> Tom spake thusly upon matters weighty:
Again, that's all well and good if you have established opponents. It
may work with a pick-up game, but it may not. It depends on the other
players.
> Plus, I
You do if you are the only person who knows the rules. The people that I have
gamed with have played SGII, and none of them liked it enough to bother buying
the rules, let alone learning them. They were willing enough to play if I ran
a game, but otherwise...no.
> I don't like running games. I like playing them. I like the
> down and play.
It's not as easy as it is with, say, Full Thrust. With FT, you can go up to a
total stranger and start playing. I've done it. With SGII, it's difficult.
> That, and its total lack of local
See, this is what I mean by arrogance. Popular does not always mean bad. Or
good, for that matter..... Yes, the 40K rules have more holes than a piece of
Swiss Cheese. And yes, there are a lot more people playing 40K then there are
playing SGII. There's probably a reason for that.
> I CAN do that with a lot of
I just want to have fun. Taking things really seriously is not part of that.
Winning or losing doesn't matter. Playing does.
> You know, annoying though GW gamers are, I can say this much for
You are right, and I apologize. Generalizations are enver a good thing.
I was just remembering the recent "discussion" on r.g.m.m. The SGII advocactes
had attitude to spare. On the other hand, they were generally more coherent
than the 40K folks.... And does anyone remember
the posting that listed the difference between 40K players and SGII players?
Almost the entire list took issue with it. Almost no one saw the humor in it.
it was the crack about "...maybe I'm just lucky in that I game with adults who
don't take pushing around little metal toys THAT seriously." that got to me.
So I don't game exactly like you do...does that make me immature? To take
Shakespeare entirely out of context, the play's the thing, people.
Tom spake thusly upon matters weighty:
> Scenarios are a lot of fun, and I enjoy playing them, but they take
That's why you try to build up a collection of scenario cards so you can just
pull a couple of cards and run a battle.
Plus, I
> have found that, all too often, I would be the one designing the
Don't need a ref. Unless you have players who can't agree to sort things out
themselves.
I don't like running games. I like playing them. I like the luxury of
> being able to pick up a box of tanks, go to the local Hobby Shop, sit
Pardon? I don't have a problem with that with SG2. Once you have experience at
the game, and some mission cards, you can eyeball forces and get a good idea
of their relative merits. And no points system is infallible anyway. (I've
seen many, and all can be abused by munchkins). Real battle doesn't give you
the luxury of picking
even sides. The issue isn't win-lose, its how well you lead your
troops and how much fun you had. If you play an unbalanced game, but score
enemy casualties out of all proportion, then you should be pleased. If you
lose, it can be taken in stride. It is a GAME after all. SG2 can be 'bring and
battle' especially if you start organizing
yourself - put the figures for a unit in a little box with a card
detailing their stats and then you don't have to write out the stats for the
unit each time you arrive at a battle.
That, and its total lack of local
> popularity, are why I have given up on it.
I'm sure that is how many good gaming systems, and many good ideas have given
way to the mediocrity of the systems with mass (witness Microsoft).
I CAN do that with a lot of
> other games. That's why I still play them.
I find, if I want to play a quick game, I play a board game - little
or no prep, lots of fun. If I want to wargame, I accept that some minimal prep
is a good thing. If I want to really enjoy myself, I like a thought out,
detailed scenario, which means work. But I can
enjoy myself at a bring and battle too - I just don't take the
results as seriously because it might be unbalanced. Judgement goes a long way
here.
> You know, annoying though GW gamers are, I can say this much for them:
> They are at least a hell of a lot less arrogant than GZG gamers....
I feel I'm being tarred with someone else's sins here. So I'll say that such a
generalization does no one any credit. We are a varied lot, some with strong
opinions, some bombastic, some even a little sarcastic, but the one thing GZG
gamers seem to possess is a lot of 'its just a game' as an attitude. We can
usually realize that judgement and a bit of good spirit and maturity go a long
way to solving our problems, not rules, points, or official ex cathedra
pronouncements.
And, for the record, most of the WH40K players I've met have suffered
from the minor folly of youth - they are exuberant, munchkinish,
quite opinionated within their own little WH world, and quite 'gamey' (as
opposed to interested in any degree of realism), and many seem bound by 'the
rules' hard and fast. By contrast, most GZG players seem to like 'the feel' of
the game (although some have the 'its like this in the rules, so why change
it' bug). Most seem to not be
munchkins, and are not gamey - more realism inclined. Now, we may
occaisionally bash the 40K guys a little too much. In reality, they are likely
the next gen of GZG players as they grow disillusioned and get older and more
interested in the 'flavour' of the game and less in the 'rules' or in the
gamey aspect.
