What I'm looking for is someones attemp at comnbining the three levels of GZG
universe rules.
I would like to know what relationship there is between full Thrust,
Dirtside and Stargrunt units so I can engage in a "role-playing"
campaign where a company of stargrunt troops try not to get obliterated by an
unlucky die roll in Full Thrust.
While I could probably do it myself, I'd rather leave it to "the committee" so
there is some kind of average.
Agreed! I would love to be able to run a game like that. A few friends
and I are discussing doing a hard-SF setting based RPG, and I was
looking at using FMA systems to handle combat. There have been a few campaign
operations detailed, particularly in MT, but that area remains largely
unexplored.
> What I'm looking for is someones attemp at comnbining the three levels
One source could be the EFSB (Earth Force Sourcebook) for the Babylon Project
RPG (the first version of the Babylon 5 RPG).
It has rules in it for Characters involved in space battles, and it used the
Full Thrust rules to play out space combat (my first exposure to Full Thrust).
The rules could be modified for whatever system you wish to use for the RPG,
but it could provide ideas, including character survival.
Robyn
[quoted original message omitted]
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu
http://vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lHi
Adrian,
> On Mon, Apr 28, 2008 at 6:04 PM, Adrian1 <al.ll@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
> What I'm looking for is someones attemp at comnbining the three levels
It's been done (if I understand what you're asking) before, but you have to
make certain assumptions, iirc. I don't recall what the ratios came out to be,
though. Should be some stuff in the archives.
Also, I *think* there is a loose conversion between FT and DS2 in the MT
rulebook to help give some guidelines.
Mk
Almost like there needs to be a stargrunt level ship to ship ruleset?
--
Ryan Gill sent from my treo
[quoted original message omitted]
Actually...
More like this. If I were to run a military scifi RPG using FMA, what would I
want to make it a success? Well, a couple things. I want to be able to zoom
and out as needed.
So some context, like a campaign system, that lets you tie one battle to the
next. What does victory (or defeat) mean, in terms of the rest of the game?
That's the GM's job, to be sure, but a rule set can help.
Second, it requires some ability to translate from stargrunt up to dirtside
and back. This is why I'm really happy whenever GZG releases one of their 6mm
miniatures in 15mm scale; harmonizing the ranges gets you in the mode where
you become more invested in your army. It also
might be a useful hedge against power-gaming: if dirtside favors one
unit organization, and stargrunt favors another, and the logistics rules of
some theoretical campaign systems a third (and assuming that a player uses a
consistent TO&E for all levels), then you end up with forces that aren't so
tightly optimized for a particular game.
Third, in Full Thrust, it means a few things. First, there's very little
attention given to crew quality in FT. I think that's a pity, because it comes
up in fiction all the time. People (as represented by
marines, DCP's and fighter pilots) are de-emphasized compared to
hardware. I'm not necessarily saying that it use a Special Orders system like
certain other space games, but it does have its attractions. I could live with
less variety in ship design components if the system let me differentiate
between a crack NAC crew, a trained
but ill-treated ESU conscript staff and a lowly gang of mutinous scum
(arggh!). It doesn't just add to the fun, it encourages you to start building
a history around a ship and its crew.
Another thing in FT would to make fighters slightly less disposable than they
are now. I know that revisiting fighters is a priority for the playtest crew,
so I imagine we'll see stuff there. Whatever
happens, it's hard to put a player-character pilot into a game (even
an Ace) when he dies more often than a character in Paranoia.
Finally, it would be nice to see some of the campaign-oriented
elements of FT explored. We know that minor shuttles are included with every
ship; how many? What types? Star Trek, Star Wars, and BSG all
have some equivalent of the Raptor: the all-purpose utility shuttle.
Sure you can house-rule one up, but it's a nice chance to add some
tactical value.
Anyway, that's what I'm talking about when I mean multi-level rules.
On a related note, what's GZG's policy with regard to extensions and
web-published house rules?
Rob
> Message: 1
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu
http://vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lOn
Wed, Apr 30, 2008 at 8:06 AM, Robert Mayberry <robert.mayberry@gmail.com>
wrote:
> [...]
Just a brain-wrapping note, you can always PSB it that fighter kills are
not necessarily outright destruction of the fighter and death of the pilot,
but more of a 'combat kill', rendering the fighter no longer capable of combat
and returns to its base ship if possible. So the pilot survives, just isn't
able to finish the fight this time around. There are ways to represent this in
actual game play if you want to track 'combat kills' and 'actual
destructions', but it makes life a lot more complicated.
Mk
That's a good point. And instead of adding it to the overhead of a game turn,
you can just add it to the "after game bookkeeping".
