[GZG] Re: FT Scenarios

_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
http://lists.csua.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lI'm mainly a
Stargrunt/Dirtside player.  Although I rate FT as the strongest space
combat product out there, I was put off by several extreme munchkin encounters
abusing the ship design rules quite early on. However, I've also played a lot
of naval wargaming, and most space systems draw from wet navy influences.

In my experience wet navy battles without some kind of scenario, campaign or
relevance very easily become an utterly unrealistic slugfest. Warships that
have taken three years to construct and are virtually irreplacable in real
life terms can be thrown away in ludicrous death or glory "tactics". I'm sure
that someone can think of some exceptions (The death ride of the Yamato being
one, for example!), but the majority of naval battles are fought for a reason,
and the reasons and the consequences of losses need to be brought into the
game to give it context and realism. I feel that FT and most other space
combat rules can be prone to similar effects. Stand alone battles can become
inherently unrealistic without some relevance and perspective.

Virtually all the Stargrunt games I've played have been scenario
based, and often used inventive and creative situations - such as a
three way between two rival ethnic factions, and a peacekeeping force
attempting to stop the confrontation without being too violent about it (there
was an embedded news team with them!). Despite often being unbalanced in terms
of force composition, for our group such scenario based games have always been
extremely satisfying for all who played in them. I see the lack of a points
system in Stargrunt to be a great strength

With Dirtside, for the most part we simply ignored the points system, and
played scenario based games there also. My design philosophy as far
as I can tell may be similar to John A's - I tend to go for maximum crew
protection, best vehicle survivability, and for effective combined arms
integration (much as US/UK/Israel seems to do).  It's worked fine -
though when we've played games on points the munchkin-type players have
sometimes deployed swarms of small tankettes with close range fusion
weapons  or insanely large-composition missile platoons in an attempt to
overwhelm the more realistically designed forces. The rational as to what the
crews thought of making suicidal charges in expendable deathtraps and why and
under what circumstances they were doing this was never explained! Again, the
best games for our group have always been scenario based rather than points
based.

  My own response to the suggestion of FT mission/scenario cards is to
feel really inspired by them! If something was going to get me to pick up FT
again and unpack my fleets from storage, this would be the approach. I've
never liked the points value approach. I've never heard
of any real life conflict that remotely resembled this - "Hey Saddam,
we're coming into Iraq with a 15,000 point mech army. How many points have you
got? Only 3,000? OK, we'll leave the M1s, most of our arty and the air assets
out of it then..." No way! As John Atkinson pointed out a few weeks back, down
at the sharp end, the military are NOT looking for a balanced, interesting
conflict! It's their butts hanging in the wind, and the object is to finish
the other guys with the minimum of risk. By definition the whole points value
system and points balanced games are therefore fairly unrealistic as
simulations.

  The use of mission/scenario cards would be a great counter for this.
I'd like to see a mixture, some with deployment instructions and situations,
and others that are more freeform. There should be situations where a faction
is forced to assault (or reinforce) out of jumpspace, others where the setup
may be defined in advance e.g. "you are refuelling from a gas giant when
pickets report the surprise approach of an assault force in an areas supposed
to be free of hostiles". Doing the best you can with the situation as given
can be
part of the fun. Real life is like that - the British cruisers going up
against the Graf Spee, or the defence of HMS Glorious were unbalanced, but
that's how they happened.

  I see some potential for taking the mission/scenario cards a stage
further. Possibly even providing a different foundation for tournament
games without the need for a points-based approach.  The inclusion of an
option for an "Admiral's Game" series could provide the basis for an abstract
campaign (I'm sure this has been done before with several previous systems).
You choose your forces at the beginning of the campaign, and play through a
series of scenarios. Some cards could detail whether surviving ships can be
used in the immediately following encounter, or whether they must remain in
transit until later etc. Perhaps some simple repair rules also? Mutiple
scenario cards could be drawn and forces assigned to several missions before
playing them out on the table, representing the actual conflicting demands and
priorities upon a fleet. The Admiral's Game idea would make hanging on in an
unfavourable battle less attractive, and there would be more incentive to want
to!
 preserve
ships into the next stage.

A few of the special effect cards should reflect unexpected fortunes or
misfortunes! E.g. the availability of an extra battlecruiser, which has
unexpectedly been repaired and made spaceworthy faster than estimated (Was it
USS Yorktown at Midway that was repaired in 24 hours?). The unavailability of
that fleet carrier which just collided with some space debris or lost a
primary power coupling and cannot sail until repaired (think Prince of Wales
and the Repulse; no carrier available to escort due to an earlier collision).

Granted the system won't suit everyone, and we could all come up with tables
or cards on our own anyway, but I for one would love to see it in print (or
download) as part of the FT universe.

Couple of suggestions for situation cards:

1. One of the ships in your merchant convey is secretly a Q ship (or Q
carrier). 2. Nominate one opponent's ship to suffer potential accident,
perhaps on main drive. Make a threshhold check. 3. Both players complete
initial deployments. One player gets surprise reinforcements out of jumpspace
later in game.

Anyway, hope there was something in this that was worth uncloaking for!

> On 1/13/06, Ken Bywaters <argentnova@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

> With Dirtside, for the most part we simply ignored the points system,

The answer to that is is artillery with scatterable minefields and
airstrikes.  On-board forces, perhaps a platoon or two of scouts to
direct the fire. On paper, that should work. Personally, I'd be inclined to
break out the tac nukes just to make the point about how obnoxious I find such
behavior.

You are right about the design philosophy behind my DSII designs. I'm planning
a serious overhaul of the entire force mix eventually, once I get around to
it. Shoving Combined Arms even lower level, inspired by the US Army's UAs, but
with a more robust organization (3 combined arms BNs, a full BN of indirect
fire assets, etc)

> A few of the special effect cards should reflect unexpected fortunes

72. It it interesting to note that at the Battle of the Coral Sea (where the
Yorktown was damaged) the Japanese carrier Shokaku received some bomb damage
and Zuikaku's air group was shot up so badly that both carriers were held back
for refit. The Shokaku's damage was considerably less than the Yorktown's, but
Japanese repair yards did not work with the same sense of urgency and
ingenuity as American yards.