As an aside, having said that, I'm sure many WH40K players will be quite
amazed by what I here is in the new version of the rules.... sounds like they
basically stole (okay, independently developed?) a bunch of conceptual ideas
and systems that sound *perilously* close to those used in FMA and the focus
of FMA systems like Stargrunt. It will be interesting to see how this hits the
WH40K community....
(And I guess, like those Microsoft has 'borrowed' ideas from, Jon T should be
complemented that GW is 'learning' from him.....)
Tom
/************************************************
[snip]
> As an aside, having said that, I'm sure many WH40K players will be
Quite frankly, I'd be pissed! GW has sued so many companies for 'stealing'
their 'ideas', it would be nice to see them leave themselves wide open to get
as good as they give...
> Thomas Barclay wrote:
> by munchkins). Real battle doesn't give you the luxury of picking
I fall into this category. Personally I hate the whole points thing. I prefer
to base my scenarios on situations. In fact the ones where one side is up
shit's creek are far more interesting to me. When My friends and I play we
pick some ships ("I want the shiny red ones!"<g>) and go. Or we play a
scenario based on a story I want to write. It's how well you play with the
forces that were given that matters, when we play.) Besides, none of us play
THAT much that we know what the hell we're doing anyway. Right Kurt? <g> For
us, half the fun is writing the AAR afterwards, ALWAYS a requirement.
> all. SG2 can be 'bring and battle' especially if you start organizing
Yes I don't know about other wargaming clubs, but at ours, this is how
everything is done. It's amazing the size battles you can get done in a short
time, BUT it does require that someone does the work ahead of time.
> And, for the record, most of the WH40K players I've met have suffered
Ahh yes, it's funny how when you are young, you come to the absolute
realization that you know EVERYTHING. But when you are older, you realize that
you don't know anything!BTW, I enjoy the occasional E40k game.
> You wrote:
> Plus, I
Well, there are some exceptions to this. My Assault on Carter Island scenario
demanded a ref because I wrote up 5 pages of house rules.
Excuse me for being anal-retentive. :) I enjoyed reffing so much that
I wrote up another scenario which is 4-sided, none of which know even
half of the picture. I'll be playing at least one side, but that's the one
whose ROEs prohibit firing unless fired upon. I doubt most people would find
them interesting. I'll be running it next week and posting an AAR. Maybe even
write up some fanfic as an intro. BTW, we've got
at least one Ukranian on here--what's a good selection of typically
Ukranian surnames for some officers?
Of course, I like reffing a lot. It's a challenge to keep both sides guessing
about the situation's specifics until the very end. Maybe it's just my God
Complex coming through.;)
> system is infallible anyway. (I've seen many, and all can be abused
I'm not saying it can't be done, but I've yet to see it completely done
with Dirtside. Even the infamous GMS-slinging size 1 vehicles can be
dealt with by proper application of artillery and so forth.
> even sides. The issue isn't win-lose, its how well you lead your
True. Historically very few battles are "even". I'd say that an "even" battle
is an indication of utter failure on the part of the higher command.
> [snip]
Except that they have a full-time professional legal department, and all
the other smaller companies like us don't. The rights and protection of rules
systems and mechanisms is a horribly grey area at the best of times
(which can sometimes be a double-edged sword - otherwise no-one but TSR
would be using polyhedral dice, and we'd probably all be paying licensing fees
to H.G.Wells' estate....). Whatever GW do to 40K will all change by the
following issue of WD anyway, because that is the only way they can keep
selling new minis at the rate they have to do to keep their shareholders
happy. That said, anyone out there have enough legal background to really know
the position on this sort of thing...?
[snip]
> As an aside, having said that, I'm sure many WH40K players will be
Tony Christney said:
> Quite frankly, I'd be pissed! GW has sued so many companies for
Being on good terms with the 're-engineers' of WH40k v3 I think I can
safely say that FMA (as excellent as it is) has had no influence on the new
design, it evolved quite independantly.
[snip]
> As an aside, having said that, I'm sure many WH40K players will be
[snip]
> Except that they have a full-time professional legal department, and
I've actually attended a few seminars on game design and publishing back in
the day that I thought I might venture into that field...
As I understand it, SYSTEMS cannot be copywrited unless the specific system in
question is inseperable from the creative background attached to the game.
The precedent setting case in this regard was Milton Bradley vs.
"Anti-Monopoly," where it was determined that any number of games could
share the same system as long as they were creatively different. Just look at
the number of "roll a d6 and move that many boxes" games.
Creative images, backgrounds, histories, etc. ARE copywritable. So, if someone
came out with another game that had a NAC, ESU, etc. Jon could sue.
