guidance from someone 'upstream'. It is also likely that standard field guys would be
> shut out of command frequencies, since at times, generals have to send squads into certain
> death situations and its not good for morale to have the field guys hear their fate being
> discussed like that.
usually the field guys will be on their squad freq, while the squad commander is on both
squad freq and command freq... but no one in their right mind will turn off his radio in
a battle. Not unless you're looking for a warm place in a body bag. :)
> ....So the end effect would be the average fig would not be able to coordinate well with
> anyone outside of his squad. Multiple squads could all fire at the same thing, but only
> guys close to you or on your frequency would be able to hit the same place on that target
> to be able to add up and hurt it. (not to mention the squad has trained together, so know
> each other and act as 'one fig').
to get multiple squads to attack the same point, you have to pre-coordinate it (even if it's just 20 minutes before) - the high command decides where to attack, notifies the squad commanders, and they tell their troops...
heheh - at least that's the way I've seen it done :)
Dan
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Subject:
|
Re: brikwars...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.gaming
|
Date:
|
Mon, 24 Apr 2000 18:52:44 GMT
|
Reply-To:
|
wubwub@wildlink/ihatespam/.com
|
Viewed:
|
1640 times
|
| |
|
"Dan Boger" <dan@giccs.georgetown.edu> wrote:
> Stephen F. Roberts wrote:
>
> > ....All the troopers would have a helmet comm, but you would still have chain of command
> > and distraction. The average field guy does not want to be distracted with the assorted
> > coordination chatter that would go on at 'command' frequencies, so would turn it off.
> > He'll be told where to move and where to shoot by his comm-officer who, in turn, would get
> > his guidance from someone 'upstream'. It is also likely that standard field guys would be
> > shut out of command frequencies, since at times, generals have to send squads into certain
> > death situations and its not good for morale to have the field guys hear their fate being
> > discussed like that.
>
> usually the field guys will be on their squad freq, while the squad commander is on both
> squad freq and command freq... but no one in their right mind will turn off his radio in
> a battle. Not unless you're looking for a warm place in a body bag. :)
...:-) I didn't mean theyd turn off their comm, just they'd turn off the command
frequency... leave the command frequency to the higher paygrades and all.
> > ....So the end effect would be the average fig would not be able to coordinate well with
> > anyone outside of his squad. Multiple squads could all fire at the same thing, but only
> > guys close to you or on your frequency would be able to hit the same place on that target
> > to be able to add up and hurt it. (not to mention the squad has trained together, so know
> > each other and act as 'one fig').
>
> to get multiple squads to attack the same point, you have to pre-coordinate it (even if it's just 20 minutes before) - the high command decides where to attack, notifies the squad commanders, and they tell their troops...
>
> heheh - at least that's the way I've seen it done :)
...This is more like 'shoot that tank there!!' where all the members of a squad can
coordinate on the spot to cause cumulative damage... but even if another squad got that
same 'shoot that tank there!!' order, they wouldn't be able to coordinate well enough with
the first squad to cause more cumulative damage. Each squad could be grouped together, but
it would in effect be 2 separate attacks.
...you can go back to ignoring me now...
wubwub
stephen f roberts
wamalug guy (http://wamalug.org)
wildlink.com
lugnet #160
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Stephen F. Roberts wrote:
> ....:-) I didn't mean theyd turn off their comm, just they'd turn off the command
> frequency... leave the command frequency to the higher paygrades and all.
'sides, usually command traffic is encrypted, which the average trooper won't have the eq to decode...
> ....This is more like 'shoot that tank there!!' where all the members of a squad can
> coordinate on the spot to cause cumulative damage... but even if another squad got that
> same 'shoot that tank there!!' order, they wouldn't be able to coordinate well enough with
> the first squad to cause more cumulative damage. Each squad could be grouped together, but
> it would in effect be 2 separate attacks.
I'm not sure it should count as two attacks... I've seen batteries 20 miles apart shoot at the same target, at the very same second... And I must admit, it was VERY impressive :)
Dan
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
On Mon, 24 Apr 2000 15:55:42 GMT, Stephen F Roberts
<wubwub@wildlink.com> wrote:
> ...All the troopers would have a helmet comm, but you would still have chain of command
> and distraction. The average field guy does not want to be distracted with the assorted
> coordination chatter that would go on at 'command' frequencies, so would turn it off.
