[GZG] re: Point Systems

> From: "john tailby" <John_Tailby@xtra.co.nz>

> Wargames also tend to remove any strategic element from the games

That's where we disagree, here:

> Fortunately wargames are more fun than a real battle. There is a

is where we agree.

I have certainly played games of this nature. In my early wargame years, we
played Napoleonics using rules called "Tricolor" using 25mm minis. By the end
of our first year, we had enough British and French to do exactly this. We
lined up from table edge to table edge, and the only "tactics" were how to
exploit weakpoints created through firepower or poor deployment. We got bored
of this is switched to 6mm. On the same table we could play with corp s where
we used to use less than a division, and were able to use actual tactics like
flanking manuevers.:) Go us!

Whether the game allows for broader tactics depends on the rules, the scale fo
the figures, the size of the bases, the number of figures, the size of the
table and the scope of the game.

In DSII we rarely got to pull of flanking manuevers because of the low
movement speeds of the units. In DS3 (playtest) we frequently pull off
flanking and breakthrough moves because the scope of the game allows for it to
happen.

I think that your statement below is far too limited to capture what is
possible, or in some cases what regularly occurs in wargames.

John

> From: "john tailby" <John_Tailby@xtra.co.nz>

A good set of mission-based scenarios can address a lot of these
strategic elements you are looking for. Writing flanking forces and such into
scenarios allows for these battlefield uncertainties and eventualities.
Dice rolls, card-draws, chit draws can add a good number of ways in
which to assign these. I am a particular fan of die rolls because chits and
cards
can be lost/damaged/misplaced and any gamer worth his lead has more dice
than he really needs.

[quoted original message omitted]

[quoted original message omitted]

Regarding lining units up on each side of the table and charging to
fight in the middle -- well, that happened a lot in ancient times,
and even into the 18th Century. Modern warfare is characterized by great
fluidity, and we should expect the near future (where GZG games are set) to
show more, not less, of the same.

SG II, e.g., allows grav vehicles in high mode to go to any location on the
table. That creates a kind of unpredictability and surprise that is both
authentic and fun to play.

(OK, they take the risk of getting shot down, but, you know, war is dangerous
and stuff (to paraphrase an old friend who's a career officer in the US Army).
Maybe you have to send two or three grav vehicles and expect to lose one.
Maybe you can jam the other side's missiles.)

[quoted original message omitted]