On Mon, 21 Sep 1998 09:19:46 -0700 (PDT), Tom Sullivan
<starkfist@hotmail.com> wrote:
> See, this is what I mean by arrogance. Popular does not always mean
> than a piece of Swiss Cheese. And yes, there are a lot more people
> that.
Well, I have to say that the SG2 players I played with at GenCon weren't
arrogant. In fact, most SG2 players I know play a host of other games as well:
FT (well, duh), Warzone, Shockforce, Great Rail Wars, and a bunch of
historical games. I even know a number who play 40K because they like to play
and it's the main game in town.
Personally, I never really hated 40K. I quite enjoyed Rogue Trader. There were
holes: in particular I hated the turn sequence, lack of opportunity fire, and
the fact that there were no modifiers for firing on the move. I fixed those,
with no problems. Funny enough, I stopped playing 40K because of 40K players
and GW. GW got everyone into an arms race when I wanted to play more balanced
scenarios. The players kept trying to make the game bigger and bigger, when I
wanted to play smaller skirmishes (which I contended the game was balanced
for).
In general, the 40K players I played with tended to be close minded. I suppose
if you really like something you stick with it. However, most 40K players I
knew weren't even willing to try something new (even though they complained
about things in 40K).
If you did a poll on this group, I think you'd find that a fair number of us
play a wide range of games (including 40K and Epic). You won't find that
diversity from a similar sampling of 40K players, I'd wager.
> On Mon, 21 Sep 1998, Thomas Barclay wrote:
> Pardon? I don't have a problem with that with SG2. Once you have
"Once you have experience" is the operative word here. How many games does it
take to learn a system inside out? *Without* a more experienced teacher? Let's
say I play a game of SG once every three months (typical for a "sideline" game
in my group). Let's say it takes 10 games to learn the system.
That's two and half *years* of bad experiences (you don't learn unless you
make mistakes) with SG! Honestly, how many people can be expected to stick
with the system that long?
Maybe it's my (heretical) background in Car Wars, but I *enjoy* designing
ships, vehicles, forces etc. and then taking them out for a spin. Designing is
something I can enjoy about the game *alone*, when it suits me (which is
becoming a more and more important consideration).
I also *enjoy* the uncertainty of not knowing what your opponent is fielding.
A preset scenario robs me of these pleasures.
I don't have the luxury of a referee (unless it's me). I get to buy all
the rules, learn them, teach them, buy all the minis and paint them --
or there's no game (unless I go play GW).
And I absolutely hate cardboard counters...
> And no points
I think you have a double standard here. It's bad that a point system creates
unequal forces, but if you don't have a point system it's ok to have unequal
forces?
All $10,000 cars in Car Wars are not equal. Some were designed by better
designers. That's all part of the game, part of the fun.
> The issue isn't win-lose, its how well you lead your
You have to *know* what the typical proportion is to know that you did well
(or bad).
E.g. if I pick a fight with Mike Tyson and manage to get in a few good punches
before getting clobbered, I can be pleased because I know bloody well Mike's
clearly out of my league. But if I pick a fight with a random bystander and
get the same end result, I can't really say if it's because I performed below
par or because I was simply outclassed from the outset
-- because I have roughly the same experience in boxing as I have with
SG2. If it was a paintball game, I could tell. I'm a "pro" paintballer, and
I've played enough to know why I lost a particular game. But it's just
impossible for me to play *all* the games I like to play that much.
Maybe I should just totally stop playing games I can't play at "pro" level?
(Not that I have a habit of picking fights with anyone).
> I think you have a double standard here. It's bad that a point >system
The problem is that point systems may create unequal forces _that
purport to be equal_. At least without a points system the forces
may be unequal but are more obviously so.
Anyway, what are points systems actually trying to measure? Combat power?
Fighting strength? Stayability? Your guess is as good as mine....
Mike Elliott
________________________________________________________________________
___
_____
*****************************************************************
Privileged/Confidential Information and/or Copyright Material may
be contained in this e-mail. The information and Material is
intended for the use of the intended addressee. If you are not
the intended addressee, or the person responsible for delivering
it to the intended addressee, you may not copy or deliver it to
anyone else or use it in any unauthorised manner. To do so is
prohibited and may be unlawful. If you receive this e-mail by
mistake, advise the sender immediately by using the reply
facility in your e-mail software.
Thank you.
*****************************************************************
*******.?
> On Tue, 22 Sep 1998 Mike.Elliott@bull.co.uk wrote:
> The problem is that point systems may create unequal forces _that
No. They are equal *points*, which is not the same thing. Give two people $100
each and have them buy stuff for lunch. The lunches will not be the same, or
equal. Quite probably one person can stretch a dollar farther. But they *are*
$100 lunches both.