Rob
> On Wed, Apr 30, 2008 at 10:52 AM, Indy <indy.kochte@gmail.com> wrote:
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu
http://vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lGoo
d idea. One could model it post-engagement as a "% recovered," as in n%
of fighters lost during the battle are recovered afterward (straggle in with
damage, "plane guard destroyer" picks up survival pods, etc.). If the fleet
doesn't have to jump away from the battle space, recovery could be higher. If
all carriers are lost, it could be lower. A named character's chances could be
based on the overall chance.
Ken
United Systems
> Indy <indy.kochte@gmail.com> wrote:
Another thing in FT would to make fighters slightly less disposable than they
are now. I know that revisiting fighters is a priority for the playtest crew,
so I imagine we'll see stuff there. Whatever
happens, it's hard to put a player-character pilot into a game (even
an Ace) when he dies more often than a character in Paranoia.
Just a brain-wrapping note, you can always PSB it that fighter kills are
not necessarily outright destruction of the fighter and death of the pilot,
but more of a 'combat kill', rendering the fighter no longer capable of combat
and returns to its base ship if possible. So the pilot survives, just isn't
able to finish the fight this time around. There are ways to represent this in
actual game play if you want to track 'combat kills' and 'actual
destructions', but it makes life a lot more complicated.
Mk
> That's a good point. And instead of adding it to the overhead of a
That's pretty much what we said in the EFSB rules - if you have
player-characters on a ship that is destroyed, they always make it to
the lifepods at the last moment, and if they are fighter pilots they always
nurse their crippled ride back to the carrier for a
spectacular emergency landing, or else they manage to punch-out just
before their bird disintegrates.... just like in the movies. :-)
No PC needs to die in a space battle unless the GM wants them to! ;-)
Jon (GZG)
> On Wed, Apr 30, 2008 at 10:52 AM, Indy <indy.kochte@gmail.com> wrote:
http://vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l
> --
> --- Adrian1 <al.ll@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
> What I'm looking for is someones attemp at comnbining the three levels
> of GZG universe rules.
The answer to that depends on exactly what you are asking. If you are asking
specifically for the GZG-universe, then that is already available in the
conversion rules in More Thrust. If, on the other hand, you are looking for
something more generic, either for your own setting or for something else like
B5, SW, ST(any), BSG, HH, or whatever, then you have to be aware that the GZG
setting (and conversion system) has really tiny space ships (1 MASS = 100t).
Ground fores (and fighters) therefor take up a lot of MASS in the published
conversions. The GZG background is designed around really small ground forces
The sample Assault Transport in FB1 has a total of 32 MASS for both troops and
vehicles.
For example, a modern US LHD or LPD amphib would be a TMF 350-400 FT
ship based on tonnage, and use 40 MASS just to barrack its 2000 marines, not
including the LCACs, AAVs, helicopters, Harriers, Ospreys, or ground vehicles
like tanks and
LAVs. Similarly, a Nimitz-type supercarrier converts to TMF 900-1000.
For Sci-fi examples, the MT conversion is barracks for 50 troops = 1
MASS. The B5 episode "Gropos" had 25,000 troops (500 MASS for barracks) plus
vehicles,
VTOL gunships, assault shuttles, etc. on 1 Nova-class destroyer and 5
transport ships.
Conversion based on tonnage makes Kirk's Enterprise (movies) ~ TMF 2000, and
Enterprise-D ~ TMF 50,000
Conversion based on tonnage makes Honor Harrington LACs ~ TMF 400, DDs ~ TMF
800, and SDNs ~ TMF 80,000. Havenite Longstop-class fast assault
transport ~ TMF 60,000.
Try building (FB system) a Star Destroyer including the ground legion (10,000
troops, 20xAT-AT, 30xAT-ST), assault transports, assault shuttles, etc.
Obviously, these settings need a different conversion factor, perhaps 1 MASS =
1000t, 2000t, 5000t, or 10,000t, and then multiply the ground troops
conversion by a corresponding factor (x10, 20, 50 or 100). This will allow you
to pack more troops onto your transports.
J
> At 8:57 AM -0700 4/30/08, Ken Hall wrote:
If the fleet doesn't have to jump away from the battle space, recovery could
be higher. If all carriers are lost, it could be lower. A named character's
chances could be based on the overall chance.
This would be a higher chance of survival and recovery with a space battle
than for a furball over water or over land. Generally, a pilot ejects and the
plane is toast and a total write off. In space, you could eject from a damaged
plane and it could be recovered or you could loose combat capability but not
be able to be immediately recover, being left to your own devices to twiddle
your thumbs until the (hopefully friendly) SAR craft and shuttles come to tow
you back to your fighter.
