Just chipping in on the whole scenario/victory conditions issue, I
have always felt that one of the best systems (and a possible one to
use "officially" for Ft in the future) is the randomly-drawn scenario
card set-up, used to such good effect way back in "Seastrike" and
much copied since (notably in Brilliant Lances etc): each player draws a card
giving them a mission objective, a force level budget, victory conditions and
any special conditions attached. The player does not know what card his
opponent has drawn.
To use this sort of idea for FT, we could require each player to bring along X
CPV of ships of his choice; the force level given by the objective card then
specifies how much (as a%) of this force he
can actually put on the table for the game - so 50% means not more
than 50% of the total fleet CPV, IN FULL SHIPS of course (so if he's
put 60% of his points into one uber-dreadnought, he's stuffed - it's
been recalled by Fleet Command, and he can only field the remaining 40% of
smaller stuff!).
We might have cards ranging from "Major fleet attack - destroy or
drive off 50% of enemy ships, forces available 100%", right down to "you have
minimal forces available for a limited strike, objective is to destroy or
cripple any ONE enemy ship of MASS 50 or greater (or his largest ship if all
below 50 mass), forces available 20%", plus a lot of others in between.....
Then, if you want to introduce odd variables like the "Crown Prince is a
junior officer on a CL, if you lose the ship he is on you lose the battle", as
a supplementary condition on a scenario card, then
that's fine - but you'll also have a main objective to fulfil, and
your opponent will have his own objective - if, in trying to complete
his own mission, he happens to destroy that CL, that's the way it goes. Of
course, if you keep that one CL hanging back out of harm's way, the opponent
may well get suspicious and send a fast squadron
round your flank to pick it off..... ;-)
If its known that there are missions with just 20% of total force available,
then it should also encourage a more balanced mix of ships.
There is (or was) a mission generator on someones webpage that had something
like this. Can't remember where I saw it.
Brendan 'Neath Southern Skies
> -----Original Message-----
IMPORTANT 1. Before opening any attachments, please check for viruses.
2. This e-mail (including any attachments) may contain confidential
information for the intended recipient. If you are not the intended recipient,
please contact the sender and delete all copies of this email.
3. Any views expressed in this e-mail are those of the sender and are
not a statement of Australian Government Policy unless otherwise stated. 4.
Electronic addresses published in this email are not conspicuous publications
and DVA does not consent to the receipt of commercial electronic messages.
5. Please go to http://www.dva.gov.au/feedback.htm#sub to unsubscribe
emails
of this type from DVA. 6. Finally, please do not remove this notice.
Gee, didn't I put that out there @ 10 (OMIGAWD) years ago? I still have the
word doc, though the website is long gone.
Mike Brown
[quoted original message omitted]
> Gee, didn't I put that out there @ 10 (OMIGAWD) years ago? I still
Quite likely, Mike, since the Seastrike version was from about 30
years ago (mid 70s)... the idea has been around a long time. ;-)
It's always been a favourite of mine, I've just never (yet) got round to
actually using it in a published product!
If you've still got the file, care to repost it?
Jon (GZG)
> -----Original Message-----
> [quoted text omitted]
Hi
Are people really going to want to play games where they are outpointed
5:1?
The Battlefleet gothic system have mission generators to define the type of
mission and then players agree a points value. (so that people can use all of
their ships if they want to).
Also the mission system has subplots that include things like rescue the spy
on one ship in the enemies fleet, gain a bonus for killing a particular ship
etc.
You could do this as an open mission or a secret mission with cards.
Some scenarios will nominate one player as the attacker and the defender say
in an assault on an installation. So you need to look at how that might get
factored in.
John
> From: Ground Zero Games <jon@gzg.com>
I'll post the URL as soon as I get it up somewhere
[quoted original message omitted]
> On 1/11/06, Michael Brown <mwsaber6@msn.com> wrote:
If you need a home for it, email it to me & I'll put it up.
> On 1/12/06, John Tailby <john_tailby@xtra.co.nz> wrote:
It's called "economy of force".
Your mission suddenly becomes "positively ID enough enemy ships to convince
your fleet headquarters you havn't come down with galloping cowardice, then
withdraw your force. If you're feeling froggy, or your enemy has deployed
badly, go ahead and shoot up a couple of his smaller ships before you go."
> On 1/12/06, John Tailby <john_tailby@xtra.co.nz> wrote:
> Are people really going to want to play games where they are
I actually like games like this where the goal isn't always just blow
everything up. It makes you think more.