Which means they're roughly comparable. That's all.
The only way to be truly equal is to be identical -- which is, btw, the
way practically every classic game handles play balance.
> At least without a points system the forces
I really don't get this line of reasoning. Show me slightly unequal points
calculated forces, I'll file off the point values and somehow they are more
obviously unequal?
> Anyway, what are points systems actually trying to measure? Combat
Who cares? It's a measuring device. E.g. do you really know what 200MHz
processor means in practice to the end-user? I don't -- but I do know
it's about twice as fast as a 100MHz version of the same processor. But that
doesn't mean twice as fast everything as far as the entire system is
concerned... the processor speed is just a rough measuring device.
It *is* useful, but you need to understand the limitations of its usefulness.
Los raises an interesting point. The most fun I have had in Space Gaming
(mini/board) is when I have had crippled ships. Dealing with ship
damage is more fun than stomping the snot out of your opponent. When I played
S/T/A/R/F/L/E/E/T Battles (dare I admit to it?), juggling my decimated
power reserves and shields that were down to little more than static was much
more fun than being able to yawn out an Alpha Strike each turn.
-=Kurt
> ----------
Tom spake thusly upon matters weighty:
> >Don't need a ref. Unless you have players who can't agree to sort
I'm sorry your encounters haven't led you to meet a group that is interested
enough in trying new things to learn some new rules.
> >> You can't do that with Stargrunt.
> up to a total stranger and start playing. I've done it. With SGII,
Harder. Not impossible though.
> > That, and its total lack of local
Pardon? I ask you where that contains any arrogance. It was simply an
observation of how many good ideas lack marketing or aren't distributed by a
company with market share enough to make them appeal (before any discussion of
technical merit) just by who releases them.
GW and Microsoft both fall under this situation - they release it,
many will want it before knowing what it is. They do, BTW, make some good
products amidst a sea of mediocre ones. They don't do it all wrong, but they
do tend to settle for mediocrity.
Popular does not always mean
> bad. Or good, for that matter..... Yes, the 40K rules have more
I don't know enough about 40K to identify all its holes, just some rather
glaring ones.
As for the reasons people play GW, probably more than one. But IBM would never
have predicted that they'd be knocked off by a little know guy like Bill Gates
and everyone would have said "there's probably a reason IBM is King". Well
guess what? GW may find themselves the victim of a giant killer with good
ideas. (Go Jon T!
).
As an aside, having a choice between gaming with 20 people who enjoy 40K and 4
who enjoy SG2, I find the 4 who enjoy SG2 are closer to my mindset as a rule
(and tend to be older and more mature). That isn't arrogance, that's just
knowing ones tastes and realizing some games
are better suited to younger folk - colourful, exciting, not overly
concerned with realism, competitive, etc.
> I just want to have fun. Taking things really seriously is not part
Agreed - I just wish the 40Kers I've met could understand that too.
> >I feel I'm being tarred with someone else's sins here. So I'll say
No problem. We all say things then think about the full ramifications
later.... (I plead guilty here too).
> I was just remembering the recent "discussion" on r.g.m.m. The SGII
Did we send John A? (Kidding John!) Seriously, email is a
context-lacking medium that encourages people to hear things that
aren't there and shoot there mouths off. And its hard to see the wry
grin that sometimes accompanies it. (a lesson for us all - take a
pill!). If we were all a tad calmer and more open minded, we'd all get along
better with less stress.
"...maybe I'm just lucky in
> that I game with adults who don't take pushing around little metal
Okay, even I'll admit that could be taken as a snide comment. But don't let
some email from our resident sarcast get you worked up. He means well (and
he's said that before).
So I don't game exactly like you
> do...does that make me immature? To take Shakespeare entirely out of
Agreed. And maybe the point is no-one should make this more than it
is - a game. We differ as to what we like to game, and sometimes we
shoot off our mouths (no comments about me from the list lurkers), but we
should all take things with a grain of salt and try to be
insensitive - its the only appropriate way to interpret list
correspondence. Don't take it personal. Play the game, have fun, and if you
don't agree with someone on the list, live with your differences. Live and let
live.
Tom.
/************************************************
Mikko spake thusly upon matters weighty:
> On Mon, 21 Sep 1998, Thomas Barclay wrote:
If I find a good system, I stick with it. Period.
Although I do take your point about the fickle masses, I'd also point out that
some things hard to learn are worth mastering AND many things with a point
system give you an illusion of balance that rarely bears out.