I expect that this would work out a GREAT deal like recovery of damaged and
immobilized armor on the battlefield. If you run from the battlefield however,
it would likely also mean you cannot easily recover immobilized craft and can
only recoup those that you are able to immediately recover before your carrier
didibows.
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu
http://vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lI
want to give priority to the Stargrunt end of the game. If I have a company of
experienced stargrunt troops that have a good bit of history to them, I want
them to be able to compete in the upper levels without their entire existance
relying on the roll of one die.
At Dirtside level, the company could be tasked with taking or guarding a
village while the rest of the army fights all over the field. When others are
dealt with normally, I would like to zoom in on my company to
Stargrunt it, so to speak.
At Full Thrust level, they could be tasked with a boarding action. While the
fleets clash normally, you zoom in on the company action using
deck plans, etc so they can take or lose the ship in a more personal level.
I can see major problems with this idea since it would require you to stop the
higher level game while you ran a skirmish level game, however I'm sure a GM
could make something work.
I don't have a problem with losing troops or PCs at skirmish level since
that is part of the game, howvever losing a full company to a single die
roll irritates me). I would opt to convert a Dirtside armoured battalion to
Stargrunt level and let my company get wiped out that way since at least they
have some chance.
I know it makes for a complicated game but its not like I'm in a rush.
> J L Hilal wrote:
> Dirtside and Stargrunt units so I can engage in a "role-playing"
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu
http://vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lAt
Full Thrust level, they could be tasked with a boarding action. While the
fleets clash normally, you zoom in on the company action using deck plans, etc
so they can take or lose the ship in a more personal level.
I can see major problems with this idea since it would require you to stop the
higher level game while you ran a skirmish level game, however I'm sure a GM
could make something work.
***I did it once and they way you make it it work is two tables with the
boarding action being out of the fleet battle, by that it can't be shot at by
any ships in the fleet action untill the boarding is over.
Don
I think the best way to handle it would be a critical incident kind of
approach. In other words (example)
Ryan is raiding Rob's research colony in a system to acquire some hot new
weapons technology. This constitutes an event in their ongoing campaign. You
then pick the game you want to play and decide how that exemplifies the
turning point in the event. The two of them could:
Play a FT game: Ryan inserts forces planetside. Rob tries to stop him. If Ryan
wins, we assume his forces land successfully and conduct the raid.
Play a DS game: Ryan attacks the colony. Here we assume forces landed
successfully. If he can take the research complex and get infantry there, we
assume the rest goes according to plan.
Play a SG game: Rob makes a commando raid on Ryan's deployment area to kill
his technical intelligence team. If he succeeds, Ryan's whole raid was for
nought. If he fails, the raid is successful.
Either way, we use success in whatever game is played as a microcosm for the
battle as a whole. Either it's a critical turning point, or it's simply
considered typical of the success of the entire mission.
You end up playing the games you want to play-- which in a big group
where not everyone has an equal love of each system is important. You're never
FORCED to play a particular system. Even a deep space encounter (which
considering the relative velocities involved should be vanishingly rare) could
be modelled with SG as that boarding action you were talking about that was
the tipping point for a larger battle.
An integrated game like you're discussing could be really cool, though. I
simply haven't ever tried anything nearly that complicated. I'll bet where it
really shines is in a convention setting, where you have multiple players on
the same team.
Rob
> On 4/30/08, Adrian1 <al.ll@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
While
> the fleets clash normally, you zoom in on the company action using
> What I'm looking for is someones attemp at comnbining the three levels
I would like to know what relationship there is between
> full Thrust,
campaign where a company of stargrunt troops try not to get
> obliterated
While I could probably
> do it myself, I'd rather leave it to "the
> The answer to that depends on exactly what you are asking. If you are
Ground fores (and fighters) therefor take up a lot of MASS in
> the published
For example, a modern US LHD or LPD
> amphib would be a TMF 350-400 FT ship based
For Sci-fi examples, the
> MT conversion is barracks for 50 troops = 1 MASS. The
Conversion based on tonnage makes Kirk's Enterprise
> (movies) ~ TMF 2000, and
Conversion based on
> tonnage makes Honor Harrington LACs ~ TMF 400, DDs ~ TMF
Try
> building (FB system) a Star Destroyer including the ground legion
Obviously, these settings need a different conversion factor, perhaps
> 1 MASS =
J
That's a good point. I'd imagine also that since you can't sink, stall or get
torn up by wind resistance in free space, your odds of being damaged to the
point of being combat ineffective but still being able to limp back to the
carrier are much better.
