> There are two great games out there for playing company-level games:
OK, let's get some opinions from the good people out there in
gzg-list-land....
This is completely hypothetical at this stage, but what would folks' reactions
be to the following ideas, at some point in the future when I actually have
time to write some new rules (ha!):
1) A squad to platoon level game with individual figures, more like
FMAS than SGII, for 25/28mm figs, typical force size 1 to 3 squads
per side, plus maybe a vehicle or two.
PLUS....
2) Another system (let's call it SG3 for the sake of argument), aimed
I like having about 10 units maneuvering on the board, and no more than twice
that. Many SG2 games we play give each player too few units to play with.
Personally, my figure collection lends itself better to FMAS. But based on
quality of play, the company level game is a lot of fun and justifies a lot of
SG2 rules which are almost unusable in typical games and the current scale of
operations.
It really comes down to span of control. Most players can control about 12
"things" in a game. At lower levels (individual figures) the span is reduced
to around 5 "things".
So in a game where a single figure is a single man, a player should control
about a squad, where a base is a fire team, a player can control a couple of
platoons (a company).
I find the above to be true in all of the games/scenarios that I have
enjoyed. I have played ACW games where 5 stands are a regiment and I
controlled a Corps. I was exhausted at the end.
Michael Brown mwsaber6@msn.com
[quoted original message omitted]
> This is completely hypothetical at this stage, but what would folks'
reactions be to the following ideas, at some point in the future when I
actually have time to write some new rules (ha!):
You mean, after they finish screaming "Finish <expurgated> FT3, <deleted>! And
<censored> FMAS! And <expunged> Bugs Don't Surf Because They Died of Old Age,
<snipped>!", I take it?
> 1) A squad to platoon level game with individual figures, more like
I think it'd have the "between command levels" problem again. One squad, per
FMAS, is fine. Two squads isn't a unit. Three squads plus a command
element is around 20-30 figures, which is probably too much.
> PLUS....
and platoon-level activation for both infantry and vehicles.
I think that would work very well. Actually, I think it *is* working very
well. Perhaps some of the SG enthusiasts would try a game or two using
Stuart's mods and tell us what you think?
On 11/1/06, gzg-l-request@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
> <gzg-l-request@lists.csua.berkeley.edu> wrote:
> Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2006 12:15:22 +0100
> This is completely hypothetical at this stage, but what would folks'
I joined the playtest group many moon ago for the specific reason of
playtesting FMAS. My main interest at the time was playing Cthulhu based
skirmish games, as I hadn't found a reasonable set of skirmish rules out
there.
That having been said, I've moved away from FMAS due to the lag in rolling out
of material (I understand the reasons, of course!). There are now a couple of
skirmish sets that hit on what FMAS was trying to do, and I'm writing my own
Cthulhu miniatures rules.
So, the niche that I'm currently seeing out there is a serious (i.e.
not elves-in-space) company level game.
I like SG2's mechanics, but it doesn't allow for enough maneuver elements in a
platoon game, and a company game is much too big.
I would prefer the second option, an "SG3" game. I like this idea for several
reasons. It would allow a game just above the level SG2 is capable of right
now. As you point out, it can be played with 15mm figures mounted on a stand.
However, it can also be played with other figures, like DS2 figures, without
the need for rebasing. If you have any of the old 10mm Battletech figures
(which I have; bought them years ago to play Striker) you have yet another
scale option.
Oddly enough, you should be able to play it with 25mm figures as well, though
it might be a pain getting folks to base their 25mm figures on stands instead
of individually.
> 1) A squad to platoon level game with individual figures, more like
The game should handle a vehicle per squad, IMHO.
PLUS....
2) Another system (let's call it SG3 for the sake of argument), aimed
at Company-level games with 15mm figs (useable with 25mm, but with
15mm as the "recommended" scale), with group-based figures (3-4 to a
stand) and platoon-level activation for both infantry and vehicles.
I rather like this idea of 3 or 4 figs per stand for two reasons, one easier
to move on the table and two you can mix types/manufactures. When
you mix on the same stand your eyes will lie to you and with the right paint
job it all looks like it belongs, where individually mounted mixed types tend
to stand out....) Great way of stretching your collection and giving you
modifications you can't otherwise field (my take anyway). I'd
go with 3 man standard stand and 2 man command/RTO,two man
heavy weapon/assistant, sniper/spotter and sapper/assistant etc. The
standard stand can be all riflemen or 2 riflemen and 1 saw gunner etc. The
size of the stand shouldn't matter as long as all measurements are taken from
the center front of the stand, just as long as it's consistent and the figs
are within (about) an inch of each other.
Medics, Commanders, Platoon SGTs, ECW, Drone Operators, and Power Armored
troopers should (IMHO) remain individually mounted for maximum flexibility.
I'm very enthused with the idea of a 15MM company level game. The only reason
I haven't bought a lot of the 15MM figures already is because I didn't think
there was a suitable game system for them.
I'm a big fan of Flames of War and it works very well at the company level.
If Jon can come up with something similar for the Sci-Fi world, it would
be great.
[quoted original message omitted]
I too am very excited at the prospect of a 15mm Company Level game. Not having
a decent rules set is a barrier to rationalizing collecting more figs in this
scale.
The game should move quickly, I'm talking Fistful of TOWS quick or Flames of
War quick. I've played FOW games that had 8 companies on the table and moved
rather quickly. Striker is not quick and the command and
control rules for both Striker I and Striker II drive me to distraction.
DS3 seems like a better solution, but it isn't published yet and infantry are
just speed bumps.
So here's the problem as I see it. You need a game that is simple (read
quick) so that you can play a multi company (1 defender, 2-3 attacker)
game in 3 hours. But you're playing in 15mm, not 6mm so infantry needs to be
more important. Plus it's hard scifi so the infantry *can't* be generic. The
types of weapons (tech level) has to be taken into effect. Plus troop quality
is still important so an infantry on infantry units
strength would be some sort of index of weapon type/troop quality.
Fistful of TOWs has an interesting mechanism where even if a stand survives
the hit it has to take a quality check. If it fails, the unit dissolves. The
distinction between units destroyed vs. running away can be used for campaign
games.
-Mark
> Robert W. Eldridge wrote:
gzg-l-bounces+bob_eldridge=mindspring.com@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
> [quoted text omitted]
[mailto:gzg-l-bounces+bob_eldridge=mindspring.com@lists.csua.berkeley.ed
u]
> On Behalf Of Ground Zero Games
> Robert W. Eldridge wrote:
I've got a bunch of gaming buddies that meet regularly at the local hobby shop
who are very much into Flames of War. I've tried to talk them into Stargrunt
without much success yet. If Stargrunt was modified to play at
reinforced company level with 15mm figures based on Flames of War style
stands, I know I would be able to immediately gain a half dozen new players.
It would probably be great also if you could do the same with 25mm figs. I
wouldn't want to have these based on stands, but maybe if you needed to
somehow keep them within an equivalent distance as if they were stand mounted,
that could work out. That way I could try and drag some of the 40k and
Warmachine players in using the figs they already have.
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
http://lists.csua.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lOn 11/1/06,
> laserlight@verizon.net <laserlight@verizon.net> wrote:
> You mean, after they finish screaming "Finish <expurgated> FT3,
True dat.
> I think it'd have the "between command levels" problem again. One
I disagree with your "isn't a unit" statement. I would say there were plenty
of examples where two squads were a "unit." WW1, WW2, and Vietnam. I'm sure
there are more modern examples. I'm almost positive that it will exist in the
future.
I do agree with your "between command levels" comment though -- I don't
think that would go away with using FMAS. It might not be as evident using
FMAS as as it is in SG2.
Damo
> I disagree with your "isn't a unit" statement. I would say there were
A headquarters squad and another squad? Two normal squads with no command unit
above it?
Exactly my situation. If there was an SG type game that used 15MM figures and
had a fireteam type basing, I think I could persuade most of my Flames of War
players to play it.
[quoted original message omitted]
One of Flames of War's merits is that it is quick. It also manages to be
reasonably historical at the same time. That's no mean feat. If "SG3" can be
both quick and provide a realistic - making due allowance for the
subject
matter - feel I think it would be a real winner.
[quoted original message omitted]
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
http://lists.csua.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lI think it sounds
like a great idea, with one caveat.
IMNSHO you need to set a time for the playtest list to test and then publish.
I keep hearing great things from the playtest list but have seen nothing new
in ages. I'll take not quite points balanced and a little imperfect if it
means I actually see new games. If you are going to wait for perfect you might
as well not start. A great product from GZG is good enough for me.
That said I would really like to see BDS. We have been house ruling K'rvak for
far far too long.
Roger
> On 11/1/06, Ground Zero Games <jon@gzg.com> wrote:
> On 11/1/06, Roger Books <roger.books@gmail.com> wrote:
> That said I would really like to see BDS. We have been house ruling
You know, I hear people say this, that they want BDS, but I've only had four
people send me comments on the Phalon beta test rules since they were released
about three years ago. It's not very encouraging to the playtest list when
material is released but no one tries it.
Or maybe the truth of the matter is that when people say they want
BDS, what they _really_ want are Kra'vak rules, and the other aliens
in SG2 are just "also rans".
> Or maybe the truth of the matter is that when people say they want
I suspect that's a part of it. We know what we want the KV for, we've seen the
movies.
> Exactly my situation. If there was an SG type game that used 15MM
You could just play SG with the basing and use a token system to mark base
degradation.
> On 11/1/06, Roger Books <roger.books@gmail.com> wrote:
Is there a link to the Phalon rules? I can probably talk Brian Burger into
running them for a few games against my NI.