> Maybe it's my (heretical) background in Car Wars, but I *enjoy*
Okay, in that sense, I've played Car Wars, Traveller (N incarnations), own
Guns!Guns!Guns! and I too love to design ships and other stuff and see how it
works (I actually, being a software dude, believe my talents lie here
anyways).
> I also *enjoy* the uncertainty of not knowing what your opponent is
If you don't care whether you win or lose, and love to game, then balance
isn't so important.
> A preset scenario robs me of these pleasures.
depends. But in some extent yes, but this is the opposite complaint of the
other fellow. If he didn't like designing a scenario, he sure won't want to
spend the time designing formations or vehicles. So the preset scenarios fill
that niche. With enough of them, and enough force cards, its never the same
game twice.
> I don't have the luxury of a referee (unless it's me). I get to buy
Familiar with that. Sigh.
> And I absolutely hate cardboard counters...
I like dual maps and hidden movement - old microarmour relfexes.
> I think you have a double standard here. It's bad that a point system
No, but games with a point system often revolve around equal odds battles,
thus missing much fun. Besides, points are often used to calculate 'victory'.
If you don't care about that, but you care about playing, only gross imbalance
is an issue and I think common sense can help you avoid that.
Besides, I wouldn't cry if Jon came up with a point system, I just know it
would spark N debates and have M loopholes. So I'd still be stuck using
judgement.
> All $10,000 cars in Car Wars are not equal. Some were designed by
Sure, but I don't think the granularity of vehicle or force design in FMA
systems is enough to allow the same level of distinction. Given, someone who
brought nothing but AA troops to the table would get beaten up, but that isn't
the same. And custom force design DOES NOT address the issue of time that the
other player said he didn't have to spend. He sounded like someone who'd like
a preset formation list so no contention exists run within preset scenarios
with preset
conditions for win/loss. This can be done. Without points.
> > The issue isn't win-lose, its how well you lead your
> > score enemy casualties out of all proportion,
I think judgement, experience, and maturity as a gamer are huge assets here.
I've seen plenty of point based victories that I didn't agree with the
estimate of the outcome because points are such a rough tool.
> E.g. if I pick a fight with Mike Tyson and manage to get in a few good
Except in SG2, you know all the other sides stats. From that, and experience
(admittedly not free) you can judge.
If it was a paintball game, I could tell. I'm a "pro" paintballer,
> and I've played enough to know why I lost a particular game.
Experience. Did you quit after the first few times when you got hosed in the
early days because you didn't have a point system? No. Then why quit a game
under the same situaiton? Gain experience. Then you know WHY things work or
don't. Points are, IMHO, a poor substitute.
But it's
> just impossible for me to play *all* the games I like to play that
Fair. We all make choices.
> Maybe I should just totally stop playing games I can't play at "pro"
or accept that (like life) some things take experience to truly understand. Or
you can live under the sometimes false illusion of a
points system for balance. Which can be munchkinized or min-maxed by
the wise - not always to the betterment of game play. I'm not even
sure one should BE designing stuff until one has experience, because you don't
(even with points) understand the impact on the system.
> (Not that I have a habit of picking fights with anyone).
Unlike some of the other soft boned and very sensitive people on the list, I
don't take it personally. I'd have to know you personally to know if you were
combative and obnoxious (and vice versa), so I always assume its 'discussion'
not fights or insults.
Fun talking with you, Mikko.
BTW, can you attempt an english phoenetic tranlation of your name?
I'll guess at MEE-KAH KOOR-KEY SUE-OH-NEE-OH but I may be about as
far off as any gaijin westerner trying to pronounce Morihei Ueshiba or
Miyamoto Musashi.
Tom.
/************************************************
> On Tue, 22 Sep 1998, Thomas Barclay wrote:
> If I find a good system, I stick with it. Period.
After wasting many many years with AD&D, the system has to prove it's good and
workable in rather short time to be worth my effort. Like the first three
games.
Do you spend 2 years with every system you own to find out if it's any good
for your purposes?
> Although I do take your point about the fickle masses, I'd also point
I'm not saying there aren't bad point systems. There are. There are good
pointless (no pun intended) games, but typically you care to play the
pre-packaged scenarios only so many times.
Magazine scenarios and such often also have the problem that they're not
tailored to your miniatures leading to the old "but I don't have three
companies of katyushas" dilemma.
> Okay, in that sense, I've played Car Wars, Traveller (N
But not in SG? Do you think FT would as popular as it is if it didn't include
a ship design system? I played the first few games of FT with predesigns,
liked it, and "graduated" to designing my own ships.
