There's a very strong case for blending optional/chosen abstract
resolution systems in with Tabletop battle generation systems in any FT
campaign rules IMO there are players who prefer or are better adapted to be
admirals or captains an in finding enough players for a campaign I think you
need to do this to gather both types.
PP:F has been the basis of all my campaign systems since it came out; I think
its great.
the practical upshot of most campaigns i've run, albeit not for 2 years now is
that an abstract battle resolution system is necessary, in addition to getting
scenarios on table.
getting players together in the same time same place is getting harder in this
time poor world, it enables geographically distant players to participate,
which also lends a "tyranny of distance'" element to C2I.
I say optional/chosen as there may be cases where players may want to
choose to fight on table. I'd always give either player a limited ability to
force a tabe game, but not to defer it.
In terms of avoiding "monster stack" battes you sometimes get; thats what C2I
limits and admiral skill and battle site choices are for; trade off in this
regard make sense.
missions: Including in campaign rules requirements for how and where insystem
players get to deploy forces to hold, produce, recon and monitor areas also
mitigates against this. distinguishing between raiding, battle, recon, escort,
patrol etc. is also useful.(which sounds a bit travelleresque to come to think
of it.)
For abstract resolution I use a squadron-organized (not squadron units
but groups ofships in squadrons) battleline/screening matchup type
system along the lines of imperium/housedivided with splashes of
recent high guard mods/PP:F
---
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@mail.csua.berkeley.edu
http://mail.csua.berkeley.edu:8080/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lIn the
GZGverse, how long do we think it takes to:
a) build b) crew c) shakedown
the following:
a) fighter squadron
b) small ship (CV - DD)
c) mid sized ship (HDD - CL)
d) large ship (CH - BB, CVS, CVL)
e) very large ship (BDN+, DN, CVA)
I'm assuming that building a BB is a big thing and takes time - filling
all the slots, training the crew, shakedown voyage, etc.
If so, production is less of an issue in most campaign time scales than
'allocation' which is far more bureaucratic.
What would be interesting to build for the GZGverse is a ruleset for managing
the higher level of conflict which could be implemented as a web program,
where various admirals could log in, check on their fleets, give
orders, and battles people don't opt to resolve toe-to-toe (over a
table) get resolved automagically.
Something like this, I'd build simple and automated. Simple, because I'd have
no interest in convincing people the computer game was better than the
tabletop game. Automated so as to allow some options that would be prohibitive
when run manually and to remove the tedium of paperwork and administration.
The only battles you want to fight in a campaign tend to be the 'turning
point' battles. Those are usually closely matched engagements (due to
strategic legerdemain about what will show up where). One sided battles are
generally a waste of effort to setup.
One of the interesting ways to limit fleet sizes would be to assign small
fleet pools, a limited replacement rate (from central allocations to the
frontier or something of the sort), and to limit the number of CPV an admiral
can command and control (or NPV). Also limiting the number of crew units
available would serve to limit certain designs. Imposing a higher logistical
cost on attritional units and ammo consumers might also be tempting from a
campaign perspective.
Keep logistics invisible. Assume a freighter net proportionate to fleet
strength. Assume a message delivery network similarly. You could even stagger
battle reports to the Admirals.
The point would be to create small to medium sized engagements that would, at
enough points, create the sorts of battles that are fun to play on the table.
You can, of course, do this all without a computer... but why? Even a good
Excel sheet could a fair portion of the tasks. A real application could do far
more.
It's tempting to think about. It's probably also a bunch of work. If you've
got a bunch of keen folk around and a campaign looks about to spring into
being, then its probably a good idea. I've seen too many Pen and Paper
campaigns collapse under the weight of their own administration.
But most of us are lucky to get to play the game a few times a year and
usually with whatever scenario the host wants to run or we wish to run if we
host. Not a lot of room for campaigns.
Now mind you, a bunch of us have done linked SG and FMA scenarios at ECC.
One interesting idea for a Convention-long game might be a mini-campaign
for FT run over the weekend, where each battle's result feeds into the overall
result and maybe the next battle's setup. I've done this several times at
non-ECC conventions (single group, 6-8 players). It works pretty well.
(I
did it for SG and DS)
It does require some dedication from the players and the GM though. The GM is
probably doing nothing else at the Con but running this event. The players may
vary from slot to slot. What would interesting is to have the outgoing
commander for each side be forced to write a status report for their
successor. Or, like some years ago in the Weight of Command, have a commander
in another room entirely, simply getting reports as they were provided from
the tabletop(s).
It can be fun, but you need people who can gaurantee attendance far enough in
advance for GMing to plan something like that. It's definitely not run of the
mill. The first version of this I ran had the ESU invading the NAC colony of
New Providence (a colony of US NE Coasters, Basque, and a few other groups
that had strong ties to the sea). That great game saw the ESU broken, despite
smashing the PDC and crushing through the light orbital picket. The assault on
the starport was a bloody mess for the ESU. Somewhere along the line, the
immortal General Sarno was heard to quip to the ESU Commander: "Get your A$$
back to Eurasia!" (think Battle of the
Bulge....)
Anyway, I'm rambling. Campaigning has lots of flavours that can be fun. Some
start out fun and end up crushing administratively. Whatever you do, try to
avoid that. Nothing like stifling people under a campaign
ruleset/paperwork
requirement that kills their interest.
T.
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@mail.csua.berkeley.edu
http://mail.csua.berkeley.edu:8080/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lI think you
also need to include desing and procurement phases. That seems to take longer
than building things.