> On 11/1/06, Jaime Tiampo <fugugaipan@spikyfishthing.com> wrote:
> Is there a link to the Phalon rules? I can probably talk Brian Burger
Yes, sir!
http://www.hyperbear.com/sg2/sg2-bds.html
They are eight files available, but you only need 1. The rules are available
in PDF or RTF format, and in 8.5 by 11" format or A4. You can also download
the full rules, or a document listing the changes since the orignal rules were
released.
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
http://lists.csua.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lOn 11/1/06,
> laserlight@verizon.net <laserlight@verizon.net> wrote:
OK, this made me laugh. Even when BDS does get published, I'm quite likely to
think of it as BDSBTDOOA. (No offense to Jon; I know Real Life keeps getting
in the way of new
rules -
that, and all these new miniatures people keep demanding!)
As for playtesting the Phalons - sounds interesting. I just grabbed
the latest beta rules from Allan's site, will print them up at work and see
when we can fit a game in!
Brian
www.warbard.ca/games.html
> That's not the point. It's not simply a matter of basing - I want a
The direction in which I'm thinking is:
Each stand of 2-4 figures represents a fireteam of infantry or a
specialist team (support weapon, observer, whatever). Vehicles based
as singles. Activations given to platoon-sized units (as in DSII),
typically 6-9 infantry bases or 3-4 vehicles. Infantry small-arms
fire (including small-calibre support fire) resolved on a group
basis, ie: one platoon vs.another with hits distributed among the target
stands. Vehicle and other heavy weapons fire individually.
Typical "player force" for a small-to-medium game with average tech
levels would be reinforced company combat group, say a 2-3 platoons
of infantry, one or two platoons of AFVs plus HQ and attached sections of
supporting elements.
Is this the sort of level that most folks (assuming an interest in 15mm at
all) are interested in?
Jon (GZG)
> -----Original Message-----
That's not the point. It's not simply a matter of basing - I want a game
where the basic element is a team, not an individual figure.
[quoted original message omitted]
Jon, That is exactly the sort of game I'm interested in for 15MM.
Bob Eldridge
[quoted original message omitted]
If I was interested in 15mm I would want to play a game at that level.
That would be my "tactical" game - used for things like boarding
actions,
raids on towns, etc. I would still use DS (3) for larger engagements -
I have to face facts - I like building battalions of tiny little tanks!.
The nice thing about this, as outlined below, is that I could play EITHER
game with my 6mm minis, as built/based. I have my vehicles (not
mounted) as individual figures, and per the DS concept, have my infantry
mounted in
fire teams or weapon teams (2-4 men per base, single bases with LMGs,
mortars and such).
I stronly support this.:)
John
John K. Lerchey Assistant Director for Incident Response Information Security
Office Carnegie Mellon University
> On Thu, 2 Nov 2006, Ground Zero Games wrote:
> That's not the point. It's not simply a matter of basing - I want a
> Activations given to platoon-sized units (as in DSII), typically 6-9
> sections of supporting elements.
> On Thu, 2 Nov 2006, Ground Zero Games wrote:
> That's not the point. It's not simply a matter of basing - I want a
> Activations given to platoon-sized units (as in DSII), typically 6-9
> sections of supporting elements.
> all) are interested in?
YES!
> On 11/2/06, Brian Burger <blurdesign@gmail.com> wrote:
Wonderful!
I look forward to an after action report. It's probably not that necessary to
record every dice roll.
However, if you have the chance (i.e. you have someone available, or you have
the time while waiting for someone else to act), please record the dice used
when firing Phalon weapons, and the settings used for the pulsers. The ability
of the Phalons to choose their pulser settings, and thus the FP and Impact,
gets the most raised eyebrows. If you feel this option is "overpowering" then
I'd like to know the
dice rolls, just to see if it was luck or something _really_
overpowering.
(On the other hand, it's easier to handle an "overpowering" group in SG2, as
there is no point system.)
I won't give you any hints on how to play, and play against, the Phalons. I'll
let you discover them for yourself.
> On 11/2/06, Ground Zero Games <jon@gzg.com> wrote:
> Is this the sort of level that most folks (assuming an interest in
Yes!
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
http://lists.csua.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lOn 11/2/06, Ground
> Zero Games <jon@gzg.com> wrote:
Adding in my two bits: yes.
Mk
I would be, but the sucky thing is, I already based my stuff for 1:1!
Jason
> On 11/2/06, Indy <indy.kochte@gmail.com> wrote:
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
http://lists.csua.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lA "realistic" 15mm
Stargrunt along the lines of FOW would be pretty cool, as long as it doesn't
turn into Flames of War with advanced weaponry. What is this other F acronym
(FASW or something like that) game that everyone keeps mentioning though? I
mostly play Full Thrust, although I've got a bunch of stuff for Dirtside.
> On 11/2/06, Jason Weiser <jason.weiser@gmail.com> wrote:
> What is this other F acronym (FASW or something like that)
"FMAS", when used by decent, kindly souls...or by a certain pervy individual,
you know who you are...is FMA Skirmish, which is, not surprisingly, a skirmish
level game using the same FMA mechanics as found in StarGrunt. The rules have
been posted tothe list and various people will be happy to tell you about it.
When used by an Evil Gamemaster, or by the psychologically maimed survivors of
previous events, it means "Found Me A Sheep". It's the reason Roger's got an
account with an alcohol wholesaler, the reason Jerry still twitches
uncontrollably, and the reason Jon knows that the ECC hotel is adjacent to
Lancaster County Psychiatric Clinic. No one will be happy to tell you about it
and the only rule is, don't even walk by the table, much less sign up for the
event. You Have Been Warned.
> On 11/2/06, James Moore <jmooreou@gmail.com> wrote:
That would be FMAS. It stands for FMA Skirmish (FMA being Full Metal Anorak,
the name given to the opposed die roll system used in SG2, and
-- to a lesser extent -- DS2).
It's a skirmish game that Jon's been working on for... well, I think the
original stuff, fantasy related, came out 1996.
On thinking about it, perhaps the best method _is_ to release FMAS
before some sort of squad level SG2 game. There's a large core of 25mm SG2
players out there that will feel "left behind" if SG3 is released as a
"figures on bases" game. FMAS is also more than half complete. A fair bit has
been done on it already, it just needed some additional stuff from Jon and
more testing.
That having been said, it's entirely possible that an SG3 with based
figures would take _less_ time to work out than a finished FMAS
product. There's a real niche for this proposed SG3 idea, and -- most
importantly for GZG's financial well being -- SG3 looks like it would
propel a number of sales, more so than FMAS.
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
http://lists.csua.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l>On 11/2/06, Ground
> Zero Games <<mailto:jon@gzg.com>jon@gzg.com> wrote:
Thanks for all the responses so far; maybe I should have done this in the
first place, but if it's not too late let's turn this into a
mini-survey: I'd like as many listers as possible (yes, that means
you lurkers too!) to respond to this - go on, it'll only take you a
couple of moments!
1) Do you (or have you in recent years) play SG2?
a) Yes, with 25/28mm minis
b) Yes, with 15mm minis but using standard SG2 - ie: single-based
figures
c) Yes, with 15mm minis but modified for group-based figures
d) No, interested but have no opponents/time/money etc...
e) No, not interested
2) Would the development of a game like we've been discussing (let's call it
SG3) fit what you would want from a hard SF ground combat game? a) Yes, and
I'd play it in 15mm
b) Yes, but I'd still play it in 25/28mm (or 6mm, or anything else!)
c) No, this level of game doesn't interest me
3) Would the development of SG3 in this direction tempt you into
buying/collecting 15mm forces?
a) Yes, I'd buy a new 15mm army! b) I already have a 15mm force waiting for a
game system...
c) No, I've got enough lead/scale/projects already!
For all questions, feel free to add an "other" option (and discuss...) if none
of those supplied really fits!
Over to you all....
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
http://lists.csua.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l>A "realistic" 15mm
Stargrunt along the lines of FOW would be pretty
> cool, as long as it doesn't turn into Flames of War with advanced
It certainly wouldn't be FoW SciFi! It would still use the basic
SG/DS/FMA mechanisms, though it would be pitched at the same level
(organisational, not player age!) as FoW.
Re the acronym, do you mean FMAS? If so, that's Full Metal Anorak
(FMA) Skirmish, the working title to the man-to-man combat game I've
been working on for FAR, FAR too many years now, and that might just possibly
see the light of publication any decade soon.... <wry grin>.
Jon (GZG)
> On 11/2/06, Jason Weiser
wrote:
> On 11/2/06, Ground Zero Games <<mailto:jon@gzg.com>jon@gzg.com>
wrote:
> > >That's not the point. It's not simply a matter of basing - I want
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
http://lists.csua.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lOn 11/2/06, Jason
> Weiser <jason.weiser@gmail.com> wrote:
View this as [yet another] opportunity to acquire more minis. :-) Or
do something different with the minis you haven't done anything with yet (like
I've got)
Mk
> On 11/2/06, James Moore <jmooreou@gmail.com> wrote:
Allan has actually hit several nails squarely on their heads here.... the
bottom line is that, just like any minis company, to stay in
business WE NEED TO SELL MINIS - preferably lots of them! That's
exactly why the Evil Empire (tm) has to repeatedly re-invent their
games every couple of years and change the army lists, so that the kiddies
must continually buy new armies. If folks stop buying figures because they've
got enough for what they are currently playing, and the game doesn't change,
then manufacturers die.