> He'll be told where to move and where to shoot by his comm-officer who, in turn, would get
> his guidance from someone 'upstream'. It is also likely that standard field guys would be
> shut out of command frequencies, since at times, generals have to send squads into certain
> death situations and its not good for morale to have the field guys hear their fate being
> discussed like that.
>
> ...So the end effect would be the average fig would not be able to coordinate well with
> anyone outside of his squad. Multiple squads could all fire at the same thing, but only
> guys close to you or on your frequency would be able to hit the same place on that target
> to be able to add up and hurt it. (not to mention the squad has trained together, so know
> each other and act as 'one fig').
I suppose it depends on exactly how the comm system is set up. I
picture individual talk groups for each squad with the capability of
squads or larger groups to switch to a common talk group if initiated
by a higher authority. That is, one person sends out a code, and the
radios all switch to that common talk group automatically.
The commanders would be able to talk to the squads, but not on the
command channel, the squad would have a talk group number and the
commander would punch that up and talk. The members, or squad leader,
could either verbally OK it, or more likely, if they say a verbal
command into the microphone, using voice recognition, a data burst is
sent to the commanders computer that says the squad got the message.
Likewise other verbal commands could be set up so that they squad
leader, or any member, could call for air support, reinforcements, or
medevac without ever really talking to anyone. I'm sure the commanders
would have their own talk groups that the average troops couldn't use,
or even know about.
Depending on how far into the future conventional radio technology
goes, these would probably be some type of digital system, using
frequency hopping to avoid ECM. Mobile antenna sites, or other relay
vehicles, might be linked by laser instead of microwaves to extend
radio coverage on the battlefield. Medical information and location
might also automatically be relayed by the trooper's radio units.
Jeff Christner
Visit Sixby Fire Tech at - http://members.aol.com/regult/
Help support my LEGO habit. Ship by rail.
Visit http://www.nscorp.com/ to find out how.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
Have you read "Starship Troopers"? Not the craptacular Paul Verhoeven movie,
but the Heinlein novel? RAH goes into quite a bit of detail on how his cap
troops are in communication with each other; basically the grunts have radios
with one channel (it's a 'party-line' type setup, where they all talk
together, and over each other), whereas the command suits have 2 (3?)
channels, where they can talk to the grunts, or talk amongst the command staff
without the grunts listening in. I don't remember all the details off the top
of me noggin, but I'd recommend reading the book, if only for the armored-suit
info contained therein.
-Cheese
In lugnet.fun.gaming, Jeff Christner writes:
> On Mon, 24 Apr 2000 15:55:42 GMT, Stephen F Roberts
> <wubwub@wildlink.com> wrote:
>
> > ...All the troopers would have a helmet comm, but you would still have chain • of command
> > and distraction. The average field guy does not want to be distracted with • the assorted
> > coordination chatter that would go on at 'command' frequencies, so would • turn it off.
> > He'll be told where to move and where to shoot by his comm-officer who, in • turn, would get
> > his guidance from someone 'upstream'. It is also likely that standard field • guys would be
> > shut out of command frequencies, since at times, generals have to send • squads into certain
> > death situations and its not good for morale to have the field guys hear • their fate being
> > discussed like that.
> >
> > ...So the end effect would be the average fig would not be able to • coordinate well with
> > anyone outside of his squad. Multiple squads could all fire at the same • thing, but only
> > guys close to you or on your frequency would be able to hit the same place • on that target
> > to be able to add up and hurt it. (not to mention the squad has trained • together, so know
> > each other and act as 'one fig').
>
> I suppose it depends on exactly how the comm system is set up. I
> picture individual talk groups for each squad with the capability of
> squads or larger groups to switch to a common talk group if initiated
> by a higher authority. That is, one person sends out a code, and the
> radios all switch to that common talk group automatically.
>
> The commanders would be able to talk to the squads, but not on the
> command channel, the squad would have a talk group number and the
> commander would punch that up and talk. The members, or squad leader,
> could either verbally OK it, or more likely, if they say a verbal
> command into the microphone, using voice recognition, a data burst is
> sent to the commanders computer that says the squad got the message.
> Likewise other verbal commands could be set up so that they squad
> leader, or any member, could call for air support, reinforcements, or
> medevac without ever really talking to anyone. I'm sure the commanders
> would have their own talk groups that the average troops couldn't use,
> or even know about.
>
> Depending on how far into the future conventional radio technology
> goes, these would probably be some type of digital system, using
> frequency hopping to avoid ECM. Mobile antenna sites, or other relay
> vehicles, might be linked by laser instead of microwaves to extend
> radio coverage on the battlefield. Medical information and location
> might also automatically be relayed by the trooper's radio units.
