From: Ground Zero Games <jon@g...>
Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2008 08:46:39 +0100
Subject: [GZG] Question to the list.....
Just a quick question to you all, seemingly OT but actually relevant to some stuff I'm working on....... Does anyone out there actually recall having PLAYED a game of the old
From: Frits Kuijlman <frits@k...>
Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2008 11:23:06 +0200
Subject: Re: [GZG] Question to the list.....
> Ground Zero Games wrote: Nope. The only uneven (tech wise) game I have played is PeterPig's ak47 with militia vs. mercenaries. Basically, the mercenaries rule until the militias with their rpgs come too close to the tanks. So basically, the militias like lots of cover and the mercenaries like nice fields of fire. Is this the kind of effect you're looking for?
From: Andy Hemming <nonsense_factory@h...>
Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2008 10:43:39 +0100
Subject: Re: [GZG] Question to the list.....
_______________________________________________ Gzg-l mailing list Gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu http://vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l hi Jon (& list), I must admit I never even played striker (but I did read the rules!).. However - we play SG2 with some home brew rules using 4 notional tech levels and weapons/armor based on traveller thinking. We have been experimenting with larger low tech/smaller high tech forces and its worked pretty well, however we have done away with the armor rolls (using Hyperbear's website rules - very useful) in order to keep the game flowing faster when dealing with the larger forces the games have had. As ever massed fire takes it's toll over time, its really just a case of getting enough of your rabble around the elite high tech forces and grinding em down, clearly for the high tech its a case of hit & move.. Its working for us (though I've still to use the zhodani commandoes I've been threatening my opponent with!) Andy<html><div></div></html>> Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2008 08:46:39 +0100> To: gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu> From: jon@gzg.com> Subject: [GZG] Question to the list.....> > Just a quick question to you all, seemingly OT but actually relevant > to some stuff I'm working on.......> > > Does anyone out there actually recall having PLAYED a game of the old > STRIKER II (the Traveller ground combat rules based on Command > Decision)? I imagine there are lots like myself who have read the > rules, but how many people actually got the toys out on the table > with them?> I'm interested in any memories of such games, but especially anyone > who tried it with unequal tech matchups (eg: small hi-tech force vs. > larger mid- or low-tech one).> > Jon (GZG)> > _______________________________________________> Gzg-l mailing list>
From: Michael Brown <mwbrown@s...>
Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2008 06:47:43 -0600
Subject: Re: [GZG] Question to the list.....
Yes, both versions. Played a LOT of CD too (all editions). C2 is the heart of the game in Striker (you NEED to right a Field Order) and the emphasis continues in Striker II. Troop Quality (Training) is also a big piece. IIRC higher tech forces are more maneuverable (C2 allows each stand to have an order) and usually has better sensors (ability to spot/detect), higher ROF and ranges. Michael Brown mwsaber6@msn -------------------------------------------------- From: "Ground Zero Games" <jon@gzg.com> Sent: Monday, June 30, 2008 1:46 AM To: <gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu> Subject: [GZG] Question to the list..... > Just a quick question to you all, seemingly OT but actually relevant
From: Andy Hemming <nonsense_factory@h...>
Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2008 15:23:44 +0100
Subject: Re: [GZG] Question to the list.....
_______________________________________________ Gzg-l mailing list Gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu http://vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l I suspect that working on better ECM or at least differentiated ECm between tech levels is something we plan to work on next... as well as psionics (as traveller, though we have struggled with precognition...) and shielding/forcefields... again all which will fit into our notional tech levels (4 bands for ease) Andy It would be interesting if higher tech level computer tech could overwhelm lower tech level stuff, perhaps apart from when you are running "dumb" systems - which would offer a level of immunity to network hacking...<html><div></div></html>> From: mwsaber6@msn.com> To: gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu> Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2008 06:47:43 -0600> Subject: Re: [GZG] Question to the list.....> > Yes, both versions. Played a LOT of CD too (all editions). C2 is the heart > of the game in Striker (you NEED to right a Field Order) and the emphasis > continues in Striker II. Troop Quality (Training) is also a big piece.> > IIRC higher tech forces are more maneuverable (C2 allows each stand to have > an order) and usually has better sensors (ability to spot/detect), higher > ROF and ranges.> > > > > Michael Brown> mwsaber6@msn> > > --------------------------------------------------> From: "Ground Zero Games" <jon@gzg.com>> Sent: Monday, June 30, 2008 1:46 AM> To: <gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu>> Subject: [GZG] Question to the list.....> > > Just a quick question to you all, seemingly OT but actually relevant> > to some stuff I'm working on.......> >> >> > Does anyone out there actually recall having PLAYED a game of the old> > STRIKER II (the Traveller ground combat rules based on Command> > Decision)? I imagine there are lots like myself who have read the> > rules, but how many people actually got the toys out on the table> > with them?> > I'm interested in any memories of such games, but especially anyone> > who tried it with unequal tech matchups (eg: small hi-tech force vs.> > larger mid- or low-tech one).> >> > Jon (GZG)> >> > _______________________________________________> > Gzg-l mailing list> >
From: Ground Zero Games <jon@g...>
Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2008 16:15:19 +0100
Subject: Re: [GZG] Question to the list.....
> Ground Zero Games wrote: Kind of, but what I was actually more interested in was how Striker II's handling of very high tech grav vehicles, which have HUGE movement speeds and weapon ranges, actually worked out in game terms.... I guess it may well have been one of those games that lots of people bought but few ever played! Jon (GZG) > --
From: Indy Kochte <kochte@s...>
Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2008 11:59:41 -0400
Subject: Re: [GZG] Question to the list.....