IE I take a hit that blows out two of my three engines and tears up my
fuselage. I can't maneuver or accelerate sufficiently to be able to do a
combat run, let alone power my weapons, but I've got more than enough thrust
to get back to the carrier. If I were in gravity, I'd crash; if I were in an
atmosphere my ship would break up; if I were at sea, I'd sink. But I'm not and
as long as my engine works and my suit stays pressurized, I'll get home
without a SAR mission even if the carrier has to break and run.
This might even be one area where a good quality crew on the flight deck can
get a fighter back up even during battle.
> On 4/30/08, Ryan Gill <rmgill@mindspring.com> wrote:
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu
http://vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lRob
,
I really like this approach and think you are spot-on on all the points
made. Treating each "even" as a highlight to the overall conflict is great.
-Eli
-------------- Original message --------------
From: "Robert Mayberry" <robert.mayberry@gmail.com>
> I think the best way to handle it would be a critical incident kind of
> approach. In other words (example)
> If Ryan wins, we assume his forces land successfully and conduct the
> kill his technical intelligence team. If he succeeds, Ryan's whole
> you were talking about that was the tipping point for a larger battle.
> An integrated game like you're discussing could be really cool,
While
> > the fleets clash normally, you zoom in on the company action using
http://vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l
> >
thinking about this it would seem that only a computer game might succeed.
Imagine an RTS (Age of Empires?) that allowed you to "zoom in" on an area to
then maneuver forces and then "zoom in" again into a FPS game (Halo?). AI
would keep running the "world" while you are at other zoom levels.
Michael Brown mwsaber6@msn
--------------------------------------------------
From: "Robert Mayberry" <robert.mayberry@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, April 30, 2008 4:16 PM
To: <gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu>
Subject: Re: [GZG] Multi-level rules sought.
> I think the best way to handle it would be a critical incident kind of
While
> the fleets clash normally, you zoom in on the company action using
> stop
> least
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu
http://vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lOn
> Wed, Apr 30, 2008 at 5:17 PM, Adrian1 <al.ll@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
> [...]
While
> the fleets clash normally, you zoom in on the company action using
This was actually pulled off during one of the GZG East Coast Conventions (I
dont' remember which one) here in the States. It took two GMs running
different games, one running the starship combat (FT) table, the other running
the boarding action (though I think one was FMA? it might have been
SG2).
I couldn't tell you how they did it exactly, as I was busy running another
game. But they managed to pull it off pretty well, iirc.
Mk
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu
http://vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lRob
> ert Mayberry wrote:
Sounds very like the way SPI integrated /StarSoldier/ and /StarForce/
(ground and space combat games respectively). An attack on an enemy system
began with combat in space that either neutralised the local StarGate or
didn't; if the latter, the grunts were never dropped. Once
the Gate was neutralised, the focus shifted to a series of /StarSoldier/
games (3 from memory -- different scenarios) which were considered to be
representative of however many were taking place all over the planet. If
the attackers won all 3, the system was conquered; if they didn't,
resistance on the ground continued into the next /StarForce/ game-turn,
potentially tying up ships and men while the attackers tried to mop up
the remaining defenders -- or, alternatively, had their backsides kicked
off the planet.
It seemed to be a reasonable way to meld the two games, though an
integrated game must have taken /ages/ to play out.
Phil, who knows he's dating himself terribly by mentioning those games
-- but they were fun! :-P
Doing battles in RPGs has always been problematical. The standard solution
seems to be to fudge it and have the overall course of the battle reflect how
it is going for the PCs. This has been more formalised on occasion, the
example I am most familiar with is in Pendragon which allows the PCs to go for
glory and thus danger or to play it safe. My brother did something similar
long, long ago in A. D. & D. (2nd edition) that allowed the PCs a glory
modifier â so the Paladin was always going "Plus 10" for the greatest
possible danger and glory then the heavy cavalry broke through the ice on the
frozen lakeâ¦
Of course in games with vehicles, especially aircraft or spaceships it gets
nastier â and you can kill the entire party very quickly. The old Star
Warriors board game had hooks to the Star Wars RPG so you PC pilots and
gunners could use their skills and a Star Trek RPG had a similar relationship
with a wargame.
At some time many years back, there was a long series of discussions on this
list. No, I can't even tell you when... it was that long ago.
But we talked a lot about integrating SG, DS and FT. This is not even close to
being a new discussion. At the time, I went off and figured out, using the
50CS per 1 FT mass ratio that seemed the minimal sane conversion, the amount
of cargo spaces required to carry an infantry company, its vehicles, some
light interface support, and all the attached services and independent company
would require (small intel, MET, arty, EW, medical, etc. capabilities) plus
accounting for supply.
