[GZG] [Stargrunt]

Hi all I'm Matteo from Italy.

I was gifted last Christmas Stargrunt 2 manual and I think that this is THE
miniature wargame. I'd like to know what's the army size recommended for the
first battle and if there are some Italian players out there.

Bye

> Hi all I'm Matteo from Italy.

Hi Matteo, welcome to the List.

> I'd like to know what's the army size recommended for the

There's an article at www.stargrunt.ca you might find helpful:
http://www.stargrunt.ca/toe/sg2_toe_basics/sg2_toe_basics.htm

Generally you'll find that SG2 works well for a platoon or
two on a side--if you want anything bigger, you should look
at Dirtside.

I've played it with anything from fire-teams to company sized
engagements, a couple of platoons on each side seems to work best.

David

[quoted original message omitted]

_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
http://lists.csua.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lOn 1/4/06, Matteo
> Badinelli <matteo.badinelli@antex.it> wrote:

Salva, Matteo, e benvenuto

I was gifted last Christmas Stargrunt 2 manual and I think that this is THE
> miniature wargame.

I don't play SG2 much; only on occassion. But the times I have, the
engagements have been platoon-sized (2-3 per side).

I'm not aware of any italian players of GZG games. I have been maintaining a
quite unofficial listing of GZG players out there; no one from italia has
stepped forth (a number from Germany, however - but yes, I know how far
Germany is from even northern italia ;-) ). If you'd like to be the
first...  ;-)

> Hi all I'm Matteo from Italy.

Hi Matteo

> I was gifted last Christmas Stargrunt 2 manual and I think that this is

I agree, it is an excellent system.

> I'd like to know what's the army size recommended for the first battle

Not an Italian player I'm afraid.

Under the scenarios section at the back of the rules there is a reccomended
first SG game set out. That might be a good start. I think the first games I
played were 1 platoon per side, this is a nice size to start out.

In my experience, 2 platoons per side for 2 players is a substantial game,
especially when adding any complications (artillery, aerospace, VTOLs vehicles
etc).

I was suprised to find that very small games of SG can often be just as
satisfying and are of course quicker. My borther and I have been working on a
scenario generator "inspired" by something in Wargames Illustrated. I
could e-mail you what I have so far (its complete, but not fully
balanced)
if you want (contact me off-list)

Enjoy

On 1/4/06, gzg-l-request@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
> <gzg-l-request@lists.csua.berkeley.edu> wrote:

> I've played it with anything from fire-teams to company sized

Unfortunately, as Beth has pointed out in the past, the SG2 Confidence Test
system works best with only 1 platoon per side. Otherwise it's not nasty
enough.

Two platoons per side works best, but this is kind of an odd size: bigger than
a platoon, but not a full company. It's probably my biggest (of several)
complaints I have about SG2.

_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
http://lists.csua.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lSo is there any
hope for an SG3 with a better morale system?

Roger

> On 1/4/06, Allan Goodall <agoodall@hyperbear.com> wrote:

> So is there any hope for an SG3 with a better morale

Dirtside 3 is in the works (ie "has gone through several
playtest iterations"--NOT "is at the printer"), and there
are several things which should be easily portable to SG.

> On 1/4/06, Allan Goodall <agoodall@hyperbear.com> wrote:

> Two platoons per side works best, but this is kind of an odd size:

Given the Task Organization of 1-37 Armor during the last JMRC
rotation (the former CMTC, now renamed to the Joint Multinational
Readiness Center, four buzzwords for the price of one), a two-platoon
company is downright normal looking.

At one point our task org was a single line platoon of combat engineers, and
hybrid "tank" platoon that was operating with 2 tanks and two uparmored HMMWVs
(each carrying the four tanks that would have
been in the other two).  At another point we cross-attached squads
within platoons, creating platoons with two tanks and 2 M-113s, with
dismounts.

On 1/4/06, gzg-l-request@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
> <gzg-l-request@lists.csua.berkeley.edu> wrote:

Didn't SG2 come out in 1996? That makes this year the 10th anniversary
of waiting for _Bugs Don't Surf_.

FT3 is, as you can probably tell, the next probable release. After
that it _should_ be FMA Skirmish. Next comes Dirtside III, which is
older even than SG2 and in much greater need of an overhaul.

My Dad lived to be only 18 years older than I am today. Given similarities in
genetics, and given Jon's production schedule, I am not optimistic about
living to see the publication of SG3.

> FT3 is, as you can probably tell, the next probable

But the Test List is working on more than one project at a
time--I've been going over a DS3 draft this week, editing
for clarity. Speaking of which, I'm not happy with using "Activation" and
"Action" (as in "the player Activates a unit; the unit can take an Action if
it passes a leadership test"). Anyone have a suggestion for a better word for
"Activation"? The only idea I've had thus far is
"Prompt"....

On 1/4/06, gzg-l-request@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
> <gzg-l-request@lists.csua.berkeley.edu> wrote:

> Date: Wed, 04 Jan 2006 15:03:40 -0800

> But the Test List is working on more than one project at a

And the Test List did a lot of work on FMAS, too. It doesn't matter. It's Jon
and his publishing schedule that matters.

Jon's only one man, with a life. Unless he decides to farm out the writing to
someone else, we're just going to have to wait...