Subject:
|
Re: CO BrikWars get together
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.loc.us.oh
|
Date:
|
Wed, 12 Apr 2000 22:23:06 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1235 times
|
| |
|
|
drew@netpluscom.com (LegoMasterLuke) wrote in <FsxAGw.C3y@lugnet.com>:
> We should do that EndorMoon supplement sometime. From what I've
> heard of it (From you, no less!) it sounds pretty fun.
<whisper> Please tell me that you are joking back. I'm pretty sure
PM saves me from feeling like an old fogey when I make vague SW
references. </whisper>
> You know, this entire game opens up huge RPG adventures. We should
> try a BrikWar event to be more "RPG-like." Build a Lego hero, and
> then use him to squash little NPC's.... more like Dungeons &
> Dragons.
>
> It would be easier to monitor unit HP that way, because there would
> be no more then 8 -plus or minus a few- units fighting at one time..
With the campaign rules, you'd generally only track HP for characters
in any case. The majority of combatants should NOT be characters in a
battle. HP-tracked units wouldn't exceed more than a handful in any
case.
BTW, my whole point in pursuing this ridiculous thread was two-fold.
One, to thwart some high-tech bias. And, two, to bounce around some
ideas to allow cross-TL rules to be thought through.
I think we've come to the conclusion that cross-TL battles can be fun
if two things are done. First, the lower-TL army will generally need
to be a good bit bigger for an evenly matched fight. This leads back
to the idea of point penalties/bonuses. My instinct says that a 2-1
ratio for each TL difference is about right. Hopefully, we can provide
some insight into this topic Saturday. Secondly, large high-TL forces,
vs huge low-TL forces is boring. Particularly if the high-TL force
uses fancy vehicles.
However, smallish armies of troopers against lower-TL forces sounds
like fun.
As to high-tech bias, two points need to be made. One, magic is
equivelant to high-tech. Gee, I seem to recall a quote about that.
Kudos to the first person who responds with what I'm referring to.
Second, specific weapons are geared to specific environments.
Assuming a cost model like the one we have, a TL3 force can hold its
own against a TL5 force under conditions where neither has an
engineering advantage. What I mean is, TL3 forces suck at air-battles,
naturally. However, TL3-4 forces are very good in forests. One of the
main reasons is that TL3 technologies were mostly designed for fighting
in a forest. BTW, a department store has most of the same relavent
characteristics. Imagine a group of WolfPack vs a SWAT team in a
department store setting.
My ueber-wizard is just another case of this. He's TL6-7. How many
marines would you need to be able to field to stop him? Keep in mind,
this is like facing a Champion with two death guns, 5d10 Armor, a
PsiAmp, JetPack and Cloaking (statistics generated using my
PullOutOfAir device). Or, for a TL7, like facing Q.
Low-tech does not mean low carnage. And, magic is not really low
tech. "How come our gyro guns won't shoot anything but daisies?"
Later,
Gino A...
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: CO BrikWars get together
|
| (...) Actually, no I wasn't..... you DO make it sound like alot of fun. (...) Like a Mech? :( I've got a faily good balance of "fancy vehicles" and "cannon fodder." Erm, I meant ground troopers. Marines. SpaceMen. (...) I've got a "smallish army" of (...) (25 years ago, 12-Apr-00, to lugnet.loc.us.oh)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: CO BrikWars get together
|
| (...) Yes. That entire scenario would be boring, pointless ... and it would take hours to do. (...) <does his Animal impression> (the muppet Animal) "Mayhem! Mayhem! Mayhem! Mayhem! Mayhem!" (...) We should do that EndorMoon supplement sometime. (...) (25 years ago, 12-Apr-00, to lugnet.loc.us.oh)
|
112 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