It's quite right that a company-level SG3 would drive sales
(hopefully of 15mm) much more than a release of FMAS, which most folks would
probably just play with a handful of the figures they already have. I WANT to
get FMAS done and out, and as Allen says it is actually very close to being a
fully functional system, but it
will be rather more a labour of love than a commercially-important
product for the business.
By the way, there are probably at least a couple of quite early versions of
FMAS floating around in the public domain, which people
are very free to use if they wish - but please bear in mind that the
current version of the game is quite significantly different to those early
versions. IF and when time allows (ha!), I will try to get a
more up-to-date draft done for public testing - but please remember
that holding your breath can make you turn blue and fall over, so we
don't suggest you do that! ;-)
Jon (GZG)
> --
Having already been a fan boy espousing more Jon purchases, I'd merely
query if it isn't much easier to go from one-to-many, with movement
stands,
than from many-to-one?
The_Beast
Mark wrote on 11/02/2006 10:28:05 AM:
> [quoted text omitted]
> On 11/2/06, Jason Weiser <jason.weiser@gmail.com> wrote:
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
http://lists.csua.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l>On 11/2/06, Jason
Weiser
> <<mailto:jason.weiser@gmail.com>jason.weiser@gmail.com> wrote:
Or, simply make some unit bases and temporarily fix the single figs
to them with blu-tack or magnetic basing material - then you've got
the best of both worlds!
There is also no reason at all why you couldn't simply continue using
your single-based figs separately, just keeping each team of 3 or 4
in base-to-base contact and treating them as a single element; OK, it
will be a little more fiddly and time-consuming to move units, but
there shouldn't be any other problems.
(Or, as Indy says, you could just buy lots more stuff..... <GRIN>)
> On 11/1/06, Jaime Tiampo <fugugaipan@spikyfishthing.com> wrote:
Cheers. Now to poke at Brian.
Is this the sort of level that most folks (assuming an interest in 15mm at
all) are interested in?
That's pretty much where I want to go with this.
I would be, but the sucky thing is, I already based my stuff for 1:1!
Jason
Easy fix, it's called a sabot base....just make the base large enough to put 3
of your currently based troops on it, it's what I have to do with a bunch of
my stuff.....)
> On Thursday 02 November 2006 16:39, Ground Zero Games wrote:
A
> >fair bit has been done on it already, it just needed some
OK, point taken! ;-)
What I actually meant was that they are publicly accessible, ie: they've been
posted on open lists.....
Jon (GZG)
> --
> 1) Do you (or have you in recent years) play SG2?
At ECC, 25mm At home, 15mm and plastic army men which are about 20mm (at $1
per hundred figs, how could I say no?)
Based as individuals, but I'm planning to rebase the 15's--I'll leave my
25mm for skirmish.
> 2) Would the development of a game
> 3) Would the development of SG3 in this direction tempt you into
In my rational moments, "No, I've got enough lead already!" But if I only had
rational moments, I wouldn't have at least half that lead...
1) Do you (or have you in recent years) play SG2?
b) Yes, with 15mm minis but using standard SG2 - ie: single-based
figures
2) Would the development of a game like we've been discussing (let's call it
SG3) fit what you would want from a hard SF ground combat game? a) Yes, and
I'd play it in 15mm
3) Would the development of SG3 in this direction tempt you into
buying/collecting 15mm forces?
d) I already have a 15mm force for SGII that I'd use for it though I'd
continue to purchase new 15mm miniatures as they are released if they fit into
my forces or catch my fancy, or I misclick on the web site, or just have too
much money, or the day of the week ends in "y"
The current game flavour of the year here is turning in FoW so there are now a
bunch of non GZG gamers with 15mm stuff based for that game. Might be easier
to get them into the FMA system with a game like this.
To be honest though, it's not me PERSONAL want/need for the next
release. I'd much rather see FMAS and FT3 come out before.
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
http://lists.csua.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l>On 11/2/06, Ground
> Zero Games <<mailto:jon@gzg.com>jon@gzg.com> wrote:
The Wombats are out already (well, the Wombat II, but it looks close
enough....) and I'm planning to do some heavier hovertanks soon (maybe not
exactly like the Slammer, but they'll fill the same role).
> On 11/2/06, Ground Zero Games <jon@gzg.com> wrote:
All three of these.
At conventions I've run SG2 in 25mm and in 15mm based as single figures.
Recently I've been playing 15mm modified for group bases (i.e. my board game
rules) but the modifications are not anywhere near
Stuart's. Stuart's rules look like they really _are_ the SG3 you
propose. Mine just take SG2 and figure out a way to handle the individual
figures in the context of a base.
> 2) Would the development of a game like we've been discussing (let's
Both a and b.
I'd play it in 15mm when I had the space (i.e. at a convention). I'm a bit
hard up for space in the apartment, so I'd probably play the game
in 10mm (using Battletech figures) and/or 6mm with a modified ground
scale (say, centimetres instead of inches).
> 3) Would the development of SG3 in this direction tempt you into
Actually, some of a, b, and d. Option d) I would buy more 6mm figures to play
this game at a smaller scale.
I already have a lot of 15mm figures, mostly GZG but some Striker figures
(actually, mostly Striker, but I mainly play with GZG figures, as they have
more poses). Such a rule set would tempt me to field another couple of armies,
and buy more vehicles.
On the other hand, this product would be an excellent gateway game to DS2, as
you could use the same figures. As such, I'd probably end up buying more DS2
figures, particularly infantry.
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
http://lists.csua.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lOn 11/2/06, Ground
> Zero Games <jon@gzg.com> wrote:
Thanks for all the responses so far; maybe I should have done this in the
first place, but if it's not too late let's turn this into a
mini-survey:
I'd like as many listers as possible (yes, that means you lurkers too!) to
respond to this - go on, it'll only take you a couple of moments!
1) Do you (or have you in recent years) play SG2?
a) Yes, with 25/28mm minis
b) Yes, with 15mm minis but using standard SG2 - ie: single-based
figures
c) Yes, with 15mm minis but modified for group-based figures
d) No, interested but have no opponents/time/money etc...
e) No, not interested
A & B - I like the 15mm because of space constraints. The 25mm works
great
for very small-unit RPG-style action, but not so well for the "mass"
combat. That said, I really like the SG2 system and don't have any desire to
see it
change overmuch for a new squad-based game. Not sure how realistic that
is, but I'd be interested in "less" change rather than "more" change.
2) Would the development of a game like we've been discussing (let's call it
SG3) fit what you would want from a hard SF ground combat game?
a) Yes, and I'd play it in 15mm
b) Yes, but I'd still play it in 25/28mm (or 6mm, or anything else!)
c) No, this level of game doesn't interest me
A (& possibly B) - I'm really pretty excited about the idea of a 15mm
company level game. I'd love for a decent number of vehicles to be available
to match the increasing number of minis. Especially vehicles that cross the
various scales so that I can replicate different "levels" of combat in the
same engagement. That's the sort of thing that would appeal to the people I
play with as well as my own take on putting together campaign games.
3) Would the development of SG3 in this direction tempt you into
buying/collecting 15mm forces?
a) Yes, I'd buy a new 15mm army!
b) I already have a 15mm force waiting for a game system...
c) No, I've got enough lead/scale/projects already!
A- Hands down. I've been slowly getting rid of some of my 25mm and most
of
my 28mm minis because I just don't have the space to play large-scale
battles with them. Seeing the new 15mm stuff has been a whole lot of fun!
> On 11/2/06, laserlight@verizon.net <laserlight@verizon.net> wrote:
The recent batch of 15mm figures I painted were done as individuals,
unfortunately. I mean "unfortunately", because the process I use puts them on
a washer in such a way that the base is fairly heavy, but the
washer can't come off. They really aren't all _that_ suitable for
mounting on individual bases.
However, I have a bunch of other 15mm GZG figures that I have yet to paint
which could be mounted on bases. I also have my Striker figures that are
individually mounted but can go to bases.
In other words, if this is the route Jon is going I want to know _NOW_
what the base sizes will be! *grin*
> On Thursday 02 November 2006 16:39, Ground Zero Games wrote:
Personally, as a mostly-roleplayer rather than dedicated wargamer,
I'm more interested in 25mm since it's the scale that works best for RPG
miniatures. I can justify time spent painting them for using them when running
an RPG, even though I may only wargame with them once a year.
I have some 6mm, but buying anything in 15mm just isn't going to happen (I
don't have the time to paint yet another scale of figures). I'd prefer any
rules which used based groups of figures to be compatible with 6mm as well as
15mm. Regardless though, I'd probably buy any rules you bring out, since they
don't need painting.
> By the way, there are probably at least a couple of quite early
Do you really mean public domain? Would I be free to take those rules, build a
game around it, and publish it under, say, a GPL license? If not, then it's
not public domain.
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
http://lists.csua.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lOn 11/2/06, Ground
> Zero Games <jon@gzg.com> wrote:
I'd have to choose 'd', as I haven't played SG2 this century yet. :-(
(Stuart's CineGrunt games at ECC don't count ;-) ).
2) Would the development of a game like we've been discussing (let's call it
> SG3) fit what you would want from a hard SF ground combat game?
Pretty much most definitely 'a'.
3) Would the development of SG3 in this direction tempt you into
> buying/collecting 15mm forces?
'a' and 'b'. I have enough to do up something now....but would definitely want
to expand, esp if some cool nifty new toys came out, like, say, some
towed AT guns or something...oh, wait, those just came out. Woohoo! :-D
Mk
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
http://lists.csua.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lOn 11/2/06, Ground
> Zero Games <jon@gzg.com> wrote:
a.
2) Would the development of a game like we've been discussing (let's call it
> SG3) fit what you would want from a hard SF ground combat game?
a.