> >> Are people really going to want to play games where they are
Yes!
> >
Absolutely!
I've run a lot of Stargrunt scenarios with just this same kind of
un-balance, and as long as the scenario is reasonable, it can be great
fun.
By "reasonable" I mean that both sides have to have achievable mission
conditions, whatever those might be. John's example is a good one for that 20%
vs. 100% sort of thing.
I think that the prevalence of games with points systems and army lists tend
to get people to think that a good game has to be "balanced" in terms of equal
forces on the table. After playing a lot of SG where there (happily!) is no
points system, I'm of the opinion that balance can be simply giving both sides
a reasonable chance of achieving *their* victory
conditions - but the actual on-table forces can be wildy *unbalanced*.
The balance comes in the scenario design.
For example, one of the sample scenarios in the back of the SG rulebook is
a "sniper-vs-platoon" thing, in which one side has 1 or 2 models and the
other has a full platoon. I've played it, and it was a lot of fun.
Probably my most memorable SG scenario was a game in which I played a
reinforced infantry platoon versus a mechanized company and was outnumbered
about 6:1 or maybe 8:1 in terms of on-table force. Had a great time.
The same principles can apply to FT scenarios, and Jon T's suggestions about
the scenario cards is a great idea. That, or simply creative scenario design
ahead of time.
All of this, however, presupposes the points John A. and Laserlight and
others have been making - each participant needs to know what his or her
mission parameters are to have the game make any sense.
Are people really going to want to play games where they are outpointed
5:1?
Yes!
They will at least have to get be drunk first........)
> >
If their victory conditions (mission objectives) are approximately 5
times as easy to achieve, I don't see a problem! ;-)
As someone else commented last night, it would make folks bring more
balanced fleet compositions to pick-up games, because they don't know
if they will suddenly find they have to fight a (limited-objective)
engagement with only their little ships...... if they've brought a
munchkinised fleet, then they may get lucky with the mission draw but will
more likely get screwed.
Obviously, this isn't a system that will suit everyone -
specifically, those who love their munchkinised fleets will hate it -
but as the recent discussions of vector movement have shown, wee REALLY can't
please all the people all the time!
> The Battlefleet gothic system have mission generators to define the
Yes, I thought more on this last night, and considered the idea of
two card decks - one for the main mission objective, and then a set
of "special" cards that each player draws one from - these would
carry the special, odd or funny stuff like the "Crown
Prince/Princess" subplot; a lot would actually be blank, some would
make things more difficult for the player and some would give him some sort of
small advantage.
> Some scenarios will nominate one player as the attacker and the
Split the mission cards into Offensive and Defensive missions? Players can
pick (either by free choice or in some random
determination) to play an Offence/Defence game or both Offensive (an
interception/meeting engagement).
Jon (GZG)
> John
These ideas for scenarios sound like a series of good ideas.
Step one could be pick type of mission either an assault (attacker/
defender) If its an assault determine the mission type and then who is the
attacker /
defender and the basic point value. If its an encounter both player draw
mission objectives.
The optionally draw sub plots. Things like "Crown Prince visit", Traitor on
board, hated enemy vessel.
rather than cards these could be tables and dice rolls since it seems
preferable to have both players know what each other is trying to do.
Also you might want players to be allowed to specify some strategy options for
their fleet.
I don't think its suggested in the rules how ships are to be deployed on the
table and their initial velocity if any. Also are all encounters assumed to be
sublight or if one side is attempting to drop in directly from hyperspace what
are the deployment guidelines for these kind of missions.
If people are interested I'll post how our group is doing its missions.
John
> >
> those who love their munchkinised fleets will hate it - but as the
> card decks - one for the main mission objective, and then a set of
a
> lot would actually be blank, some would make things more difficult for
> Behalf Of
> These ideas for scenarios sound like a series of good ideas.
Though dice tables would work, I do still like the card system; OK, you have
to make the cards up, even if you're downloading them as pdfs (or we have to
devote several pages top printing them in the
book) - but using the cards maintains the secrecy element, and also
means that the player keeps the card with him to refer to until the end of the
game, at which point he can show it to the opponent to verify the victory
conditions. I don't think it is necessary that
each side knows the other's objective, in fact quite the opposite -
they may be able to infer some info from the size of forces deployed, but not
much more until the battle develops and they see what the other side is doing.
