I still maintain that FTII vs SGII/DSII are very different feel and
learning curves.
A person that expects FTII in squads or tanks would be likely to get put off
before giving the rules a sufficient go. I know I did.
I know I also found the DSII rule structure a bit diffuse. Didn't we have a
discussion about a possible 'DSII lite' write up?
Anyone that wants to pound me for not seeing such an animal in the book is
welcome to do so.
The_Beast
> On 25-Jan-00 at 09:31, devans@uneb.edu (devans@uneb.edu) wrote:
I don't have DSII yet, however, I do have SGII. One of the things mentionned
in SGII is that SGII makes use of lessons learned from DSII. Are chits one of
the things learned? I like SGII, but I keep hearing about these chits and what
a nuisance they are in DSII. Has anyone done DSII sans chits or chit
emulation?
> I don't have DSII yet, however, I do have SGII. One of the things
I don't know. The chits are used for damage resolution and are, IMO, quick and
easy to use.
> I like SGII, but I keep hearing about these chits and what a
There's a very vocal minority which hates them. ;-)
> Has anyone done DSII sans chits or chit emulation?
Several people. The fact that they involve computer programmes or large tables
rather proves the point that the chits give a wider range of results than can
easily be acheived with simple dice rolls.
It's just a case of whatever makes people happy really.
> On Tue, 25 Jan 2000, Steve Pugh wrote:
> > I don't have DSII yet, however, I do have SGII. One of the things
i like them.
> > Has anyone done DSII sans chits or chit emulation?
there's also the Dirtside Accelerator, a simple GZG-official replacement
for chit-draw for large-scale battles. it doesn't have the resolution of
chits (no damaged, systems down, etc results), and it doesn't handle fire
against infantry or by artillery.
http://members.xoom.com/gzg_l/ds-accel.txt
i don't know if it would be possible to retrofit SG2's fire resolution system
onto DS2; i imagine it's too closely tied up with the other differences
between the two games.
tom
Roger wrote;
> owner-gzg-l@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU at internet 01/25/00 09:34AM >>>
IHO I feel the chits adds some flavor to the game. Personally I like it. The
sight of a boom chit has more dramatic effect than a six on D6.
Mike
> devans@uneb.edu wrote:
> I still maintain that FTII vs SGII/DSII are very different feel and
Without a doubt, FTII has a very different feel from the FMA System (TM)
games. They're totally different in structure and play. Any comparison of FT
and FMA is simply ludicrous. They simulate completely different systems and
their game mechanics are not the least bit similar. At the core of FMA, is the
die shift and the opposed die roll. FT doesn't have a similar mechanic and
bases the entire system on d6 rolls. If somebody likes FT or FMA and thinks
that the other system is going to give them a similar experience is in for a
rude awakening. As
a starship combat game, FT/FB is the best game out there. As a sci-fi
infantry game, SGII has it all. The same can be said for DSII and
sci-fi armor platoons. So, other than being the best in their
respective classes, I don't see FT and FMA as having any noteworthy
similarity.
-Mike
> I don't have DSII yet, however, I do have SGII. One of the things
Yes, the chit issue is a very love-it-or-hate-it thing. I like it, and
think it works well and easily (and agree with the comments below...), which
is why it is in the game. As we've seen recently, the people who don't like
something tend to be, in general, a bit more vocal than those
who like and accept it - I guess that's basic human nature. If we ever
get to the point of doing a DS3 (NO, don't start asking when it'll be
out!!!!!
<grin>) we'll probably do some serious market research as to whether the chits
stay or go
> Has anyone done DSII sans chits or chit emulation?
Yes. You can use die rolls for a simplified game, or you can use dice and
complex charts (or computer simulations) to simulate the chits accurately;
Steve has hit the nail on the head with this - the chits can give a
very wide range of quite detailed results with (IMO) relatively little hassle.
Guess this one will run and run......
*shaking head* First, I keep opening my mouth...