3) Would the development of SG3 in this direction tempt you into
> buying/collecting 15mm forces?
a with reservations. If I could get Wombats, and Slammer hover tanks I would
be ready to buy a new army, or my same army at a different scale.
:)
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
http://lists.csua.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lJust sticking my
oar in on the 15mm SG3 debate:
1) Both A) and B)
2) A)
3) A)
Steve.
----- Original Message ----
From: Ground Zero Games <jon@gzg.com>
To: gzg-l@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
Sent: Thursday, 2 November, 2006 4:22:40 PM
Subject: Re: Blue Sky Thinking (was: Re: [GZG] re: Wanted)
> On 11/2/06, Ground Zero Games <jon@gzg.com> wrote:
> That's not the point. It's not simply a matter of basing - I want a
The direction in which I'm thinking is:
[...]
Is this the sort of level that most folks (assuming an interest in 15mm at
all) are interested in?
Adding in my two bits: yes.
Mk
Thanks for all the responses so far; maybe I should have done this in the
first place, but if it's not too late let's turn this into a
mini-survey: I'd like as many listers as possible (yes, that means you
lurkers too!) to respond to this - go on, it'll only take you a couple
of moments!
1) Do you (or have you in recent years) play SG2?
a) Yes, with 25/28mm minis
b) Yes, with 15mm minis but using standard SG2 - ie: single-based
figures
c) Yes, with 15mm minis but modified for group-based figures
d) No, interested but have no opponents/time/money etc...
e) No, not interested
2) Would the development of a game like we've been discussing (let's call it
SG3) fit what you would want from a hard SF ground combat game? a) Yes, and
I'd play it in 15mm
b) Yes, but I'd still play it in 25/28mm (or 6mm, or anything else!)
c) No, this level of game doesn't interest me
3) Would the development of SG3 in this direction tempt you into
buying/collecting 15mm forces?
a) Yes, I'd buy a new 15mm army! b) I already have a 15mm force waiting for a
game system...
c) No, I've got enough lead/scale/projects already!
For all questions, feel free to add an "other" option (and discuss...) if none
of those supplied really fits!
Over to you all....
Jon (GZG)
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
http://lists.csua.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lc) Yes, with 15mm
minis but modified for group-based figures
a) Yes, and I'd play it in 15mm...anfd have been buying them in numbers (FROM
YOU, lol) a) Yes, I'd buy a new 15mm army!
and b) I already have a 15mm force waiting for a game system...(Mostly your
figs)
Don
> > The Wombats are out already (well, the Wombat II, but it looks
Fear not, wheeled stuff in under way.... ;-)
> The Wombats are out already (well, the Wombat II, but it looks close
We making requests? ;-) I could go for some wheeled vehicles ;-) Plenty
of turret options already from the current new line.
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
http://lists.csua.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l1) Do you (or have
you in recent years) play SG2?
d) No, interested but have no opponents. I have a fair number of the figures
in 25MM though, virtually all unpainted.
2) Would the development of a game like we've been discussing (let's call it
SG3) fit what you would want from a hard SF ground combat game?
a) Yes, and I'd play it in 15mm. Especially with all the neat 15MM stuff Jon's
released recently.
3) Would the development of SG3 in this direction tempt you into
buying/collecting 15mm forces?
a) Yes, I'd buy a new 15mm army! Probably two new armies actually, since I
like to have opponent pairs. Probably NSL and FSE or maybe NAC and ESU.
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
http://lists.csua.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l1b
2a 3d A strong MAYBE. As I already have 15mm, I'd be more inclined to make
magnetic movement trays to group existing single figures. 4a Not to get hung
up in semantics, but referring to it as SG3 implies superceding SG2. As I love
the existing play level of SG2, I would prefer to see a parallel game (as FMAS
is to SG2, SG2 is to XXX). StarCompany1?
Back to lurking, Martin Connell
[quoted original message omitted]
> 1b
StarCompany1?
Well it depends now on how Jon wants to go forward with naming.. if it will be
called FMA Skirmish, FMA Tactical might be a way to go.
Or SG Skirmish, SG Tactical. Name recognition in branding ;-)
Hey Jon, you going to have those wheeled vehicles out before Christmas to take
advantage of that sale.. I mean the holiday season so I can take
advantage of the sale? ;-)
> On 11/2/06, mxconnell@optonline.net <mxconnell@optonline.net> wrote:
I got the impression that Jon is calling it SG3 only because it would
be based on SG2, and because -- for now -- it's easiest to call it
SG3. I doubt very much that it will be called "Stargrunt III".
I, too, would rather see it have a new name. Hopefully Jon will come up with
another name soon. He could even hold a contest to name the game.
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
http://lists.csua.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lIn all likelihood
this has been addressed on the list before (I don't follow it religiously),
but in light of the Blue Sky Thinking thread, I have been thinking about the
GZG game development process, especially since Jon brought up that it's about
selling miniatures. Some basic facts as I see them: 1. There is a lot of cool
stuff in various forms of completion in the pipeline: FMAS, DS3, FT3, BDS 2.
Jon makes his money selling miniatures, not rules 3. Jon retains control of
his games by doing the writing 4. Jon has zero time to write because he likes
to make a living I see these as incompatible. New GZG rule production is too
slow to appear serious and viable to many customers (at least among the folks
I try to draw into them). Right now, I honestly do not believe I will see FMAS
released before the end of the decade. 2008 if I was incredibly optimistic. 12
years plus of development? And with SG3 we're talking about a company level
game to promote more 15mm sales NOW. If it's developed twice as fast as an
optimistic FMAS, it will not be released until 2012. We're all closer to Jon
and GZG than the average gamer thanks to this list. We're tolerant and when
the question comes up "when will XXXX be released" we all know to shout "WHEN
IT'S DONE!". IMHO, that works when your business is a hobby, but it's not
going to help GZG grow to the next business level. That's not going to get GZG
big enough to help sustain Jon through the next economic downturn. To do that,
something has got to give. A proposal: A. It's time to get a ghost writer(s).
Jon should retain editing for quality and style, but someone else needs to do
the heavy lifting. I realize their are financial constraints. Perhaps a
volunteer network could cover a significant percentage. I'll donate 5 hours a
week of typing and buy a compatible word processor to whatever Jon uses if
that will help.
B. Focus on one, maybe 2 games/supplements at a time so that something
gets finished C. Develop a well defined revision schedule D. Electronically
publish for PAY. I apreciate the altruism of free downloads at GZG, but my
impression is electronic publishing is working. I have bought many of Two Hour
Games and Rattrap Production rules as.pdfs. I don't see it as any bigger
threat to piracy than photocopying. These actions get new games into folks
hands faster. It helps GZG look more vital and dynamic. It helps attract new
blood. It helps sell miniatures. So in closing:
- Sorry to let the real world intrude
- Sorry to let my job (project management) intrude
- Sorry to let my frustration on the list
- I really DO want to help.
Regards,
> A. It's time to get a ghost writer(s). Jon should retain editing for
If you want fluff content, give me a couple of ideas and I'll fill the book in
a week. But unfortunately a rule book is not fluff. The playtest process takes
a godawful long time because we have to come up with an idea which works, is
plausible, is (ideally) backwards compatible, does not unbalance other
systems, and is simple enough that Jon will agree to it.
What *I* would like is to put up FMAS Beta, DS3 Beta, FT3 Beta, up on
the web site this week. Mark them as "In Testing"--nobody can complain
about an unfinished product because it's a free download. Post a Feedback link
that goes to the Playtest List, and give a couple of the Playtest team
authority to post FAQs on the GZG site. Then do an update about quarterly.
Holla,
I have to echo Martin's sentiment here. It's part of the reason I was working
on web stuff for Jon (until real life intervened and now my web server is
undergoing refit). We all want Jon to succeed since he produces the stuff we
want to buy, and we all want to see new "official" rules to help get more
people into the games and to satisfy our own needs.
As a former editor/web developer/writer and an advent gamer, I'd also be
willing to donate a certain amount of time to help in getting these projects
done, as I'm sure just about everyone here who already isn't helping as part
of the playtest group.
I have to agree that I think a move towards an electronic publication stream
is the way to go. Faster product production, cheaper initial overhead, easier
dissemination in this day and age.
Blue Sky Thinking of course.
Jaime
> Some basic facts as I see them:
1) Do you (or have you in recent years) play SG2?
a) Yes, with 25/28mm minis
2) Would the development of a game like we've been discussing (let's call it
SG3) fit what you would want from a hard SF ground combat game?
b) Yes, but I'd still play it in 25/28mm (or 6mm, or anything else!)
[Don't own any 15mm, and that'd be a big investment for something I
don't get to play as often as I'd like.]
3) Would the development of SG3 in this direction tempt you into
buying/collecting 15mm forces?
c) No, I've got enough lead/scale/projects already!
[Well, maybe. But unlikely. Hence why I liked the squad-based idea.
Where I now see I'm in the minority.]
-P.
What do I want?
Definitely a PDF bent to the rules, you can do a living version and errata
would be a snap. Also, I want something that is fast moving and
simple, look at AK-47, Metalstorm and Crossfire for good examples.
As for new minis. Well, more 15mm conversions of the 25mm lines. Militia
Cavalry would be nice! The merc packs would be nice. Also, some the LIPPC from
the 25mm line would be nice in 15mm. Also, what about 15mm Cops? With a 15mm
Police aircar, you could have them supplement the militia, or run riot games
with the 15mm rioters Irregular makes.
> On Thursday 02 November 2006 17:35, Ground Zero Games wrote:
Damn, that's a shame :-(
(though it's what I guessed you really meant).