_______________________________________________ Gzg-l mailing list Gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu http://vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lOn Mon, Jun 30, 2008 at 10:23 AM, Andy Hemming <nonsense_factory@hotmail.com> wrote: > I suspect that working on better ECM or at least differentiated ECm and > shielding/forcefields... again all which will fit into our notional VERY much off the top of my head - Precognition. Have your opponent roll double the dice they might in a situation where you try to use it, and choose the better ones for you. Or roll double the defense dice than normal (if applicable) and choose the best ones. Just a random thought. Mk
From: Ground Zero Games <jon@g...>
Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2008 17:07:04 +0100
Subject: Re: [GZG] Question to the list.....
> I suspect that working on better ECM or at least differentiated ECm As a minis gamer, you've got precognition sussed already - it's the Wargamer's Eye View of the table so you know where every unit is! ;-) > and shielding/forcefields... again all which will fit into our So, what Traveller tech levels do your 4 bands represent? Jon (GZG) > Andy http://vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l > > http://vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l > Miss your Messenger buddies when on-the-go?
From: Ground Zero Games <jon@g...>
Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2008 17:12:25 +0100
Subject: Re: [GZG] Question to the list.....
> Yes, both versions. Played a LOT of CD too (all editions). C2 is the So, in your experiences, how did hi/low tech matchups game out (particularly in Striker II)? How large a force multiplier of low or mid tech troops did you need to give a reasonable game against hi-tech stuff, or did you just balance it by scenario? Jon (GZG) > Michael Brown http://vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l > _______________________________________________
From: Michael Brown <mwbrown@s...>
Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2008 10:55:56 -0600
Subject: Re: [GZG] Question to the list.....
In that regard I just moved them like Helicopters, i.e. move along a path to allow spotting/op fire, but no limit on distance. Range was usually LOS Michael Brown mwsaber6@msn -------------------------------------------------- From: "Ground Zero Games" <jon@gzg.com> Sent: Monday, June 30, 2008 9:15 AM To: <gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu> Subject: Re: [GZG] Question to the list..... > Ground Zero Games wrote:
From: Michael Brown <mwbrown@s...>
Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2008 13:17:53 -0600
Subject: Re: [GZG] Question to the list.....
IIRC at Tech 5 a Battalion gets a Command stand, a Telephone Staff stand and a command stand per Company. Command stands can place 1 order within 6". A staff stand can give an order to any stand in communication range. Troops have no armor. Fire Support is generally direct fire At Tech 15 a squad has a Command Satellite Uplink stand and can "talk" to any stand on the board as well as supports in orbit. Most troops are in Combat Armor or Battledress. Fire Support is generally Indirect and MUCH more accurate. Michael Brown mwsaber6@msn -------------------------------------------------- From: "Ground Zero Games" <jon@gzg.com> Sent: Monday, June 30, 2008 10:12 AM To: <gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu> Subject: Re: [GZG] Question to the list..... > Yes, both versions. Played a LOT of CD too (all editions). C2 is the > heart > have http://vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l > _______________________________________________
From: Eli Arndt <emu2020@c...>
Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2008 19:44:18 +0000
Subject: Re: [GZG] Question to the list.....
_______________________________________________ Gzg-l mailing list Gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu http://vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lI have played with these setups a lot. I am a huge fan of underdogs and tend to play uneven matches in various games. So many of the interesting conflicts of Earth history fall into this category of enueven tech matches. Even if the base line tech is pretty close (AR vs AR, Rocket vs Rocket) the forces themselves may not be as advanced as one may have little or no official training/doctrine and the other is some mighty organized nation with tons of theory and doctrine. As far as my experiences with these games. They tend to be fun if handled well. Do avoid making them knock down drag out fights because the lower tech will almost always lose unless they are some sort of swarming, endless mass (a fun game too). Objectives are key in these scenarios and it isn't a bad idea to place limitations on your hi-tech forces. For limitations, I have used engagement restrictions or even reporters on the table. Also, you can limit your advanced forces by making certain areas off limits to them (holy places, nuetral ground in the city, limited fire zones, etc) which the enemy may not have limited for them. There are any number of things you can do to make the game challenging for the higher tech force and fun for both parties. The biggest thing is to avoid a situation where the low-tech guy spends the whole game futily throwing forces at the hi-tech guy hoping to get lucky. Also, it's not much fun for the hi-tech player to sit there swatting flies with no challenge. -Eli > >>Ground Zero Games wrote: > > bought but few ever played! http://vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l > >
From: Evyn MacDude <infojunky@c...>
Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2008 21:38:57 -0700
Subject: Re: [GZG] Question to the list.....
_______________________________________________ Gzg-l mailing list Gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu http://vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l > On Jun 30, 2008, at 12:46 AM, Ground Zero Games wrote: > Does anyone out there actually recall having PLAYED a game of the old Yes. > I imagine there are lots like myself who have read the Not in years, or to put it another way, not since I switched to tactical skirmish gaming for the most part. > I'm interested in any memories of such games, but especially anyone Most of those sorts of match-ups I have played out with smaller scale forces. Lo-tech spec-ops with anti-material rifles and command detonated mines (both traditional and off-route) ambushing higher tech forces. Mostly it turned in to your typical asymmetric warfare situations, using planing and ruthless exploitation of manpower to inflict significant casualties in the high tech force. These sort of scenarios don't play out well in the CD series of games.
From: Andy Hemming <nonsense_factory@h...>
Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2008 07:57:53 +0100
Subject: Re: [GZG] Question to the list.....
_______________________________________________ Gzg-l mailing list Gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu http://vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l very roughly - I'd say its band one 6-9, band two 10 -11, band 3 12-13, band 4 14-15... We use faster heavy power armor at band 4, and have slightly amended weapon strengths at each level (as well as introducing new weapons at some levels) Andy <html><div></div></html> > Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2008 17:07:04 +0100 http://vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l > >> > http://vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l > >