> Also you might want players to be allowed to specify some strategy
So should the mission cards carry deployment guides as well, or is that too
restricting? Should that be left up to the player (apart
from any scenario-specific stuff such as deployment of convoys, fixed
installations etc)? I would think that (for example) you could have some of
the offensive
mission cards specifying a direct-from-jump deployment, some a
sublight approach, and some where it is left up to the player.....
> If people are interested I'll post how our group is doing its missions.
I'd be very interested in seeing it, John.
If anyone else would like to make suggestions for either mission outlines or
the "subplot" cards, fire away! All good ideas may be
used in print at some time in the future! :-)
To get you going, here's a couple of ideas for the subplot cards:
.............................
VIP IN CREW:
One of your mid-sized ships (your choice, but cannot be the smallest
or largest class you field in this battle) has among its crew a young
member of the Royal Family or a favoured Minister's son/daughter;
this ship MUST be deployed on the table and cannot exit the table unless
crippled, or the entire fleet withdraws. If this ship is destroyed, YOU LOSE
regardless of other mission objectives.
...............................
TRAITOR ON BOARD: At the start of the game you must choose (and secretly note
down) one
of your OPPONENT'S ships - that ship is carrying a
traitor/saboteur/agent working for your side. On your turn at any
point in the game, you may announce that the traitor is being activated.
Inform your opponent which ship is affected, and show then the note you made
as proof. Nominate ONE system on the affected ship,
and roll a D6 - on a 1-2 the traitor is caught before any damage
occurs, on a 3-5 he manages to successfully sabotage the nominated
system, which is out of action for the rest of the game and may NOT be
repaired by DC rolls. On a roll of 6, the sabotage succeeds AND
the saboteur remains undetected - he may be used again on the next
turn, in the same ship but on a different system, but his success
number rises by 1 (ie: he is caught on a 1-3). As long as he keeps
rolling 6s, the saboteur remains free and may continue to attack one system
per turn, each time he does so the chance of capture increases by 1.
...............................
Over to you.... ;-)
Jon (GZG)
> John
I just sent the document to Brian Burger. I'll forward to anyone else that
wants it.
Mike
[quoted original message omitted]
Me too, me too..:) please:)
> Michael Brown wrote:
> TRAITOR ON BOARD:
Within the general length of games my group plays, leaving the saboteur idle
for a turn would probably be a fair tradeoff for not taking the increased odds
of capture.
Bounced twice.
[quoted original message omitted]
Strange.. other mails are getting through... claus.paludan@gmail.com might be
a possibility if you can find the time to try again.
Thanks!
> Michael Brown wrote:
St Jon said:
> So should the mission cards carry deployment guides as well, or is
Have that be a separate set of cards:
"Deploy 1/4 way down the table, facing away from the table center"
"Deploy in two groups, at with at least 1/3 your NPV and at least 30
mu apart" "Deploy from jump" etc
> From: "Laserlight" <laserlight@quixnet.net>
I'm not sure I like to be told how to deploy my forces. I'd like to have the
strategic options of how to do the mission.
As has aready been said, any scenario restrictions that take away your ability
as the player to make what you consider to be the best decisions reduce your
enjoyment.
> I'm not sure I like to be told how to deploy my forces. I'd like to
Generally, I agree with you on this.
However, one situation where having card-determined deployment would be
when you choose ahead of time to play a scenario where two forces bump into
each other 'by accident".
[quoted original message omitted]
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
http://lists.csua.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lOn 1/12/06, Ground
> Zero Games <jon@gzg.com> wrote:
> Though dice tables would work, I do still like the card system;
DICE TABLES:
Cheap Easy to make, Easy to modify. Saves time Produces essentially the same
effect as cards
CARDS:
Expensive Takes significant time and effort to make (even if pdf printed)
Allows mission secrecy (loose lips explode ships) Can look really cool.
I'd suggest some combination of the two.
> So should the mission cards carry deployment guides as well, or is
Deployment guides can be absent from some missions, optional for some, and
mandatory for others.
VIP IN CREW:
> One of your mid-sized ships (your choice, but cannot be the smallest
> On 1/13/06, The Man in Black <mib.zero@gmail.com> wrote:
Easily expanded to add new scenarios and events.
> On 1/13/06, The Man in Black <mib.zero@gmail.com> wrote:
> > VIP IN CREW:
Personally, I dislike this scenario.
There are two scenarios where I can see Royals taking to the black as junior
officers.
In the first, it is entirely for show. In which case, they would "serve" on a
capital ship in the Home Fleet and there they would stay.