> On Nov 1, 2006, at 9:55 PM, Laserlight wrote:
> I disagree with your "isn't a unit" statement. I would say there
So never, in the course of human military history, has a lowly private taken
the initiative and commanded the remnants of his platoon?
History is filled with text that states otherwise.
Damo
> 1) Do you (or have you in recent years) play SG2?
a/d. I know that sounds odd, but bear with me. Yes we have played
some SG2 games using GW Imperial Guard, Space Marine and Tau figures.
We enjoyed them, but our main gaming group (boys aged 9-14) found SG2
quite "hard", and they prefer FT, so SG2 rather fizzled out. Which leaves *me*
lost in d.
The biggest problems I have with SG2 are the difficulty of creating scenarios
which give both sides a chance of a satisfactory game, and the apparent need
for an umpire in most games. IMHO the SG rule book needs a lot less fluff
about "Private Bloggs", and a lot more canned
scenarios to jump-start new players who may not have much background
in wargaming, and to build their confidence and trust in the "no-
points" system. This is a serious barrier to converting young players with
experience of 40K I've found, despite the fact that I think one gets a *much*
better game with SG2.
> 2) Would the development of a game like we've been discussing
c. On the whole, I think if I wanted to play combined arms mechanised ground
combat at the company level, I'd do it in a contemporary setting not SF, and
take advantage of all the concrete, "real world" info out there. Once you pull
back far enough, it doesn't matter if
the infantry are armed with gauss-rifles or M-16s, or if the tanks
have 120mm guns or lasers, or if the CAS is helicopters or grav-sleds...
I'd be more attracted to FMAS up to the present SG level, to fight out some of
the ground actions postulated in my Belt Wars FT scenarios, or the station
boarding from "Rimrunners", or marines vs. bugs a la "Aliens", "Space Hulk"
etc.
> 3) Would the development of SG3 in this direction tempt you into
d. Other:). I haven't made my mind up about 15mm. I came back to
wargaming after a long lay-off beginning in the late '70s. Back then
I played "25mm" for historicals plus 1:300th modern mechanised, and 15mm
didn't really exist. I must say that I've been very impressed with the quality
of casting on modern 15mm stuff, but integration
with popular vehicle/building model scales seems poor. In the pics,
GZG's vehicles all look rather small (if beautifully formed;)) in
relation to the figures. I'm not sure what vehicles one might kit-
bash for use with 15mm SF. Perhaps 1/87th Minitanks, but 1/72nd
aircraft would be way too big I think.
I'm just not sure how 15mm fits in. OK, I know it's cheaper than 25mm
(probably the main attraction), and supposedly quicker to paint (though I
suspect that has more to do with the painter's taste; back in the day, I
certainly didn't bother with elaborate painting and shading on 25mm wargame
figures. I kept that for my 54mm dioramas!).
When it comes to ground-scale and gaming space, it doesn't seem to me
that 15mm is different enough from 25mm to make a lot of difference
(the SG2 rules use the same ground-scale for both...).
Frankly it seems that the main effect of 15mm is to force small companies like
GZG to maintain two separate ranges of figures and vehicles...:( Bearing in
mind my comments above on the scale of game that interests me for SF ground
combat, I guess I'm saying that I'd be more likely to stick with 25mm *shrug*
> On 11/2/06, Robert N Bryett <rbryett@mail.com> wrote:
I don't disagree that SG2 could use more scenarios. The rule book only has two
pages of "fluff", page 65 and 66, which is mostly a Tuffleyverse timeline. Oh,
and three short paragraphs on page 2. You'd be hard pressed to find a better
"rules to fluff" ratio outside of a historical game set.
> This is a serious barrier to converting young players
I don't really think SG2 is after the same target market. SG2 is aimed at a
more mature player who respects what the rules are trying to do with regard to
command control and morale.
That's not to say that the game couldn't use scenarios! I think the route to
go is the one found in historical sets, where scenario books are sold
separately. In fact, there was a call for scenarios for a scenario book. The
call went out several years ago, but nothing came of it.
> Once you pull back far enough, it doesn't matter if
This is a common complaint about SG2. It plays too much like a modern rule
set. Actually, given artillery accuracy and other issues it makes
a dandy Vietnam war rule set. The game needs more sci-fi in it, and so
does the as yet hypothetical SG3. It's the sci-fi chrome that would
turn make it stand out at a company level.
> d. Other :). I haven't made my mind up about 15mm. I came back to
15mm started to make itself known for Napoleonics and American Civil War in
the mid 1970s. Traveller 15mm figures were available in the mid 1980s, by
which time 15mm had become the de facto standard scale for historicals.
> I must say that I've been very impressed
In fact they are pretty realistic, size wise. I have several of the new
tracked vehicles. I thought they looked a bit small at first, but in real life
they look just fine.
Buildings are an issue. Microtactix does cardstock 15mm World War II figures.
Few other companies do 15mm cardstock buildings. However, it's not too hard to
take the images and shrink them to fit 15mm.
I don't know of any pre-made 15mm scale buildings. Some N scale stuff
fits (most is a little small), but it's all historical (and in the U.S. it's
mostly early to mid 20th century stuff).
One thing about 15mm sci-fi is that, just like 25mm sci-fi, you end up
making a fair bit of your own terrain. At least 15mm stuff is easier to store.
*S*
> I'm not sure what vehicles one might kit-
Roco's Minitanks are actually good for kitbashing, but, seriously, as someone
who kitbashed them for my figures I'm just as happy using GZG's 15mm vehicles.
All I have to do is paint them!
> I'm just not sure how 15mm fits in. OK, I know it's cheaper than 25mm
For me, the main attraction is that they are smaller.
> When it comes to ground-scale and gaming space, it doesn't seem to me
First, I prefer to play SG2 with 15mm. Even using movement units in inches, as
per the SG2 rules, I prefer 15mm figures. You don't have the same cramming
together issues that you have with 25mm (and even worse with 28mm), and the
vehicles have a smaller footprint.
Second, you can use centimetres instead of inches with 15mm figures. The
result is very much like using 25mm or 28mm with inches. Likewise, you can use
15mm for games like FMAS, using centimetres to save space.
> > 1b
StarCompany1?
> Well it depends now on how Jon wants to go forward with naming.. if it
Keep watching the announcements!
Jon (GZG)
> Jaime
> Ground Zero Games wrote:
Here at Murphy's Heroes we have playing FoW and "I ain't been show mum"
recently, so a group based system with SF flavour would probably be welcome.
However, just a wild question: do you need two systems for platoon level and
company level games? Wouldn't it be enough to have an activation system which
scales from individual figures to groups or squads?
> The rule book only has two pages of "fluff", page 65 and 66, which
Ooops! Yes, you're right, and I take back the "fluff" remark. I'm just
allergic to fluff, so I obviously exaggerated. Sorry.
> I don't really think SG2 is after the same target market. SG2 is aimed
So... what? Write off new players as "not mature enough" and lose them from
the game?
I'm sure SG2 is not aimed at the 40K market (thank goodness), and I'm not
suggesting that it should be. However players I've introduced to SG2 who
*have* played 40K (but quite often looking for something better) are put off
by the "no points" nature of SG2. "How can the game be fair?" they ask (and
bear in mind that not a few have been
r**ted in GW game-store games by bent rules and the battle-winning-
model-of-the-month, so trust levels are low). I like the "no point
system" feature of SG2, but inexperienced players (and inexperienced
scenario writers/umpires like me...) could do with more support. Your
suggestion of scenario books sounds like a good one.
Thanks for your comments on 15mm BTW. Some food for thought.
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
http://lists.csua.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lHi Jon,
1) Yes, both a and b. Have played extensively at reinforced company level,
mostly in 28mm but have used 15mm as well since you brought out the figure
packs. (We also routinely played DS2 at up to brigade level
- but then we did have a 12x6 foot table).
2) Yep, a - would be interested in 15mm. Would still be happy to
play 6mm for a Dirtside game, and the current SG2 level as well - and
I'm amongst the interested parties for FMAS too.
3) Both a and b. Have several 15mm forces already. A new rules set and maybe a
few more figure pack options might tempt me to expand my current force levels.
Additional comments - as someone has already mentioned, SG2 is
structured towards an infantry game and doesn't handle vehicles as well as it
might. I've happily tweaked the rules a bit to fit specific background where
necessary (e.g. Hammer's Slammers), but the current SG2 rules aren't really
ideal for combined arms or mechanised ops. I'd like to see a set of rules that
was pitched at this level and which allowed me to use a reasonable armoured
force on table with a fairly
fast-flowing rules set (but not as simplistic as the Hammer's Slammers
rules set). Using the table space to field a decent number of vehicles as well
as infantry seems like a good reason to switch to 15mm as far as I'm
concerned.
Cheers, Ken
[quoted original message omitted]
> On 11/3/06, Robert N Bryett <rbryett@mail.com> wrote:
> So... what? Write off new players as "not mature enough" and lose
No, definitely not. I guess "mature" was the wrong word. I didn't mean it as
the opposite of immature, I meant it in the sense that as a gamer becomes more
seasoned (that's probably the word I should have
used), he matures as a gamer. Some players never go past point-based
meeting engagements, and some games (naval and starship games, for instance)
find points very useful since they rarely have terrain to
contend with/equalize a force. Many of us get to the point where we
realize points in a ground combat game are inaccurate the moment you
put down asymmetric terrain on the board and/or you come up with
scenario requirements other than "kill the other guy". We then realize points
are mostly irrelevant, that you are better off creating a TO&E and using that
as the basis of your scenarios. A "seasoned" gamer doesn't sweat the point
systems. If you are recreating Waterloo or Gettysburg you don't worry about
whether the sides are evenly matched in points, or even necessarily have the
same chance of winning. It is a "seasoned" gamer that finds satisfaction in
playing a "forlorn hope" scenario.