> depends. But in some extent yes, but this is the opposite complaint
If your tooth aches when you drink hot or cold, you go to the dentist and he
fixes it so you can drink your coffee but ice cream is still painful, are you
satisfied?
> No, but games with a point system often revolve around equal odds
This is a fault of the players, not the system. If you only want to play
platoon-vs-platoon meeting engagements, well, that's what you play.
A good point system shows ways to use points to create *imbalanced* forces for
a *balanced* scenario. Dare I say it? GW's Adeptus Titanicus had a set of
generic scenarios that set the (often unequal) point levels for the
forces involved -- and victory conditions other than "kill more points
than you lose". In fact, the scenarios are so generic you could easily
import them into any point-based land warfare game.
Winning the *battle* and winning the *game* are two totally different things,
a point often forgotten (and sometimes on purpose, methinks) by
no-points advocates.
Yes, I do care about winning the game.
> Besides, points are often used to
I don't agree. It is not a game if you don't have goals to strive for. It's a
toy, a simulation, a social pastime, something. No fault in that (heck, our
minis are essentially expensive toys), but it's not a game unless you can win
or lose.
Greg Costikyan has a very good article on the subject at
http://www.crossover.com/~costik/nowords.html
Greg is, ofcourse, an old school SPI game designer.
> Sure, but I don't think the granularity of vehicle or force design in
Well, I think it is. Actually, I think it's even better (or could be) in FMA.
I quit Car Wars partly because it became overcomplicated arms race,
partly because the design process gets too big a share -- you can
literally win the game on the drawing board.
Ofcourse no point system can protect against idiocy, but a good one will
ensure a well-designed force can get a maximum of, say, 20% edge against
another well-designed, balanced force, even a no-surprises, bog standard
vanilla one.
> And custom force design DOES NOT
Sure. I wouldn't mind such a thing myself. But it doesn't cover everything I
want to do.
> I think judgement, experience, and maturity as a gamer are huge
Just because you use points to compose your initial forces does *not* mean you
have to use (the same) points to gauge victory.
That's another no-points fallacy.
> Experience. Did you quit after the first few times when you got hosed
Actually, a lot of people do. It is a real problem for the sport. Maybe I was
lucky I started back when the skill and equipment gap wasn't quite so
pronounced.
And like most sports, we do have a "points system". It's the
pro/amateur/novice classification system for tournaments.
> Then
Because I loved paintball from the beginning. If my first 6 months had been
real shitty, I probably would have quit. My first game of DSII
*was*
real shitty. Haven't had much interest in it since.
> or accept that (like life) some things take experience to truly
I have no illusions about points. They're a rough estimation tool, that's all.
If I wasn't counting points to estimate a force, I'd be counting men, guns,
tanks, planes, ships, tonnage, whatever. But I'd be counting something.
Which would be just another name for a (very bad) point system.
> Which can be munchkinized or min-maxed by
I have nothing against pre-designs. In fact, I think lack of such is one
of the great failures of DSII. They're a great help for beginners.
The way I see it, player type and what they need from the system:
Beginners, pick-up-and-play value: Predesigned forces and scenarios
Intermediate players, design freaks: Point system, generic scenarios,
guidelines Grand masters, simulationists: No holds barred
Nobody starts as a grand master. Not everyone can have a grand master for
a referee/scenario designer. And many people don't graduate to grand
master without spending time on the intermediate level.
> BTW, can you attempt an english phoenetic tranlation of your name?
MICK-OH (like Mickey but ending in "oh" instead of "ey")
The rest is probably as close as you can get, as I understand that it's
very hard for English-speakers to distinct between vowel lengths.
E.g. "savi" and "saavi" are two totally different Finnish words. E.g. If I
were to spell "key" in Finnish phoenetics, it would be "kii". My name has a
shorter "ki" sound.
> far off as any gaijin westerner trying to pronounce Morihei Ueshiba
Actually, Japanese is easy to pronounce for a Finn. Or don't we count as
westerners?
If you know Japanese, just switch j with y and pronounce Finnish words as if
they were Japanese, and you're not very far off. Except for the sounds
Japanese doesn't have...
> On Tue, 22 Sep 1998, Mikko Kurki-Suonio wrote:
> On Mon, 21 Sep 1998, Thomas Barclay wrote:
> "Once you have experience" is the operative word here. How many games
Playing a game once every three months isn't giving it a fair go. When I buy a
new game system I commit myself to learning it and playing a number of games,
up to one every weekend, over the next couple of months. If I don't have the
time to do this, the inclination, the opponents or any suitable models to
practice with (I was using the micro machine starwars figures to play
stargrunt with for three months before I even bought my first 25mm SciFi
miniature) then I don't buy the rules till I can or am inclined to do this.
