[DS] Linking scenarios

3 posts ยท Mar 29 2003 to Mar 29 2003

From: Thomas Barclay <Thomas.Barclay@s...>

Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2003 02:11:05 -0500

Subject: [DS] Linking scenarios

As a few of the listers who attended may recall, at CampCons I and II, we used
a linked scenario format (different in each case) to tie together FT, DS and
SG games.

The first time, the scenarios were tightly coupled, with results from one
determining forces and some other parts of the others.

The second time, they were a series of battles in the campaigns, but the
results were summed together for the overall campaign.

In the second case, we used a concept of reinforcement chits. Across the five
battles, we had 4 chits per team. A chit was roughly equivalent to 10%
increase in force. If played in the setup phase of a game, you automatically
got it. If you waited to see if you could get away without it, then played it
to bring on some cavalry, you had a 50% chance of it working (if not, you
could not use it or any others in the scenario, but you could use them in
subsequent ones.... ones left over after the last scenario were simply
wasted).

This tended to make the teams have to think a bit about where they committed
their extra resources. A 10% increase in forces at a key point can be quite
pivotal. 20% even moreso. (We limited to max 2 chits played in any one
scenario).

As it turned out, the SG game saw most of the chit play, although the DS game
also saw some chit play. I think FT was just straight up, IIRC.

This style of linked play makes for *very* interesting campaigns.

Tomb

PS - Sounds like I'd prefer Southampton to
Portsmouth (no one shooting at me, beer and friendly women).

PPS - If the Brit forces remarked this conflict
wasn't against the enemies they'd trained against, that's only because they're
headed to Basra not Paris....

From: Jerry Acord <acord@i...>

Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2003 09:32:44 -0500

Subject: Re: [DS] Linking scenarios

> Thomas Barclay wrote:

> As it turned out, the SG game saw most of the

What was the order in which they were played, and did that have an effect on
chit play?

> This style of linked play makes for *very*

It sounds quite interesting. The chit system seems an easy way to have
scenarios which are "sort of" linked w/o too much work.  But it doesn't
really replace a campaign or series of scenarios in which the outcome of

one affects the next, or is there another part to it that accomplishes this?

Cheers,

From: Glenn M Wilson <triphibious@j...>

Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2003 07:02:15 PST

Subject: Re: [DS] Linking scenarios

Great ideas, I won't need the FT stuff this time since my linked scenarios
will occur on a Balkanized planet where the Space forces are limited due to
being 'too valuable' as a 'force in being' and UNSC interference.

Gracias, Glenn

On Sat, 29 Mar 2003 02:11:05 -0500 "Thomas Barclay" <kaladorn@magma.ca>
writes:
> As a few of the listers who attended may recall,