That having been said, there is a certain "cost of entry" to SG2 that you
don't get with That Other Game. A scenario book would help, but I
suspect even _that_ wouldn't be enough. What's needed is a tutorial in
creating scenarios. Even then, as anyone who has done it enough will tell you,
the only way to get a really good scenario is to playtest the dickens out of
it. There is no way to balance a scenario otherwise.
This kind of stuff could bury a small two-man outfit like GZG that's
first and foremost a miniatures company.
> I'm sure SG2 is not aimed at the 40K market (thank goodness), and I'm
There in lies the problem. "How can it be fair?" Scenarios are quite
often _not_ fair, particularly the first time you play it.
I personally think that a point system should have been included in SG2 (if
you search the archives you'll find that a decade ago I was
poo-pooing point systems), if for no other reason than to attract
people who need them to make "fair" scenarios.
However, then you run the other side of the coin. Supply a point system and
then every other convention game becomes an equal points meeting engagement.
Personally, I'm not sure how many people would be weaned off 40K for SG2 even
if it had a point system, but it's very hard to even try to convert people
without one. Or without a scenario book. The GZG web site, undergoing
redesign, could make for a good scenario repository. A point system could be
developed and stuffed up there, too, but I'm not sure how "fair" it would be.
Perhaps a broken point system, that gives a hint at what can be done, is
better than no point system at all.
> Thanks for your comments on 15mm BTW. Some food for thought.
You're quite welcome. Germy has some 25mm cardstock sci-fi buildings.
I'm sure they could be scaled down to 15mm. Maybe he can make some more (and
add colour?) in his spare time, when he's not tempting me with way cool
looking 2mm figures...
> What's needed is a tutorial in creating scenarios. Even then, as anyone
Well...if you have a good gamemaster with a reserve pool. But at some point
you have to stop feeding forces.
Someone else asked:
> better) are put off by the "no points" nature of SG2. "How can the
So....you're saying they want a point system like the one which obviously
doens't generate even battles?
They give the illusion of even battles, and the game is losing a potential
audience that craves that illusion. So, yes.
> -----Original Message-----
Another way to think about point systems (given that no historical TO&E is
provided - hey, it's sci-fi!) is not to "balance" the game necessarily,
but rather to provide limits. All commanders, throughout history, have wanted
more. More troops, more tanks, more ammo, better equipment, more
artillery support, *more something* to ensure that they would be able to
acheive their goals without suffering losses, setbacks, whatever.
A point system can be used to, and explained to, provide such limits. If you
have 2K points, and you're building an infantry and you want PA for
everyone, along with some FSVs, off-board artillery, air strikes, etc.,
and you *can't afford it all*, you have to *not have something*. The player
has to design the force and decide on what not to have, and thus,
is limited.
Balance isn't there in real life. It's not there in most sci-fi battles
(how balanced were any of Hammer's Slammers battles? The MI in Heinlein's
Starship Troopers vs the skinnies?, Serenety Valley?, Falkenberg's Legion on
New Sparta?) and certainly not in history (General Custer?). Why does it NEED
to be in games?
Some of our better games have had serious balance issues in them (and most
often due to poor planning on my part!). The folks you game with make a
difference, but some kind of point sysetm is, IMHO still worth while.
:)
John K. Lerchey Assistant Director for Incident Response Information Security
Office Carnegie Mellon University
> On Fri, 3 Nov 2006 laserlight@verizon.net wrote:
> What's needed is a tutorial in creating scenarios. Even then, as
> On 11/3/06, John K Lerchey <lerchey@andrew.cmu.edu> wrote:
Although, as I pointed out in an earlier e-mail, I personally don't
need balanced games, the reason other people do is because we play competitive
games. People like to play games where they have the same chance of winning as
their opponent (casino blackjack tables not withstanding), where winning is
based largely on ability.
Point systems started as a way of quantifying the "quality" of a unit
relative to other units in the game. Even _Squad Leader_ had a point
system, in its DIY section. What Games Workshop discovered (or blundered into,
depending on your beliefs) is that building an army with a point system was a
game in its own right. Nothing new here,
min/maxing wasn't new when roleplayers started doing it either, and I
believe games like SFB were doing this way before GW got big. GW just made it
a larger part of their games than some, where building the force was more
important than actually playing with it.
Does this sound familiar? It should, it's the basis of most collectible games,
and in some respects it's a big part of FT. Soap bubble carriers didn't come
along because people were using them in scenarios.
So, players like to build their own forces. In part this is because "force
building" is an interesting exercise. I wouldn't be surprised to hear that
there are a large number of FT ship designs that have never seen play. In part
it is so players aren't "hosed" by the guy setting up the table. SG2 gives
nothing but rough guidelines, making it hard for two players to pick their
armies when they are on their own and still have an "even match" when they get
together.
The goal of a scenario is to give both players an even chance of winning the
game (unless of course you have a 7 year old with a fragile ego) even though
the force composition and victory conditions
are be completely different for each player. It is _very_ hard to
balance scenarios. The General magazine used to run articles listing
the balance of various _Squad Leader_ scenarios based on playtest
results. X scenario might see the Axis win 40% of the time, while Y scenario
might see them win 55% of the time. Days of Wonder allow
gamers to record AARs for _Memoir '44_, giving folks an idea of how
balanced _Memoir 44_ scenarios are. It's not always obvious which
scenarios are balanced and which are not just by looking at them. I played a
Wake Island scenario with Logan (the aforementioned 7 year old). I gave him
the Marines because there were fewer units for him to worry about, and they
were on the defensive (which is usually easier to play). I didn't find out
until later that Wake Island is considered heavily balanced in favour of the
Japanese. It didn't matter, the cards went his way, he made few mistakes, and
his Marines slaughtered my Japanese on the beaches.
This highlights one of the great advantages of unbalanced scenarios. If you
win an unbalanced scenario with the disadvantaged side, you did something
memorable. If you lose, you can always add "game balance" to the reasons you
"failed", along with "bad dice rolls".
Players often have to contend with opponents who stack the deck against them
for reasons of ego and poor self esteem. RPG.net has several threads dealing
with bad GMs or bad players. I personally know of two people who cheat at
roleplaying games. Most of us have probably met folk who had bad experiences
with games because the guy hosting the event slanted a scenario in his favour
or his buddy's favour.
When you can't trust the other guy, an even-point meeting engagement
with some sort of rules as to who gets to decide the terrain and/or
the side they enter the board from is the only way to get a competitve game
where both players have the same chance of winning. Most players would rather
have a competitive, if repetitive, game than an interesting scenario they were
hard pressed to win from the outset.
That's why games need point systems and game balance.
On the other hand...
...tell that to my 7 year old, whose eyes lit up when I said, "Not
only did you beat me last weekend in that _Memoir '44_ game, I found
out that it's supposed to be _really hard_ for the Marines to beat the
Japanese." We now both have a memory that no even-point meeting
engagement will ever match.
> From: Allan Goodall
"slanted in his girlfriend's favor", although that's usually been for
RPGs :-)
> If you are recreating Waterloo or Gettysburg you don't worry about
Sure, but how is this relevant to SF gaming, where the historical aspect is
absent? People interested in the ACW can explore "What would have happened if
Ewell had pushed home an evening attack on Culp's Hill?" or whatever, but in
SF gaming the whole thing has to be built from scratch. If players are handed
a thoroughly unbalanced game, they know that it is not the vagaries of history
that are to blame, but the choices of the person that wrote the scenario.
There's a huge psychological difference between dealing with adverse
circumstances, and handling unfair treatment by another *person*.
> It is a "seasoned" gamer that finds satisfaction in playing a
I haven't met any gamers, seasoned or otherwise, who enjoy losing... There has
to be a chance of a psychological win or there's no satisfaction in playing.
In a rearguard scenario, the "win" may be the satisfaction of retreating off
the end of the table with n% of your forces intact, but it's still there. But
rearguard players have to feel that they've a fair chance of achieving it.
> Even then, as anyone who has done it enough will tell you, the only
Great advice for those who have a large enough group of players to
provide play-testers who are not the same people as will be playing
the scenario in an actual game. Not especially useful otherwise.
In another posting Laserlight asked:
"So....you're saying they want a point system like the one which obviously
doens't generate even battles?"
I don't quite seem to be communicating clearly here. I'm not saying that SG's
"no points" system is bad (indeed I've repeatedly said the opposite), or that
points systems guarantee a fair game. The issue I feel is that players coming
to SG for the first time are *accustomed*
to point-system games, in which the points-system is *supposed* to
deliver a reasonably balanced game. Then they come to SG, and it's a
matter of just *trusting* the scenario writer/umpire with very little
support from "official" or pre-tested material, which creates a
barrier to entry. I'm not advocating a point-system for SG, I'm
looking for more support on scenarios.
> On 11/3/06, Robert N Bryett <rbryett@mail.com> wrote:
You seem to be missing my point. I'm agreeing with you. I _understand_
that it's a rare group who can "playtest the dickens" out of a scenario. That
was the reason I was leading up to the rest of the
e-mail, suggesting we need a point system and/or a repository for
scenarios.