>
> Jeff Christner
>
> Visit Sixby Fire Tech at - http://members.aol.com/regult/
>
> Help support my LEGO habit. Ship by rail.
> Visit http://www.nscorp.com/ to find out how.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Subject:
|
Re: brikwars...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.gaming
|
Date:
|
Tue, 25 Apr 2000 09:27:00 GMT
|
Reply-To:
|
regult@#stopspammers#aol.com
|
Viewed:
|
1974 times
|
| |
|
On Tue, 25 Apr 2000 02:53:36 GMT, "Matthew Wilkins"
<mwilkins@nospam.nai.com> wrote:
> Have you read "Starship Troopers"? Not the craptacular Paul Verhoeven movie,
> but the Heinlein novel? RAH goes into quite a bit of detail on how his cap
> troops are in communication with each other; basically the grunts have radios
> with one channel (it's a 'party-line' type setup, where they all talk
> together, and over each other), whereas the command suits have 2 (3?)
> channels, where they can talk to the grunts, or talk amongst the command staff
> without the grunts listening in. I don't remember all the details off the top
> of me noggin, but I'd recommend reading the book, if only for the armored-suit
> info contained therein.
>
> -Cheese
I read it, but it was many, many years ago. About all I remember is
how the power armor worked, movement wise, and the dropships. I think
I still have a copy somewhere, but its probably still packed up after
moving two years ago.
Jeff Christner
Visit Sixby Fire Tech at - http://members.aol.com/regult/
Help support my LEGO habit. Ship by rail.
Visit http://www.nscorp.com/ to find out how.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.fun.gaming, Stephen F. Roberts writes:
> ...The pieces thing is a great idea, conceptually, it makes it easy to
> tell weapons apart without making them all the exact same... It just
> didn't work rite in practice...
It's something that takes some getting used to. The important thing is to
have a way to tell them apart when you need to, the method isn't really that
important.
> > > what ranges things shot at were weird and all over the place...
Did you really think so? I'll make a note to put siege weapon ranges up for
review next week.
> ...Another reason I proposed the streamlining thing was to make it lots
> easier to throw together a quick battle. Sure if you prepare before hand
> you can have stats cards ready, but if u just are sitting around a table
> with some figs and some dice there should be some easy way to play a
> battle without much trouble. imho at least.
Maybe you're right. I'll see if I can't put in an optional 'generic weapons'
rule for quick battles.
> ...This borrowed also from my old GURPS supers days. In GURPS, the
> rules didn't define how the powers worked, just some broad concept on
> basic stats (to hit/damage/etc).
Yeah, but they've got nothing on my Supernatural Powers rules as far as broad
concepts go.
> ...IMHO, this would leave the players able to come up with weapons
> specific to their army/race/whatever. To an extent, you start that path
> with close combat siege weapons.
Actually, it seems to me that the cc siege weapons rules take a lot more work
to keep track of during the battle, and more pre-game design as well. But
I'll think of something.
- Mike Rayhawk.
--------------------------------------------------
Check out the Official BrikWars Home Page at
http://www.teleport.com/~rayhawks/brikwars.htm
--------------------------------------------------
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Subject:
|
Re: brikwars...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.gaming
|
Date:
|
Mon, 24 Apr 2000 15:59:27 GMT
|
Reply-To:
|
WUBWUB@WILDLINKstopspammers.COM
|
Viewed:
|
1331 times
|
| |
|
> > ...IMHO, this would leave the players able to come up with weapons
> > specific to their army/race/whatever. To an extent, you start that path
> > with close combat siege weapons.
>
> Actually, it seems to me that the cc siege weapons rules take a lot more work
> to keep track of during the battle, and more pre-game design as well. But
> I'll think of something.
...They are more complex both beforehand and during, but if the player came up with a
'claw arm' during design, he could equip all his vehicles with them so it wouldn't be as
complex during the game. that's the kind of idea I was thinkin of. Spend a bit of time
design wise to come up with a 'standard weapon' for your team. Then once its fielded, you
would know what your guys do without much looking up. And what your figs did would be a
reflection of your idea of fielding them, which would be different than other ppls... so
could be a much more dynamic and interesting game possibly :-)
...you can go back to ignoring me now...
wubwub
stephen f roberts
wamalug guy (http://wamalug.org)
wildlink.com
lugnet #160
| | | | | | |
