The recent posting regarding the West Coast con reminds me that I'm hoping to
run a DS game at the con. Since I've never been to a con, much less run a game
at one before, I'm looking for some tips from the more experienced folks out
there. First of all, how many players for a ground game like DS make for a
good con game? Since I haven't played all *that* much DS, I really, really
don't want to run Carter Island II, but by the same token running a two player
game at a con seems sort of wasteful. I'm thinking a game of about three or
four players would be best. Any opinions? Secondly, what sort of force levels
should I be looking at? The general sense I get from the miniatures comunity
at large is that the best way to set up forces isn't so much the points value
of each side, but the level of decions involved in commanding the forces. What
I'm saying (badly) is that it's (generally) more fun to run an armoured
company that to run an Ogre,
which in turn is more fun to run than one super-duper tank armed with
one
super-duper gun. More decision making involved, the more fun. This is
subject to diminishing returns, naturally. What kind/number of forces
lead to a good (or even decent) game that can be run in a two hour con slot?
Any good general tips to running a game at a con? I picked a few over the
years, but can always use more. That's it as far as the questions. The
scenario I've been considering is a somewhat modified version of the spaceport
assault scenario from the Dirtside rulebook, with a ESU unit attacking an FSE
spaceport (I know, I know, but politics get murky out in the Colonies). I'm
thinking a company of PA with infantry walker support vs hordes (read short
battalion) of lightly armed security types, with a minor twist or two. I'm
kind of afraid of going overboard, which is why I'm looking for some tips.
Thanks for any response.
On Fri, 23 Jun 2000 19:23:09 -0600, Don Greenfield <gryphon@aros.net>
wrote:
> I'm kind of afraid
The key to finding out if it works is playtest, playtest, playtest. The
problem with most con games (and most scenarios in general, really) is that
they are too big. There's a tendency to add. This makes the game longer. I've
found that the best bet is to subtract. This works in all scenarios I've
created. One of my SG2 scenarios had 6 APCs with 2 squads each being ambushed
by 6 squads of PA. It was a pain to balance and took too long. In the end, I
went with 4 APCs with 1 squad each against 4 PA squads (one being a
commander). This works much better, and plays in 3 to 3 1/2 hours.
You make a valid point about the decisions players want to make, but you also
have to make resources scarce enough that the the decisions they have to make
are nasty ones. My suggestion is create an interesting scenario... then pare
it down to 75% after the first playtest. It won't be easy, and you may have to
alter one side more radically than the other, but it will be worth it in the
end.
I'm not familiar enough with DS2 (yet) to suggest force sizes. I will suggest
you set it up for between 1 and 4 people per side. Some scenarios don't work
this way, and you may have 3 or 2 on one side but I try to accomodate 8
players total. If only 2 show up, the game is still playable. The trick will
be if 3 show up, or 5. Don't be afraid, though, to not have many units for a
player if 8 people show up. My experience is that with 4 per side, everyone is
involved in the decision making for the overall tactics. In the above game,
the ambushed players had 1 APC and 1 squad to run and that was it. No one had
a problem with that.
> You make a valid point about the decisions players want to
Studies have shown that most officers cannot handle more than
3-6 units--which is why most organizations are triangular or
square, you run less risk of finding out your CO has more units than he can
handle.
In addition, command ability doesn't seem to be scaleable. I was reading
Kipling last night, he was describing a Boer leader who was well known to be
exceptionally dangerous if he had 250 men, but would trip over himself if he
had 500. Some of
Napoleon's officers could handle a regiment but not a corps--I
recall reading an analysis that suggested that Nappy lost
Waterloo because someone--Ney?--was in command of a larger unit
than he knew what to do with.
I suppose I should mention that, on turn 2 of the Lafayette campaign, Joshua
and I are going to square off in the Lafayette system: he has all 10K points
(24 ships, running largely to Komarov and Konstantin and such), I have 29
ships for my entire
FTL-capable fleet plus system defense cruisers. It'll be
interesting to see if we do anything _else_ tomorrow...
> From an ECC scheduling point of few, if you were submitting an event
But also be flexible to add one or more walk-on players who've never
played Dirtside before.
Keep the game simple. I don't know how much time you'll have in the time
slot, but figure that you'll need about 30-45 minutes to brief the
players and let them plan before they start pushing the figures around. A lot
of the Carter Island time was spent in setup! A higher complexity scenario
requires more player planning.