> That's two and half *years* of bad experiences (you don't learn unless
I played battletech for two years while at high school before I won games with
any sort of regularity. I continued to play cause I enjoyed the game even
though I had the stuffing knocked out of my mechs every lunchtime. This is how
my brother learnt to play as well, though I like to think I was kinder on him
than the people I played against at lunchtime were on me. If your not prepared
to lose a great number of games while you are learning a new system then I
guess I really have to ask why did you fork out the money to buy it in the
first place???
> Maybe it's my (heretical) background in Car Wars, but I *enjoy*
Designing scenarios can be just as much fun. Ask Owen Glover and his
co-conspirators at the WSWA (Melbourne) if you doubt my words. I'm sure
they got hours of amusement designing that hideously difficult bridge scenario
that I played during their StarGrunt tourney last weekend. Next time I'm going
to bring a dam boat and I don't care what they say;P (Are you reading this
Owen?)
> I also *enjoy* the uncertainty of not knowing what your opponent is
If you are playing a scenario that you didn't design and with hidden victory
conditions you will experience this *enjoyment* as well as a lot of other
feelings as your carefully constructed plan disintegrates into ruin.
> I don't have the luxury of a referee (unless it's me). I get to buy all
Hmmmmm. Read my first paragraph and then contact some other like minded people
through the retail store where you bought the rules from. Just cause your
current gaming group doesn't play a system doesn't mean their aren't other
people around who do.
> And I absolutely hate cardboard counters...
This is a pity cause playing with cardboard counters is great fun (I still use
the cardboard tokens that you got with the BattleTech boxed set, they beat
metal miniatures any day). It is also a cheap way to find out if you want to
buy a game system or not.
I'm going to make a judgement call now and if I'm wrong I apologise to you
before hand, but it sounds like you have been sucked in by the GW marketing
people who's only goal in life is to sell their miniatures and as a result
have corrupted a whole generation of potential wargamers into thinking that
the only way to play is with officially sanctioned miniatures. I suggest that
you might try playing some boardgames like King Maker, The African Campaign,
and other counter based games where the enjoyment comes from beating your
opponent and not from having the most up to date miniature release.
> The issue isn't win-lose, its how well you lead your
> Maybe I should just totally stop playing games I can't play at "pro"
If you did this then you would never have started to play at all, since you
are always a novice when you start to play.
It all comes down to having FUN. If your not having fun then you shouldn't be
playing or you are playing the game wrong. I no longer play 40K cause I no
longer enjoy it. I still play BattleTech cause beating the stuffing out of
mechs is fun. I'm currently play StarGrunt cause it is also fun (bridge
scenarios included).
> You wrote:
> I was just remembering the recent "discussion" on r.g.m.m. The SGII
> ---- kurt wrote:
more generally, it is certainly true that it is more fun to play a game with
unbalanced forces rather than the
two-equal-armies-bash-each-other-to-death game. points
values are useful in that it allows you (that's a
passive you :-) to gauge just how unequal thay are; if
i know that i have 2000 points and my opponent has 6000 points, i can make my
objectives easier (eg, escape with minor losses or cross the board with 50% of
cargo intact).
battles IRL are rarely between equal forces. wars often are, but rarely
battles. a skilled general will ensure that his colonels always have the
advantage when they fight battles. well, he will try.
> ---- schoon wrote:
here is an irrelevant aside:
as i understand it, this used to be true of software, and may still be. when
the scientists at the stanford ai lab developed a new algorithm, they would
build a piece of hardware that implemented it, and patent that. if anyone
copied their software, they could sue for breach of the privileges of the
patent on the hardware.
however, i think with World Intellectual Property Agreement (WIPO) is
about to be / has been signed, and so the law pertaining to this sort of
thing (games included) may all change.
> On Tue, 22 Sep 1998, Mikko Kurki-Suonio wrote:
> "Once you have experience" is the operative word here. How many games
> Playing a game once every three months isn't giving it a fair go. When
Must be nice - you apparently have much more free time than some people,
as do those you play with.
If I
> don't have the time to do this, the inclination, the opponents or any
Unfortunately, this is NOT a realistic alternative for many. Often I only
get to play any kind of game about once every few months - and my main
opponent has about the same amount of time.
