>Yes, but: >1) That's different than different classes of spaceships >2) Those are sub-determinants, which is a different (and pretty well >understood) IH think >3) I suggested two possible sub-determinants, Space-based and atmospheric >forces (with ground troops being 'atmospheric'). Yeah true. For determinants, i would think they would have many determinants and sub-determinants in this space game anyway which will be hard to have them all down in the rules. Just have to wait until we setup the societies. >Some yes, some no. You can more things at a smaller scope, but it's >actually much harder to change your fundamental determinant. > >Scope is the key; for a hundred-planet system to "fortify its borders" >is one (hard) strategic action. For a one-planet system, fortifying >its borders is also one strategic action. > >But if you're looking at "build a single starbase", that's much easier >for the large society, because it's going down in scope, so it can >be associated with an extra action, and it still could be easier >than a much smaller society. Yeah yeah, i get it. > >I dunno, I think years give us (the players) a good feel for what travel >times are and how long actions should take. Yeah, but i think using Stardates to measure turns is still a good idea. And no, I am not being unfocus about this game. -LordLMP ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ---------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, send mail to celandra-off@phoenyx.net.
