From: Thomas Barclay <Thomas.Barclay@s...>
Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2003 22:21:11 -0500
Subject: Battletech and 3D ship images
1) It looks like the image I have is done by the fine Mr.Nathan Pettigrew. My compliments. (Though I now see quite a few others worthy of compliment.... I may have to ask some of these folks if I embed their work in some fiction - Someone should send Jon T these links when he's looking for artwork for FB3/FT3) 2) Battletech My favorite memory (other than the figure destroying game between distributors and FASA themselves at GenCon 20) is of using a heavily armoured tank mounting an AutoCannon 20 to make mech heads go "kablooie". I didn't really like Mechs either. And of the mechs I didn't like, LAMs ruled the day. 3) Reading John's posts (Hey, engineer, I thought you and your bridge had shuffled off to the Middle East?), I see he thinks very much as I do. The interesting thing to me is not producing resources and managing an economy (as some people seem want to do in campaigns), nor in designing the best vehicle (as others seem to want to do in what I term test-bed games), but rather in taking a set of constraints (mission, resources, terrain, etc) and developing a force to operate in that terrain or in a particular mission profile. And then, of course, Murphy being the good friend that he is, throwing them into situations they aren't entirely perfectly suited for. This is just the kind of thing that can make for gripping and inventive play. I also try, as a gamemaster/referee, to encourage my players to think of the situation and act accordingly, even though, as a gamer, they may know something that their units probably do not (when I'm lazy enough not to do double blind). And if I'm doing something like a deliberate attack on a static defense, I allow both players a lot of lattitude in setup including asking for things I never thought of. One case was a game of Challenger microarmour, with Gulf War 1990's setting - Brits and US forces taking a seaside town. The Iraqi commander was waaaay outgunned, but he had his infantry (he had a fair pile) dig a *lot* of earth to setup fake minefields and to string wire around them and post warning signs. I hadn't considered that and had only issued him a small length of real minefields, which he wisely placed to the flanks. But his broad front, open to attack, was never tested due to the apparent minefields. That, and the cockiness and lack of mission focus of the Allied force spelled their doom (obsessing about one infantry platoon on a hill, they thought, and deploying a company of infantry and several platoons of armour to attack the hill, meanwhile stopping their attack dead.... and sending their apaches flying down main street.... only to eat a SAM or two....). The point being it seems to me the challenge that I enjoy from GZG games is not a number cruncher/bean counter/engineering one. It isn't "how can I build the best FT ship" (because really, I'm still constrained by the rules and so there won't be anything new... just a different assembly of parts moulded to attack weaknesses). Nor is the challenge who can win what equal odds battle. Those are so rare in the real world as to be phantasmal. No, the real challenge I see is in having a well crafted scenario where a force has a mission (on both sides) for which it may or may not be well suited and where you know something (but not everything) about your potential opposition (your intel knows their standard vehicle designs and formation sizes, though not exactly what might appear, etc) and where the challenge is in fulfilling your mission in the best and most effective manner. A game that perhaps leans closer to a simulation than "just a game". To bastardize Gandalf.... "It is not yours to decide your situation, but it is yours to decide what to do about/with your situation". Therein lies the meat.