> On 11/3/06, Robert N Bryett <rbryett@mail.com> wrote:
For what it's worth, as the [OFFICIALtm] viewpoint, I pretty much agree with
everything said by Allan AND everyone else on this
subject...... while I don't want SG3/SG-AC/G-CAV2/whatever to be
dominated by a rigid points system that stifles creative scenarios,
we DO need SOMETHING to make pick-up games and newbie induction a lot
easier. What form that takes in the end is something that's still open to a
lot of debate, but personally I favour some sort of system that allows you to
build your units, then a scenario generator that determines your mission for
that game and how much of your force you can actually use on table to
accomplish said mission.
Jon (GZG)
> --
Jon (GZG) wrote...
> ...What form that takes in the end is something that's still
Back in the day (before there was fire practically), I played with a group
that did this for a Battletech campaign. Everyone built a company of mechs,
then we had a random scenario list that we rolled on. The scenario would
determine what force could be used and what the victory conditions would be
for that player.
Every week we got to choose to be an attacker or defender, which would
determine who rolled IIRC - but I seem to recall that at times both
people
would roll - which resulted in people with vastly different victory
conditions at times and who didn't know it. It was a great deal of fun. The
other question ended up being if both players used their own forces or if one
used "scenario supplied" forces (usually the Defender IIRC).
We had a very basic experience point system (that was far too difficult in
retrospect) that was designed to allow the Mech pilots to get better at
piloting and gunnery - so people generally tried to use multiple lances
from within their company to spread the wealth around (we could do the same
thing with unit and leadership quality I suppose, or include one for those who
wish to use it).
What really became interesting is when the scenario called for a certain type
of lance or force and the player didn't really have anything like
it -
which forced them to try an complete a scenario with less than optimal units
(sometimes seriously screwed units). This had the effect of people building
balanced companies for the most part because after a couple of times of
watching someone get blown off the map (or having it happen to yourself)
because they hadn't included a fast-attack lance or any assault mechs or
whatever nobody really wanted it to happen to them.
In any case, just putting in my two cents that I think that this is a great
idea- From a marketing standpoint this would also allow the potential
for "theoretical" scenarios in a book (Kobayashi Maru anyone?) to "historical"
-letting people fight out portions of certain campaigns from the history
of the GZG universe.
[quoted original message omitted]
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
http://lists.csua.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lThat sort of thing
does happen, though, and likely even with mercenaries picking and choosing
their tickets (no plan survives contact with the enemy, etc.).
Millions of years ago, when I was in the Mid-Realm of the SCA, the
King's Rangers even had a song about it. The only lines I remember went like
this:
"We're trained in (something something) To harass and spy Then stood upon a
crossroads And ordered to die"
You get the picture. :-)
Best,
Ken
Chief of Naval Operations United Stars Navy
> john tailby <John_Tailby@xtra.co.nz> wrote:
[quoted original message omitted]
> john tailby wrote:
From: "David Rodemaker" <dar@horusinc.com>
> Jon (GZG) wrote...
This idea is quite commonly used, Flames of war and 40K do similar things. It
is good at preventing armies from becoming engineered to just play one
mission. However it can lead to all armies having a sameness feel to them. In
your example everyone would have ended up with mech companies with a
scout lance a medium/heavy lance and a heavy/ fire support lance. You
would be less likely to see armies that represent specialist units like
Hansens Roughriders or Eridani light horse.
In a GZG universe I imagine a formation like Atkinson's Arrows would not be
very willing to take on a city assault scenario where their tanks and long
range firepower are nullified by the terrain. I am not saying that they can't
do it but that it's not what they would necessarily want to do. Same thing if
you chose to design a light stealth infantry force. The last thing they want
is to be given an assignment to hold trenches.
Scenarios need to have the capability to be achieved in different ways so that
different armies can be selected.
------------
All excellent points - and ones that we did run into. A couple of things
worked in out favor. We were all playing mercenaries, we all started with a
company of mechs (12), we were all constrained to Light, Medium and heavy
Mechs, and everyone started with Green Pilots (and 1 Regular IIRC as a
Company Commander). The advent of Los-tech really changed the game to a
degree but later the Clans basically killed it.
It was a pretty good run there for a few years though.
What was interesting is that people very quickly started buying vehicles to
flesh out their forces and provide back-up (or replacements) for mechs
that
were mis-matched to a mission. Mechs remained rare, but forces quickly
became much more diverse.
Another thing that was available was the ability to refuse some missions
(basically refusing to take the contract) either as an explicit clause in the
scenario or as a general choice (which had some penalty, I can't remember what
exactly). By the same token, some missions could not be refused at all
(ambushes for example).
What this may force into being is more developed TOE's and ORBAT's for the
existing GZGverse powers because that's one of the few ways to create this
type of random scenario pack. That will determine what a company, regiment,
platoon, etc. will look like so that decent comparisons can be made.
[quoted original message omitted]
> john tailby wrote:
[quoted original message omitted]
> John Tailby wrote:
> Yep big changes in technology makes it very hard for points value
> less than 5 years?
Big *changes* in technology are hard for points systems to handle. Fortunately
for the game designers changes in technology only occur during
large-scale campaign games that allow tech development during the
campaign (eg. StarFire or Masters of Orion), so the easiest way of avoiding
this kind of mess is to not write campaign rules with a large enough time
scale that tech development is necessary <g>
However, it is the tech *change* which causes problems - not the fact
that there are tech *differences*. For single battles, even very large
differences in tech level can be handled... and if the points system is
sound, the higher-tech units will be extremely expensive.
Unfortunately many game designers confuse the game-balancing points cost
system with the "in-background" *economic* costs required to build and
operate these highl-tech units, and that inevitably leads to disaster
(since the entire "in-background" purpose with tech development is to
allow the design of units which give *more* bang per (economic) buck than the
old
technologies did, whereas the entire purpose of a game-balancing points
system is to give the *same* bang per buck regardless of tech level)...
Regards,
> Oerjan Ariander wrote:
<Much snippage>
> Unfortunately many game designers confuse the game-balancing points
That's a point that I think I was on my way to making - but never really
got there. It's the similar reason why so many custom built fleets look so
wonky
- nobody is constrained in having to build ships that had to do anything
but conduct war (let alone anything like a political limitation on what or how
to build things). Related is the idea that fleets have to do more than just
fight war - they have to show the flag, escort shipping, etc. etc. etc.
Sort of the reason why I don't mind fighters being so damn effective -
we
play campaigns and as valuable as the fighters are - the pilots are much
more so... Losing fighters is a huge pain in the ass, loosing the pilot can be
crippling. At the end of a long campaign (ours) carriers are always
understrengthed, some of them massively so. The concept of "throwing" your
fighters at the enemy the way I see some people do it in pick-up games
quickly goes by the wayside after a couple of nasty fights. It instead becomes
a tactic of desperation.
Same thing with ships. Nobody wants a ship to get crippled - and the
decision to scuttle one becomes painful when it's the first capitol ship to
get hammered so bad behind enemy lines that it can't get home...
> On 11/9/06, David Rodemaker <dar@horusinc.com> wrote:
> Sort of the reason why I don't mind fighters being so damn effective -
your
> fighters at the enemy the way I see some people do it in pick-up games
Hehe... maybe you could do the Japanese thing and have more fighters than
qualified pilots, and be forced to choose between using them as large cruise
missles, or putting them up with pilots with 12 hours of training and hoping
they will luck out and shoot down an American aircraft.:)
That's the real killer on fielding fighters, qualified pilots. As the Syrians
and Egyptians discovered over and over again, you can buy all the fighters you
like, without qualified pilots they are pretty much worthless except as decoys
to draw the enemy into AA traps. Perhaps you could have a whole ranking of
uselessness below the standard rules for fighters for use in campaign games.:)
> Same thing with ships. Nobody wants a ship to get crippled - and the
Ooooh... yeah, and in space, it might be a little harder to salvage them than
on the bottom of Pearl Harbor.
But that's always going to be the difference between campaign games and
on-offs.
> Same thing with ships. Nobody wants a ship to get crippled - and the
Since he's talking about "behind enemy lines", it's more like "a little harder
to salvage them than off Ironbottom Sound", or even "than off the west coast
of Japan", which might make the space scenario a bit more attractive in
comparison.
> John Atkinson wrote:
your
> fighters at the enemy the way I see some people do it in pick-up games
That happened a couple of times as well. :-) Somebody usually ends up
with
more fighters than pilots - and usually at the expense of some other
thing like frigates or cruisers because they dumped a bunch of points into the
wrong building capacity.
Then there's always the issues when you end up with more of both and no
carriers to put them in - or no way to get them to the front lines...
It all boils down to logistics.
---------
> That's the real killer on fielding fighters, qualified pilots. As the
We actually did that. Had four levels of skill (Recruit, Green, Regulars,
Veterans), plus Aces. If anyone likes I can post the rules we used for the
differences.
----------
> But that's always going to be the difference between campaign games
Very true. One of the reason I prefer campaign games - while you can
always
min-max, in a well-designed campaign it's much harder to sustain that
after people figure out what you're doing. And I generally don't mind "taking
the long view" when somebody has seriously whacked their forces in one way or
the other - that sort of thing always comes home to roost if you're
patient
and/or resourceful enough.
Though I have to admit that one time I had to talk people into setting up a
second campaign to follow the first one. We ending up having a nice diplomatic
game with some skirmishes with pirates and the like for a couple of "years"
and then hostilities broke out again...
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
http://lists.csua.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lAlthough it will be
some little time before I can actually _play_ in a campaign, I would be
obliged if you'd post the rules, John. I think campaigns, all else equal, are
the only way to go in naval (or starship) gaming. "What job is this going to
do in peacetime, in wartime, and against whom?" is always in the back of my
head when I design ships.