Then, each time, I am diving into the bunker, quaking, waiting for the boom,
but there's no boom. WHERE'S THE BOOM?!?!?
Oh, well, here to try again...
I think people are kind of missing my point; with FTII, you can be playing
after a reading a few pages. Even more so, I can write a few paragraphs, with
a few page refs to FTII, MT, and FB1, for specifics, upgrades, and to
keep Ground Zero profitable, ( ;->= ) and have just about anybody up and
playing within a few minutes.
My experience with the other games has involved reading part of the book,
scanning to the next part, reading some more, scanning some more, getting lost
on previous points, getting bored, then just dropping the whole thing.
Can someone write me, in a page or two, a concise, step-by-step process
to get running on a relatively simple scenerio? With plenty direction to
rules?
I've got both books. Actually, extra copies when I was working harder on
getting others interested. I know; when am I getting pics of Hobie and Bill
demo'ing/training at Nukecon...
Please note: I found Starfire's Quick Start Rules a nice try, but that was TOO
much just rule references and not enough tying those rules together in a
coherent text.
The_Beast
> At 11:56 AM 1/25/00 -0600, you wrote:
I hate to say it, but we've had the same experience. That's why we ended up
turning to ShockForce for SF skirmish, and why I'm going to be adapting it to
a microarmor game at some point in the near future. It plays very quickly,
very easily, and after the first game you don't need to reference the rulebook
at all.
With SGII, we kept having to stop play to look something up in the rulebook.
It just slowed things down too much for us to really enjoy it.
***
With SGII, we kept having to stop play to look something up in the rulebook.
It just slowed things down too much for us to really enjoy it.
***
Well, I can an accept that as part of the learning I mentioned before, but I
actually have trouble getting my mind around the steps in playing either game,
and where I have to look when I'm working out a procedure.
In demoes, the game master kept telling me what to do, but I never really
understood why.
Can I feel any dumber?
The_Beast
> At 12:21 PM 1/25/00 -0600, you wrote:
It didn't help that: I was the only one who owned a copy of the rules, We only
played once every few months, And that the same people didn't play in every
game.
But in all fairness, these same conditions applied to Full Thrust and to
ShockForce, too. And we just didn't have the same problems with those games.
> At 12:21 PM 1/25/2000 -0600, you wrote:
Are you by any chance dyslexic? If so, then *any* unmoderated game is going to
be difficult to pick up. If not, then I don't really know what to tell you
<g>.
> The_Beast wrote:
You hit a valid point. The Dirtside rulebook could use improvements to help
aid the reader to find subject matter and get going faster, such as an index.
I suspect something like this was left out due to cost considerations.
Dirtside is not as simple to run as Full Thrust, but I have been able to get
players (who never really even gamed before) to play for the first time and
get the basics down after the first game. As someone already mentioned it is
best to limit early games to using just the basics which is exactly what I
have done. I added more of the optional stuff after they were comfortable with
the game.
Creating a cheat sheet always helps too. I have been redoing mine to try to
fit the basics on a single two-sided sheet just like the ones we use in
FT. Someone in our gaming group created a bunch of cheat sheets to help, but I
only found them more confusing as I had to rumage through several pages to
find what I wanted, much like I do with the rulebook. Making your own cheat
sheet, just try to combine the game sequence with someoften used items you
normally check in the book. Someone else I believe posted they have one
available. Give it a try.
Mike
I agree with both Beth and Oerjan, DSII needs support for alliens (Beth) and a
revamped construction system (Oerjan). I don't care for the chits, but that is
a minor complaint...
> devans@uneb.edu wrote:
No Boom today. Boom tomorrow.
> Can someone write me, in a page or two, a concise, step-by-step
It has to be said that one of the things missing from all the GZG games that I
have found quite useful in other systems is a transcript 'walk through' of a
couple of game turns. OK, once you're up and running it's wasted space but at
the beginning it can help you along. Only a couple of pages required.
TTFN
Jon