[GZG] RE: FT Scenarios

6 posts · Jan 12 2006 to Jan 12 2006

From: Terry Mason <terry@m...>

Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2006 23:08:59 +1300

Subject: [GZG] RE: FT Scenarios

_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
http://lists.csua.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l

> On 1/12/06, John Tailby <john_tailby@xtra.co.nz> wrote:

> Are people really going to want to play games where they are

> outpointed 5:1?

> [quoted text omitted]

> It's called "economy of force".

> [quoted text omitted]

> 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."

> I actually like games like this where the goal isn't always just blow

> Jaime

There is a point where you have a glimmer of hope and no chance at all. What
do you need to get someone to play a 5:1 suicide mission? - an ulterior
motive.

I have seen the same problem with WWII rules, people get bored with encounter
battles and just blowing everything up. The rule sets provide the game
mechanism for combat and a point system for making it fair, but gamers want
more after a while.

What you need is a higher level of the game to provide the strategy that is
not as complex as a full blown campaign. For example, you make the decision to
send a fleet of cargo ships on a mission without escorts because it is
critical to your long term strategy. The cargo fleet gets intercepted and is
wiped out, an unfair battle that you wouldn't want to play out but it could
have paid off. Had you added some escorts it may have been worth playing out
to add damage to the enemy fleet for a long term effect. You need another
combat mechanism to "auto resolve" battles when the winning odds are too low
or perhaps for absenteeism in multiplayer games.

I have been working on a simple "overgame" which is essentially a board game
that creates scenarios from your own fleet manoeuvres, but has multiple
winning conditions. Has anyone done anything similar?

From: Tom McCarthy <tmcarth@f...>

Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2006 09:01:10 -0500

Subject: RE: [GZG] RE: FT Scenarios

_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
http://lists.csua.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lI've taken more
than a casual look at Victory By Any Means. It's a campaign game with
politics, espionage, trade, economics, manufacturing and combat. They have
guidelines for when a battle is not worth
resolving (too one-sided), when it should be resolved as fleet combat
(abstract), and when it should go to the table.

I've considered using JUMP (Justified Use of Military Power) in a similar way,
but the game mechanics of JUMP don't line up well with FT.

From: Nyrath the nearly wise <nyrath@c...>

Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2006 09:23:03 -0500

Subject: Re: [GZG] RE: FT Scenarios

> McCarthy, Tom (xwave) wrote:

From: Tom McCarthy <tmcarth@f...>

Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2006 09:56:05 -0500

Subject: RE: [GZG] RE: FT Scenarios

The only thing that kept me from trying to write an FT/VBAM book was the
knowledge that Jon usually does all the writing for the FTverse, and he's got
too many other products to write first (FT3, DS3, SG3, BDS).

There was a lengthy post on the list in 2005 about an FT/VBAM
conversion, though I found it a bit too fine-grained.

> -----Original Message-----

From: Claus Paludan <cpaludan@t...>

Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2006 16:48:26 +0100

Subject: Re: [GZG] RE: FT Scenarios

One of the yahoo groups is just starting up a FT/VBAM campaign:
[SNIPPET]
HI,

All player positions have been filled at this time. A waiting list will be
created to accomodate anyone who didn't get the chance to sign up for the
camapaign. This list will be used to fill any future vacancies.

Everyone and anyone is welcomed to come and lurk as well!:)

Steph
--- In VBAM@yahoogroups.com
[SNIPPET OFF]

perhaps some inspiration could be found:)

> McCarthy, Tom (xwave) wrote:

From: DOCAgren@a...

Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2006 17:57:35 EST

Subject: [GZG] RE: FT Scenarios

_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
http://lists.csua.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l

In a message dated 1/12/06 5:26:01 PM,
gzg-l-request@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
writes:

> > "Deploy from jump"

> ability as the player to make what you consider to be the best
I don't know.. getting the scenario "Ambushed when forces comes out of

Jump"	Might be an interesting one.   Yes sometimes the scenario
restrictions or ROE can make the your choices limited but how U adapt and
overcome is part of the fun.

Have a Good One, DOC Agren    (Lurker on the Digest)