Prepare team briefing sheets for each side with the situation, force levels,
and victory conditions. Not only does this help your players, but it will
document your scenario for list members after the convention.
> to a good (or even decent) game that can be run in a two hour con
Two hours for the slot? Yow! Simple, simple, simple. With that type of time
constraint, it may be worth focusing on a predominantly armor engagement with
little or no infantry, artillery, and air support.
Having a simpler scenario will make it easier for you to playtest the
scenario.
Good luck!
> --- Don Greenfield <gryphon@aros.net> wrote:
XXX I would suggest 4 or 6. You wish to remain sane afterward. XXX
> Secondly, what sort of force levels should I be
XXX As a first effort, make things simple for
yourself. Make a slightly undersized 2
player game, double it using a slightly different force mix. (For 6, double
initial force again.) XXX
> Any good general tips to running a game at a con?
XXX Keep things simple, make it quick, stay with a balanced force on both
sides.
Keep away from special/super/unusual weapons,
you can lose contol to quickly if the players know thr rules better than you.
XXX
Bye for now,
Several points.
1. As others have said, keep it simple. 2. Understand that is a "Travelling"
game. Try to prepare everything before
you leave the house. I take an old sheet/blanket and spray paint
roads/streams/woodlines on it. At the Con all I need is to add trees
and buildings. 3. Prepare everything in advance, rosters, orders, maps,
anything you might think of.
4. Span of control. 3-6 units per player. Tailor the scenario to allow
you to
add another player. Bring enough units to accommodate 6-10 players, but
set up
for 4-6. The rest are to allow you to tailor the scenario.
5. Use basic forces, limit the Gee Whiz items. Grunts, tanks and some Arty.
Keep ortillery and other chrome for games after you are more comfortable with
the rules.
6. Re-read the rules. Bring a copy with you. Write down any house
rules in effect. 7. Steal ideas from everyone. Look at my site for an example
(http://myweb.veriomail.com/mwbrown)
8. Prepare everything in advance, rosters, orders, maps, anything you might
think of. (see a theme here?) 9. Be ready to start(not set up) at the
appointed time, wait for your players, don't have them wait for you.
I've run games at several Cons over the years, and I try to stick by all of
these.
Michael Brown
[quoted original message omitted]
This is what I did when I ran the Moonbase Xi
(http://members.xoom.com/rlyehable/ds2/scenarios/moonbasexi.html,
pictures at
http://people.canoe.ca/jhan/ft/gzgecc/gzgecc2/frames/gallery_fri_frame.h
tml
and http://people.canoe.ca/jhan/ft/gzgecc/gzgecc3/fri-gallery.html) for
GZG ECC II. I set it on the moon. This limited many of the options (removed
GEV/Grav, Artillery, VTOL, smoke, fires, and limited infantry to one
kind (Power Armor)). This simplified the game tremendously (tanks and a few
infantry). My biggest mistakes was that I was unable to play test the scenario
enough. It was slightly lopsided. When I ran it again at
GZG-ECC
III, I had over-corrected slightly and the game was somewhat unbalanced
in the other direction. I also found that moving terrain features a couple of
inches can have a drastic effect on game balance (I moved a ridge too close
to the goal, and one team was able to create an overwach with Size-5
tanks). However, both games were close enough to balanced that every one
appeared to have fun. As someone else said setup can be a big killer. Bring
several sets of
vehicle/infantry cards/sheets. Number your vehicles. I used small dots
that
I placed on the bottom of the vehicles/infantry stands. I also
pre-generated a chain of command and documented it on the unit sheets
(this saved the time of rolling to see if a leader got better or worse when a
leader is killed) [this got mixed reviews].
> At 21:21 2000-06-23 -0700, you wrote:
> --- Don Greenfield <gryphon@aros.net> wrote:
---
On Fri, 23 Jun 2000 23:22:32 -0400, "Laserlight"
<laserlight@quixnet.net> wrote:
> In addition, command ability doesn't seem to be scaleable. I
Woah! Weird synchronicity! Two days ago I read an article in Military History
Quarterly about James Longstreet. He distinguished himself in the
Mexican-American War, he was an excellent corps commander (arguably,
though), but whenever he had an independent command he was less than
impressive. This is true of a good deal of commanders. And some rise to the
occasion when they DO command a large contingent. Sherman was, arguably, a
better corps and army commander than regimental commander.
This has me thinking of some interesting campaign ideas for SG2 and DS2.
Hmmm...