From: Tom B <kaladorn@g...>
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2009 02:19:07 -0500
Subject: [GZG] Orders Writing and Thresholds, and Game Plans....
Doug,
Can you explain your colour coded dice idea? The 'six year old' explanation
please. Sounds intriguing, but my brain is running an old 80186 and ain't
keeping up with the new fangled ideas....
On Orders Writing:
One thing that lengthens a game is managing squadrons once parts of your
squadron take damage... some of your ships will be manouvering at full
potential, others will be limping along, not able to match thrusts or turns.
In the games we play, template weapons are visual eyeball, quick laydown
weapons. Coordinating them with fighters usually means piling up the fighters
somewhere about 10" out so they can do a secondary move into contact. None of
this seems to take that long, but we don't allow a lot of screwing about.
Part of it is some people cannot eyeball distance. I find that a skill you
develop by practice. Other than ocular issues, you should be able to develop
it. I can usually come within 20% on a range or radius estimate by eyeball.
Some people I know can do 6", 9" or 1' very accurately by eye or by quick
finger lay. Good enough for government work, if you take my drift.
Part of the delay is some people honestly don't play that often (sometimes
once a year) and they tend to be less decisive as a result of unfamiliarity
and trepidation. That's just the reality of tournaments. And my observation is
it isn't 1 in 8 people at the
table, but 3-4 in 8.
Damond: The 'Morale Penalty' I was talking about was sarcasm from Jim, Tom and
JP. That's worse than having your ship drift for a round. Of course, I kind of
like 'striking the colours' for ships although we rarely do this. If you made
this easier if the Captain was 'asleep at the wheel', that would encourage
people to be tuned in. The drift is an easy answer though.
In SG games, I try to push people along. If a player has an option to activate
and dithers, someone else gets the nod. I like to have a leader who can at
least point to a player and say 'activate a unit now'. Of course, having a
side make a battle plan and try to stick to it means people usually know what
they should be doing. Without a plan, there is usually much more dithering.
Stuart Murray was good to have in games because he does form a plan and then
tries to see the plan through, as team leader or player (or as a GM he
encourages this for players).
This seems appropriate to me and works in most sorts of games (if they aren't
too unpredictable, like things with Sheep, Cthulhu, Nyarlathotep, MIB, Zombie
Pirates, or anything in the B5 universe that Aaron runs where counterthink is
the order of the day!). The real military takes an intel assessment, forms a
battle plan, forms some 'actions on' (contingencies) and 'fall back points'
and so on, as well as having a chain of command and delegates. Then they try
to make the plan manifest. Yes, they sometimes have to modify on the fly, but
in the form of FRAGOs (Fragmentary Orders) that act as limited modifiers to
the OPORD (Operations Order) for the mission.
If you spend 10-15 minutes at the beginning of a scenario lining up a
battle plan and delineating areas of responsibility ("Damond, your squads move
up the left flank, draw fire, and try to push through into the woods to draw
the enemies response forces. Steve, your guys in the center advance to contact
then dig in and put heavy fire onto forces
moving on Damond - concentrate on breaking individual squads. Stuart -
your forces are mobile reserve, either to move to assist Damond if his push
meets weak resistance or to counter enemy movements as directed by Platoon
Commander"). With something like this, you've got a basic battle plan. You can
look at what you could do if you were the enemy (assuming you know likely
enemy forces and objectives) and how you would fight their side of the battle
and anticipate their actions, allowing for them in your plan. You can put in
contingencies ("If Damond hits stiff resistance, Stuart moves in support. If
Damond is driven back, Stuart forms a second line contingous with Steve and
digs in, giving Damond a fall back point.").
Once you've sketched out the basic detail of a plan, people should be focused
on doing their part with the tools they have.
Without a plan, you have troops being under-utilized, under-supported,
treading on each others toes and fire lanes, and just generally performing
less than optimally. And players, without a plan, will take forever often
times to decide on what to do, because nobody else looks like they know what
they are doing.
For those who may recall the first Traveller scenario where the Mercs had
trouble with the TFL and their Sword Worlds advisors, this was because the
Mercs had a vague plan, but it didn't emphasize going
after their principal target - the Sword World advisors and TFL
leaders. They bogged down fighting militia and bar locals and the enemy
leadership got away after getting all local assets in
butt-kicking mode.
In the follow on where the where Imperial Mercs had to hold the Starport,
Stuart and I assessed our objective and forces and realized that fast,
offensive deployment would constrain defender movement and let us break
through. It too was rather unpleasant for the Mercs. We had good assets for
the task, but the Mercs defended rather passively and were probably expecting
a creeping, probing phase to let them leverage tech advantages. Stuart and I
denied them this 'slow cooker' start and just went hammer and tongs from the
jump off.
You can lose a game do to not knowing things you needed to know when you made
your plan, because the fates went against you in a few key assaults (usually
dice!), or because you had a good plan and the enemy had a better one. But if
you dont have a plan, you're not only more likely to get your butt handed to
you, but you'll take forever to boot.
Make the plan, fight the plan. And try not to roll the dice on the floor,
spill tea on the grassmats, etc.
Tom B