See below:
Christian Danckworth <ce.de_at_...> on 26/03/2002 12:42:20
Please respond to netepic_at_yahoogroups.com
To: Peter Ramos <netepic_at_yahoogroups.com>
cc:
Subject: Re: [NetEpic ML] Brainstorm session
Hello Peter,
Tuesday, March 26, 2002, 1:22:16 PM, you wrote:
PR> Hi!
PR> I thought I would throw out some ideas and comments that would be
reviewed come revision time in order to get a feel for opinions:
PR> 1. While I could go either way on the holofield for Eldar super
heavies, it did bring up a more important issue regarding the super heavy
damage tables. Do people like the very simple one or are
PR> you using the more detailed ones? Whats the preference?
we mainly use the more detailed ones to keep up athmosphere
-> I prefer the templates
PR> 2. Praetorian costs are too low. This has been discussed before and
after much playtest I agree that they need to be increased. The fact that
they have templates make them as powerful as titans
PR> and sould be priced accordingly. For example, look at the Colossus,
with its 8 battle cannon hitting on 4+ and shields. This thing is as good
as most warlord titans! I tinkered with the points
PR> formula and would suggest that most praetorians need a price hike of
150 points on average. Comments?
thats my opinion as well...but not too much
-> Definatly, Praetorians are deadly.
PR> 3. Another thorn is the issue of weapons with the same name having
different stats for different units (bolters being the most prominent
example). A lascannon should have the same stats
PR> regardless where its on as well as battle cannons, etc. Some uniformity
here makes it easier for people to remember
yep
-> Agreed but surely Vehicle bolters should have reduced range, unless we
are calling them something else, to represent reduced visability etc.
PR> 4. AA guns should probably be defined as one of two types :static and
mobile. Static AA are expensive, have long range and may only fire at
either air or ground in a turn (not both). Mobile AA
PR> are cheap, shorter range and can fire at both ground and air units
indescriminately.
sounds good to me.
one comment to the range debate in generell - i like games where i
have to make myself a plan to avoid beeing shot by aa (with my fliers)
- it prevents the player to use too many of them becoming to strong. i
always try to concentrate against aa (by bike-attcks, etc.) to make the
air "free" for my flyer attacks or thunderhawk landing
PR> These are but some, more will come to me in time and I'll post them.
-> I would like to see reduced range and cost, so that players have to plan
a multi-tiered defence and against land and air units, with armies like
marines taking mobile air cover to protect there attacks and to extend
there ground-air defence capabilities.
PR> Peter
--
Best regards,
Christian mailto:ce.de_at_...
To unsubscribe send e-mail to: netepic-unsubscribe_at_egroups.com
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
************************************************************
This email has originated from a shared mail relay station for Bull
Information Systems Ltd (Registration No: 2017873) and Integris Ltd (a
Steria company, Registration No: 2706218).
Privileged, confidential and/or copyright information may be contained in
this email, and is only for the use of the intended addressee. To copy,
forward, disclose or otherwise use it in any way if you are not the
intended recipient or responsible for delivering to him/her is prohibited.
If you receive this email by mistake, please advise the sender immediately,
by using the reply facility in your email software.
We may monitor the content of emails sent and received via our network for
the purposes of ensuring compliance with policies and procedures.
This message is subject to and does not create or vary any contractual
relationships between Bull Information Systems Ltd or Integris Ltd.
Both offices registered at: Computer House, Great West Road, Brentford,
Middlesex, TW8 9DH
*************************************************************
Received on Tue Mar 26 2002 - 13:35:52 UTC