I don't know where that spreadsheet is - that was several hard disk
demises ago. But ultimately I recall the best and most conservative number you
could come up with was large.
Let's see what I can do from memory:
Independent Company TO&E 3 x armoured infantry pltn (4 vehicles per, 32 men
per) 1 x armoured pltn (4 vehicles per, 16 men per)
1 x support/log pltn (4 vehicles per, 20 men per) (includes
logistics/supply, medical, 2 sniper teams)
1 x arty battery (6 gun) (6 vehicles per, 24 men per) 1 x aerospace support
pltn (4 vehicles, 20 men per) 1 x Independent CHQ (4 veh, 22 men per)
(includes CO, XO, CSM, Sec
Sect, Int guys, MET guy, EW guys, Clerk/Orderly, FACs)
Total guys: 198 guys Total vehicles: 30
That's probably under what you'd actually need for independent operations. Not
all vehicles are the same size, but let's assume the size 4 or 5
grav tanks and transport/gunship hybrids compensate for some smaller
size 1 and 2 units.
This isn't even including supplies (food, blood, fuel, TP, units of fire for N
different weapons, etc). Nor interface landing (the gunships I have in mind
are VTOL support units that can double as troop movers for a platoon). It also
does not include any organic PA support.
So, with what we've got, we've got 25 CS per vehicle x 30 vehicles for 750 CS.
You've got 200 guys and I think you get a guy into 4 CS if you count living
accomodations. I think you need to assume something like this because, for
whatever time after you arrive and need to muster the units, revive them from
cold sleep (if you use it) and prepare them for the missions (weapons and gear
prep, mission briefing, etc. even if you assume the fleet does all the intel
and planning ahead of time), you need most or all of them up and moving. So
you can't just assume cold sleep packing. So 4 x 200 (rougly) = 800 cargo
spaces.
So, we've got 1550 cargo spaces so far. Assume that any company
deployed independently needs enough gear for low-tempo operations for
3 months (this implies enough for high tempo ops for about 1 month). This is
where I'd need to find the spreadsheet as I spent some time with the rulebooks
and a bunch of veterans talking about what that practically amounted to. Let's
just call it 500 cargo spaces to be somewhere in the ball park. I'm sure
that's short of the actual numbers, but beans and bullets (and arty shells and
tank spares, and so on) take up space.
So, around 2000 cargo spaces for an independent company. 2000/50 = 40
mass. A company transport that is to be armed, provide some ortillery support
(hence carried an ortillery module) and is able to move with
the fleet (meaning a decent thrust - it won't have a lot more defence,
although it will have PDS and maybe and ADFC if you need it to link with the
tacnet) is probably going to mass in at a minimum of about
80-100 mass which puts it up into BC or BB territory, if I recall
correctly. (This is all from memory, so some of it could be broken...
I don't have time to haul FT/FB out and check). It also has a decent
mass because it has good enough thrust to land on a planet (I think I figured
Thrust 4 was good enough for that and was good enough for keeping with the
fleets).
The main ship landing and the vehicles just rolling off loaded lets them rapid
deploy onto any even moderately improved landing area. The VTOLs probably
can't go operational immediately, but the infantry and armour should be able
to with the artillery up shortly thereafter.
You can go the interface transport route, but it eats up mass and you either
end up with a lot of mostly useless mass to let you drop everyone at once or
possibly a defeat in detail case if you land a platoon and are busy loading
the next when they are hit with a heavy response. To land everyone requires
sizable numbers of landers that won't do a lot after that (you'll need some
for support, but not all, which means inefficient use of mass).
The big main ship can pull off to orbit after debarking the troops. It can
also use its tertiary batteries while landed (and maybe ortillery) to support
the securing of a beachhead.
That was my take, as well as I could remember it. Transports in the GZGverse
are large even to move moderate numbers of troops. You only send troops of
regular or veteran status (or elite, but those are really rare) on this sort
of tasking because it needs such expensive infrastructure. Similarly, you
don't tend to skimp on vehicle quality
for these missions - use the most mobile, armoured, high electronic
quality vehicles possible because it costs so much to ship them. These
independent companies would hit far harder than a colonial company,
with its simpler tech and much more green-laden forces. They should
probably be able to take on at least a colonial battalion if not more in a
striker operation. And handle a fairly sizable counter insurgency operation.
As cadre, they could train the better part of a colonial
regiment/brigade given some time. As commandos, they could smash some
fairly hard targets.
Those were my conjurations of how things worked.
TomB