From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 32540 invoked by alias); 4 Jul 2004 03:17:23 -0000 Mailing-List: contact xconq7-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: xconq7-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 32502 invoked from network); 4 Jul 2004 03:17:16 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hiram.io.com) (199.170.88.27) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 4 Jul 2004 03:17:16 -0000 Received: from webmail.io.com (IDENT:rtsp60Ei5V7F4XPfzcmAP85VkQnaKSBP@columbia.io.com [199.170.88.107]) by hiram.io.com (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id i643HGu09504 for ; Sat, 3 Jul 2004 22:17:16 -0500 Received: from webmail.io.com (webmail [127.0.0.1]) by webmail.io.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id i643HGAQ007324 for ; Sat, 3 Jul 2004 22:17:16 -0500 Received: (from apache@localhost) by webmail.io.com (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i643HG1r007322; Sat, 3 Jul 2004 22:17:16 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: webmail.io.com: apache set sender to hcobb@io.com using -f Received: from 68.122.234.217 (SquirrelMail authenticated user hcobb) by webmail.io.com with HTTP; Sat, 3 Jul 2004 22:17:15 -0500 (CDT) Message-ID: <1132.68.122.234.217.1088911035.squirrel@webmail.io.com> In-Reply-To: <200407040055.i640tDx17333@panix5.panix.com> References: <1088896371.19592.ezmlm@sources.redhat.com> <2465.68.126.82.218.1088896685.squirrel@webmail.io.com> <200407040055.i640tDx17333@panix5.panix.com> Date: Sun, 04 Jul 2004 03:37:00 -0000 Subject: Re: Just say no to bungee paratroopers. From: "Henry J. Cobb" To: xconq7@sources.redhat.com User-Agent: SquirrelMail/1.4.2-1 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-SW-Source: 2004/txt/msg00635.txt.bz2 Jim Kingdon wrote: > However, what really makes the bungee paratrooper trick powerful is > the failure case, so we'll proceed to that one: > >> If you attempt to capture something from inside a transport and you fail >> then you drop out on the ground or sea under the transport as you're >> pushed back. > > Well, if the goal is to make attacking from a transport harder, this > would have that effect. It would put a premium on finding a > beachhead, so you can land your infantry/armor, rather than just > attacking from a transport ship (or bomber which is over water). > > I kind of suspect the show-stopper here would be the AI. Unless it is > smart enough to look for beachheads, this change might make the AI > even less of a contender than it is now. Actually it seems to do OK, but that may do with the Makin Island patch I put on the standard scenario giving subs the ability to transport 1 Inf. It keeps grabbing my coastal bases and towns. -- Henry J. Cobb's Completely Unofficial list of GURPS Vehicle Builder fixes and workarounds. http://www.io.com/~hcobb/gurps/gvb_faq.txt