The Current GMG has a rule which allows for the GMG to purchase an additional 30 BPs above and beyond any Commander's Options. This proposal is to, in addition to the 30 BPs, allow the purchase of ground vehicles to fill up the cargo.

To explain: The GMG has 6 cargo (300 cargo points) and comes with 4 GCVs. These initial GCVs take up 20 cargo points each, leaving 220 cargo points for additional vehicle purchases. This could be 4 tanks and a CPV or 11 GCVs (for example).

A GMG would never have the COs to purchase this many vehicles, but this rule allows for the inclusion of vehicles in Colony defenses but with a reasonable limit.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Monday, November 03, 2003 - 08:16 pm: Edit

It was my understanding that the additional GCVs could be purchased by Force points. Now, in a scenario you don't get FPs so Com Ops would be the only way but thats the intention of the scenario otherwise the additional units would be in the force description.

But under (S8.0) the additional units should be able to be purchased using straight Force Points. These extra units would not generate Commanders Option points unless they were used directly for those units(and there really isn't anything to buy for them).


What might be interesting too, is a Ground Force Package. Might come in three or four flavors.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Monday, November 03, 2003 - 08:26 pm: Edit

...Like a minefield package, right?

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Monday, November 03, 2003 - 08:38 pm: Edit

Ya, at a discount but not as much as a mine field because most units would be used unlike a mine field where only a small section ever gets encountered.

So, maybe just a 10% discount and might have it have to be spread out over the planet.

It would make putting together PDU's easier.

Of course, no one HAS to use them and could put together their own but wouldn't get the discount.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Monday, November 03, 2003 - 08:42 pm: Edit

The number of packages would be limited by the number of GMGs.

So a planet could buy one package plus one per GMG for a maximum of three packages. These must be divided evenly over all six hex sides.

Small Moons would be limited to two max and asteroids to one (reguardless of the number GMGs).

By Richard Wells (Rwwells) on Tuesday, November 04, 2003 - 02:35 am: Edit

Dividing evenly would be less than useful. One does not have to disperse out the minefield; one should be allowed to concentrate defenses as needed.

One problem with giving a discount to vehicles is that GCVs are extremely cheap for their effects and the discount would make that more extreme. It would probably work better with a discount priced collection of ground bases and assorted other components that could be used as the centerpiece for defense structures. The discount would counteract those resources that could not enter a fight.

By David Kass (Dkass) on Tuesday, November 04, 2003 - 03:52 am: Edit

Given the current prices for ground bases, one could argue they already come with a mild discount (at least some of the better ones).

By Andy Palmer (Andypalmer) on Tuesday, November 04, 2003 - 08:26 am: Edit

This proposal was just to give a specific enabling rule for filling the cargo with vehicles, just as there is an existing rule to fill the barracks with boarding parties.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Tuesday, November 04, 2003 - 01:27 pm: Edit

Richard Wells,

But Minefields require minimum dispersements of the minefield packets (when I read or write that, I keep thinking I'm opening a mylar bag or something) and so should marines.

Can a marine watch a whole hex-side of a planet?

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Tuesday, November 04, 2003 - 02:14 pm: Edit

But a BATS can be attacked from any direction in space, so if you are going to put mines around it they need to cover all approaches. But on the surface of the planet, valuable targets are not necessarily located on all hexsides. Some planets may only have three hexsides with targets worth attacking/defending. And even if there are valuable targets on all six hexsides, the defender might choose not to defend them all. Depending on the strength of the attacker, the defender might be able to effectively protect two or three hexsides but trying to protect all hexsides would allow the attacker to attack all six hexsides, one after the other.

By Andy Palmer (Andypalmer) on Tuesday, November 04, 2003 - 04:53 pm: Edit

No offense, guys, but could you possibly take this Ground Package to a different thread? It doesn't really have any thing to do with the initial proposal...

Andy