In the second, like young Roman senatorial hopefuls assigned as tribunes, some
sort of serious military career is necessary for political credibility. There
is expected to be some sort of 'weeding out' process.
In the latter case, I doubt the consequences of loosing the ship would be
severe enough to rate "automatically loose". In the former case, I doubt the
young snot would ever see a real fighting warship in a battle.
Even in heinously political states like the Soviet Union there were not, so
far as I am aware, serious negative consequences for senior officers under
whose command were killed the sons of Politburo members.
Just my opinion.
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
http://lists.csua.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l Hmm. I thought
that one of the British royals served in the Falklands campaign. Allegedly he
was flying a helicopter while the helos were routinely being used as decoys
against the Exocets.
Agree with John though that an "automatically lose the scenario" would be
unrealistic.
Snip:
From: John Atkinson
There are two scenarios where I can see Royals taking to the black as junior
officers.
In the first, it is entirely for show. In which case, they would "serve" on a
capital ship in the Home Fleet and there they would stay.
---------------------------------
To help you stay safe and secure online, we've developed the all new Yahoo!
Security Centre.
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
http://lists.csua.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lAnother way to use
cards a randomizer is to uee a regular deck of playing cards and create a
results table. A sheet of paper that tells you what a 3 of hearts represents
may not be esthetically pleasing but it is cheep.
Andrew Apter
Wizzard Software Corp.
Deerfield Beach, FL offices
(954) 678-4155 Ext. 213 Voice
(954) 678-4182 FAX
<http://www.wizzardsoftware.com/> http://www.wizzardsoftware.com
_____
From: gzg-l-bounces+apter=bellsouth.net@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
[mailto:gzg-l-bounces+apter=bellsouth.net@lists.csua.berkeley.edu] On
Behalf Of The Man in Black
Sent: Friday, January 13, 2006 3:13 PM
To: gzg-l@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: RE: FT Scenarios (was: Re: [GZG] Re: Points systems)
> On 1/12/06, Ground Zero Games <jon@gzg.com> wrote:
Though dice tables would work, I do still like the card system;
DICE TABLES:
Cheap
Easy to make, Easy to modify.
Saves time
Produces essentially the same effect as cards
CARDS:
Expensive
Takes significant time and effort to make (even if pdf printed)
Allows mission secrecy (loose lips explode ships)
Can look really cool.
I'd suggest some combination of the two.
So should the mission cards carry deployment guides as well, or is that too
restricting?
Deployment guides can be absent from some missions, optional for some, and
mandatory for others.
VIP IN CREW:
One of your mid-sized ships (your choice, but cannot be the smallest
or largest class you field in this battle) has among its crew a young
member of the Royal Family or a favoured Minister's son/daughter;
this ship MUST be deployed on the table and cannot exit the table unless
crippled, or the entire fleet withdraws. If this ship is destroyed, YOU LOSE
regardless of other mission objectives.
I'd want to put the VIP on a fighter escorted shuttle to the strongest hulled
ship I had ASAP.
> Obviously, this isn't a system that will suit everyone -
You stop hating on the Lollipop Guild's merchant convoys. Don't be a
Vader-Hater just because you can't beat the Imperial Star Destroyer or
the Glinda Class Cruiser.
The Man in Black is: Kenneth Scroggins Novus Ordo Seclorum: Annuit Coeptus: E
Pluribus Unum
> On 1/13/06, Ken Bywaters <argentnova@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
Prince Andrew, I think?
Can't be bothered to google it, but I think it was him, and if he'd bought it
the Brits would hardly have "automatically lost" the entire battle...
> > Hmm. I thought that one of the British royals served in the
Yes...
> Can't be bothered to google it, but I think it was him, and if he'd
...and yes.
> On 1/13/06, Ken Bywaters <argentnova@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
That suggestion for the special effect card was SLIGHTLY
tongue-in-cheek, and followed on from the earlier discussions on this
topic.....
I fully agree it's an unlikely scenario, unless you assume that the loss of
said VIP snotty would cause such a huge fuss with the public back home that
the political fallout would outweigh the military outcome of the battle.....
in which case, as John A mentioned, he shouldn't be out in the firing line but
back on some support or training ship in the home system.
For a more realistic view of it, assuming the kid gets into that situation
before he can be reassigned to a nice safe berth, then maybe just a lesser
penalty of some sort on the player's victory conditions rather than an
outright loss. But don't let's all get too hung up on it, it was only one
example suggestion to get the ball
rolling! ;-)
Jon (GZG)
> Brian