Looking a building an aircraft carrier it's taking the Brits several years to
build one. The ANZAC frigates have thaken something like 7 years to get any
ships and then they had design flaws.
It might be possible to speed up the process by taking civilian designs and
then modifying them especially for things like fleet auxilaries.
Once the designs are finalised and the shipyards are up to speed construction
time might come down a lot. In WW2 America built a lot of ships and produced
something like 10 Essex class carriers a year and countless smaller ships. So
there are arguments for all sorts of different numbers about manufacturing
times.
Education times could be really variable depending on the technology you
allow. If you use 20th century techniques then it takes a long time to make an
effective specialist and it's worse for a fighter pilot. If you imagine future
education techniques including things like memory implanting, then it could be
an overnight process to transfer the memories of veterans into the mind of new
recruits.
I think it comes down to whether you want people to be able to build new ships
within the scale of the campaign. I the campaign is short duration (say a 7
days war) then it might not be possible to replace any kinds of ordnance
within the scale of the campaign.
If you want people to be able to replenish losses and make economic might part
of the campaign then you go for a scenario where manufacturing yards can
output ships in a couple of weeks and crew can emerge from the training
centres with all the skills an experience they need in a matter of hours.
In our campaigns, most of them didn't last more than 10 turns, because someone
was a winner and with a turn per 2 weeks that means a campaign lasts about 3
months so they don't go on for ever.
________________________________
From: Tom B <kaladorn@gmail.com>
To: gzg-l@mail.csua.berkeley.edu
Sent: Sat, 26 June, 2010 8:33:09 PM
Subject: [GZG] campaigning
In the GZGverse, how long do we think it takes to:
a) build b) crew c) shakedown
the following:
a) fighter squadron
b) small ship (CV - DD)
c) mid sized ship (HDD - CL)
d) large ship (CH - BB, CVS, CVL)
e) very large ship (BDN+, DN, CVA)
I'm assuming that building a BB is a big thing and takes time - filling
all the slots, training the crew, shakedown voyage, etc.
If so, production is less of an issue in most campaign time scales than
'allocation' which is far more bureaucratic.
What would be interesting to build for the GZGverse is a ruleset for managing
the higher level of conflict which could be implemented as a web program,
where various admirals could log in, check on their fleets,
give orders, and battles people don't opt to resolve toe-to-toe (over a
table) get resolved automagically.
Something like this, I'd build simple and automated. Simple, because I'd have
no interest in convincing people the computer game was better than the
tabletop game. Automated so as to allow some options that would be prohibitive
when run manually and to remove the tedium of paperwork and administration.
The only battles you want to fight in a campaign tend to be the 'turning
point' battles. Those are usually closely matched engagements (due to
strategic legerdemain about what will show up where). One sided battles are
generally a waste of effort to setup.
One of the interesting ways to limit fleet sizes would be to assign small
fleet pools, a limited replacement rate (from central allocations to the
frontier or something of the sort), and to limit the number of CPV an admiral
can command and control (or NPV). Also limiting the number of crew units
available would serve to limit certain designs. Imposing a higher logistical
cost on attritional units and ammo consumers might also be tempting from a
campaign perspective.
Keep logistics invisible. Assume a freighter net proportionate to fleet
strength. Assume a message delivery network similarly. You could even stagger
battle reports to the Admirals.
The point would be to create small to medium sized engagements that would, at
enough points, create the sorts of battles that are fun to play on the table.
You can, of course, do this all without a computer... but why? Even a good
Excel sheet could a fair portion of the tasks. A real application could do far
more.
It's tempting to think about. It's probably also a bunch of work. If you've
got a bunch of keen folk around and a campaign looks about to spring into
being, then its probably a good idea. I've seen too many Pen and Paper
campaigns collapse under the weight of their own administration.
But most of us are lucky to get to play the game a few times a year and
usually with whatever scenario the host wants to run or we wish to run if we
host. Not a lot of room for campaigns.
Now mind you, a bunch of us have done linked SG and FMA scenarios at
ECC. One interesting idea for a Convention-long game might be a
mini-campaign for FT run over the weekend, where each battle's result
feeds into the overall result and maybe the next battle's setup. I've
done this several times at non-ECC conventions (single group, 6-8
players). It works pretty well. (I did it for SG and DS)
It does require some dedication from the players and the GM though. The GM is
probably doing nothing else at the Con but running this event. The players may
vary from slot to slot. What would interesting is to have the outgoing
commander for each side be forced to write a status report for their
successor. Or, like some years ago in the Weight of Command, have a commander
in another room entirely, simply getting reports as they were provided from
the tabletop(s).
It can be fun, but you need people who can gaurantee attendance far enough in
advance for GMing to plan something like that. It's definitely not run of the
mill. The first version of this I ran had the ESU invading the NAC colony of
New Providence (a colony of US NE Coasters, Basque, and a few other groups
that had strong ties to the sea). That great game saw the ESU broken, despite
smashing the PDC and crushing through the light orbital picket. The assault on
the starport was a bloody mess for the ESU. Somewhere along the line, the
immortal General Sarno was heard to quip to the ESU Commander: "Get your A$$
back to Eurasia!" (think Battle of the Bulge....)
Anyway, I'm rambling. Campaigning has lots of flavours that can be fun. Some
start out fun and end up crushing administratively. Whatever you do, try to
avoid that. Nothing like stifling people under a campaign
ruleset/paperwork requirement that kills their interest.
T.