Best,
Ken
> David Rodemaker <dar@horusinc.com> wrote:
your
> fighters at the enemy the way I see some people do it in pick-up games
That happened a couple of times as well. :-) Somebody usually ends up
with
more fighters than pilots - and usually at the expense of some other
thing like frigates or cruisers because they dumped a bunch of points into the
wrong building capacity.
Then there's always the issues when you end up with more of both and no
carriers to put them in - or no way to get them to the front lines...
It all boils down to logistics.
---------
> That's the real killer on fielding fighters, qualified pilots. As the
We actually did that. Had four levels of skill (Recruit, Green, Regulars,
Veterans), plus Aces. If anyone likes I can post the rules we used for the
differences.
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
http://lists.csua.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l
In a message dated 11/9/06 3:24:28 PM,
gzg-l-request@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
writes:
> >>That's the real killer on fielding fighters, qualified pilots. As
> Ken Hall wrote:
gaming. "What job is this going to do in peacetime, in wartime, and against
whom?"Â is always in the back of my head when I design ships.<<
That was me actually, :-)
I'll include rules for Ship Crew Quality as well. These evolved from basic FT
up through the Fleetbooks and we're all (or mostly) old SFB hands as well. I'm
sure you'll see the SFB influence. We did Legendary Officers as well, but the
rules for those have disappeared into the ether.
As a general note for our campaigns we included a cost for crew and pilots
because it seemed to make sense. We tinkered with a couple of systems
involving increasing costs to replace CF's lost due to combat. PSB was either
difficulty in recruiting or a simple lack of available resources.
What was amusing is when one guy wanted to start press-ganging the crews
of his merchant ships. We decided to let him, and we had some fun playing a
couple of "boarding actions" - and there were a couple of goofy
repercussions as well later in the campaign. Sort of a short term gain at a
long term cost situation.
In our campaign turns it took 2 turns to turn out a Green Squadron, 4 turns to
turn out a Regular one. Zero for a Recruit Squadron. One Green Ship crew
factors could be turned out in one turn, a Regular Crew Factor could be
produced in two turns.
For the life of me I cannot remember what the cost for extra capacity in a
Flight School or Naval Academy was. If people are interested, I'll see if I
can unearth those rules as well. They're buried somewhere on CD back-up.
FIGHTERS: Recruit: (0 Points) Must Move First in Fighter Phase
+2 Morale
-1 On Scramble Rolls
-2 in Dogfight
-1 Combat Endurance Factor
If fails two consecutive morale rolls must return to carrier
-2 Initiative
-1 to Intercept Missiles (+1 to be caught in Missile's blast)
Green: (1 Point)
+1 Morale
-1 in Dogfight
If fails two consecutive morale rolls must return to carrier
-1 Initiative
Regular: (2 Points) Normal Rules
Veteran: (4 Points)
-1 Morale
+1 Die
+1 Initiative
Ace: (Cannot Buy)
-1 Morale
Against Ships: +1 Die to the Attack Group or attack as a Needle Beam
Dogfight: +1 Die to Group or can target an Enemy Ace
+1 Initiative
Attached squadron moves last.
Experience Worked as Follows: Recruit to Green: 2 Engagements Green to
Regular: 4 Engagements Regular to Veteran: 8 Engagements
Ace: In any engagement there is a 1/8 chance that the Regular and
Veteran Squadrons will generate an Ace. One roll is made, and only one Ace is
generated, no matter how many squadrons there are.
Groups could be trained to the next level at triple the points cost of that
experience level and being out-of-action for three campaign turns.
Initial distribution of pilots was as follows:
30% - Green
50% - Regular
20% - Veteran
There was 1 Ace for every 10 squadrons. These could be distributed about ships
and bases as desired
-----
SHIPS: Poor: (50% Normal Cost)
+2 to Rolls to Strike Colors
-2 to Initiative
50% Damage Control Parties
-1 to Damage Control rolls
-2 to Boarding Party rolls
+1 to Threshold Checks
+/-1 to Critical System rolls
Ship must move first.
Green: (75% Normal Cost)
+1 to Rolls to Strike Colors
-1 Initiative
50% Damage Control Parties
-1 to Boarding Party rolls
+/-1 to Critical System rolls
Regular: (Basic Point Cost of Crew = CF) Normal Rules
Veteran: (200% Normal Cost)
-1 to Rolls to Strike Colors
+1 Initiative
+1 to Boarding Party Rolls
-1 to Threshold Checks
Elite Crew: (500% Normal Cost)
-2 to Rolls to Strike Colors
+2 Initiative
+1 to Damage Control rolls
+1 to Boarding Party rolls
-1 to Threshold Checks
+/-1 to Critical System Rolls
Experience Worked as Follows: Poor to Green: 3 Engagements. Green to Regular:
1 Engagement per CF Regular to Veteran: 1 Engagement per CF Veteran to Elite:
2 Engagements per CF
Crews could be trained to the next level at triple the points cost of that
experience level and being out-of-action for 6 campaign turns.
Initial distribution of crews was as follows:
40% - Green
30% - Regular
20% - Veteran
10% - Elite
These could be distributed as desired.
Having a restriction on the number of pilots harkens back to "Trillion Credit
Squadron". TCS is really the only way I would do a campaign (well, and borrow
some details from FFW).
Michael Brown mwsaber6@msn.com
[quoted original message omitted]
> Michael Brown wrote:
We were all old Traveller players as well.
;-)
[quoted original message omitted]
> On Fri, 10 Nov 2006, john tailby wrote:
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "John Atkinson"
<johnmatkinson@gmail.com>
> In the real life situation you describe a carrier with no fighters
Haven't played against NSL carriers, eh? Some carriers can still fight pretty
well even without fighters.
;)
Haven't played against NSL carriers, eh? Some carriers can still fight pretty
well even without fighters.
;)
John
Now John,
You know calling an NSL carrier in the same manner as any other "Carrier" is a
bit of a stretch. They're more accurately classed as a "Battle Cruiser" with
some fighters added almost as an after thought.........)
JohnTailby said:
> But for determining who won in a one off game fighters and missiles
You don't count expended missiles and fighters as VP? They aren't
free...
> Haven't played against NSL carriers, eh?
You mean the NSL battleship-plus-fighters?
Although the other carriers can also add something to the mix. The NAC carrier
isn't going to win any firepower awards, but it can soak up quite a bit.
One fun thing to do is to group 2 or 3 pickup games into a mini campaign. Try
fighting a second or third battle were part of your force is made up of
survivors from the first encounter with little more than 10 turns of field
repair.
I also like using your remaining force to cover your own re-supply
(your new missiles are still on the freighters).
Anyone else have a fun way to work a little logistics into a nights play?
Andy
http://groups.msn.com/confusioncentral411/_whatsnew.msnw
[quoted original message omitted]
> David Rodemaker wrote:
> Unfortunately many game designers confuse the game-balancing points
In other words, you don't find fighters terribly effective because you
don't use the standard points system - instead you've added extra costs
(ie., the costs of training fighter pilots and transporting replacement
fighters+pilots to the front lines) to keep the fighter usage in check.
As a contrast, I've heard of quite a few campaigns that broke down because
they *didn't* consider logistics at all - which made massed fighters
extremely lethal to mobile forces, and massed missile boats extremely
lethal to stationary targets :-/
Later,
> John Tailby wrote:
> But for determining who won in a one off game fighters and missiles
Um. Full Thrust doesn't have any rules for determining "victory points" at
all... so no matter what "victory points" system you're using, it is a house
rule.
If you don't like the results your group's house rule creates, why do you use
that house rule at all...?
Regards,
> Oerjan Ariander wrote:
don't use the standard points system - instead you've added extra costs
(ie., the costs of training fighter pilots and transporting replacement
fighters+pilots to the front lines) to keep the fighter usage in
check.<<
Exactly! Or rather, I find that within the constraints of the system that they
are basically balanced. They are still very, very effective and pack a huge
punch for little combat "cost". E.g. I'd still rather lose a fighter and pilot
than a cruiser or frigate.
As a combatant I have to balance the benefit of using and losing them vs. the
cost of replacing them. In a game where people can build whatever they like
and have no fear of loss I think that they are inordinately powerful because
the "inherent" limitations on their use (like we have in the "real world"). As
a defender the goal is to make their use as costly or difficult as possible.
As a player, I just sort of demand (in a non-campaign game) that people
"play fair" - no soap-bubble carriers unless I know beforehand and am
exploring tactics for example. In general the people I play with all agree and
want to play a game that makes some sort of tactical sense beyond a
min-maxed "who can build the deadliest, most whacked, fleet"
We all know that we can build nasty ships (or tanks), that's not where the fun
of a military game is for us.
> As a contrast, I've heard of quite a few campaigns that broke down
they *didn't* consider logistics at all - which made massed fighters
extremely lethal to mobile forces, and massed missile boats extremely
lethal to stationary targets :-/<<
Yup, and that's why people bases tend to be guarded by monitors and SDB's and
a whole ton of fighters.
We all learned that sort of thing years ago in F&E or TCS, or just because
we're all military buffs (or vets) and can't even think about a "head" without
the "tail." In fact, we've had to strike a balance in the level of detail.
After we've played campaigns for awhile everyone starts to want to know how to
start disrupting commerce, strike at shipyards, bomb the heck out of military
academies, and someone always ends up wanting to start terror tactics after
awhile as well.
Fleet actions are checkers, campaigns are the real chess game... ;-)
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
http://lists.csua.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lOn 11/10/06,
> laserlight@verizon.net <laserlight@verizon.net> wrote:
Hey now, a NAC carrier can go head-to-head with two, perhaps even
three(!),
frigates of most other star powers!
:-D
Mk