<SNIP>
> I don't have the luxury of a referee (unless it's me). I get to buy
> Hmmmmm. Read my first paragraph and then contact some other like
But unfortunately it sometimes DOES mean exactly that. Look, I live in
Anchorage Alaska. There is basically ONE game store in southcentral Alaska,
with 3 locations. (For reference - thats an area almost the size of
TEXAS!) When I went in and ordered FT, MT, DSII, SGII, and finally FTFB
-
each time I was told by the games guy that he had never heard of these
products! Absolutely no chance in hell that anyone else in the area has bought
them from the store. And Peter has been the games guy there since before FTII
was published! So unless people have been buying direct from geohex or GZG,
there's almost no chance of experienced players. I am the
local FT expert - and I have played ONCE! that kind of sucks. the fact
that my wife has a less than stellar view of most gamers doesn't help much
either. But I see her point. The games scene here basically consists of GW
and Magic - and most (not all) of the people who congregate around them
I would not invite into my home...
> And I absolutely hate cardboard counters...
> I'm going to make a judgement call now and if I'm wrong I apologise to
The GW comment is rather low (not directed towards me but it sort of applies)
Let me add my comment on counters - For a game like King Maker they are
fine. I like King Maker. I also like the visual appeal of miniatures (though I
can't paint to save my life). For a miniature game I can't stand
futzing with counters on the table - probably my biggest problem with
DSII
or SGII. Don't like the look, don't like re-locating counters each time
I
move miniatures. No big deal- just a matter of preferences.
> Wayne.
Same applies to my reply
> At 12:52 PM 9/22/98 +0300, you wrote:
> Maybe it's my (heretical) background in Car Wars, but I *enjoy*
Myself, as well. Back in the long-go days when I played Magic, I always
took as much pleasure in building decks as I did in playing the game
itself. And understand--the decks that I designed were not always (or
usually) winning decks! But they were fun.... My Pirate deck? Lost
consistantly. My Infinitely Recursive Rukh Eggs Deck? Won, but only rarely.
And those two were my favorites, constantly fiddled with and fine tuned. I
like being able to do the same sort of things with my Full Thrust fleets, and
my many DSII forces.
Can't do it with Stargrunt, though. Thus, I use Shock Force.
> A preset scenario robs me of these pleasures.
Same here, mostly. If I want to play DSII, then it is all on my shoulders.
Others in my group have painted SF microarmor, but if a game is to be run, I'm
the one doing it. Historicals, on the other hand...well. we have a lot of
people willing to run Napoleonics,or British Colonials.
> And I absolutely hate cardboard counters...
I jusr finished designing a game called "Destroy All Monsters!", for playing
battles between giant monsters (of the sort that are usually portrayed by guys
in rubbber suits). I purposely designed a points system, if a simple one, into
the game, so that players can design their own monsters. Why bother? Because
there is a world of difference between playing a game with forces that have
been assigned to you, and gaming with a force (or big, ugly creature, as the
case may be) that YOU PERSONALLY have designed and painted. It's called pride
of ownership, I think. Whatever it is, I like playing with the aforementioned
assigned forces, but I would rather use MY troops, damn it! It adds so much to
the game, for
me--I have a more personal stake in it, if you know what I mean.
Now, whether my point system is balanced is another story. I don't know yet;
but that's what playtesting is for. Friday night, we shall play the game with
rationally designed Monsters. If time permits, we will then play one with
monsters that have been minimaxed to the point of absurdity, to see how far
the point system can be bent before it snaps.
[quoted original message omitted]
> >>On Tue, 22 Sep 1998, Mikko Kurki-Suonio wrote:
Someone else replied:
> >Playing a game once every three months isn't giving it a fair go.
When I
> >buy a new game system I commit myself to learning it and playing a
I don't have time for that myself. I think someone is losing a distinction
here also. You have to first learn
the rules--then learn how to win under those rules. For example, when I
was six I learned the rules of chess in a week or so, but it took several
years before I could play my father and expect to beat him. I don't mind
spending a year or two learning how to win, if I like the rules; I wouldn't
consider spending a year learning the rules, though.
> >>I'm going to make a judgement call now and if I'm wrong I apologise
To
> the point where they only use offical space wolf, blood angel figures
I can't believe I'm going to do this, but I'm actually going to give a bit
of defense for those players. Back_in_the_day I could field several
different GW armies, one of them was an IG catachan (or some such, jungle
looking guys) army. It was rather large and I could field a full company if I
wished. Almost all were official GW miniatures for that army type with only a
couple of additions that I thought fit the look. Why did I bother? Because
there was a sort of collecting feel to it as well as the play. I only used the
army a couple of times, but I enjoyed 'collecting' the models and painting
them just as much (actually far far far more than) as playing the game. The
same feeling goes into my rather large NAC fleet or my home made (from GW
tyranid bits) Savasku fleet. There is a certain level of satisfaction in
having the 'right' models. I suggest that many on this list suffer from the
same weakness to one level or another. I bet there is more than one person on
the list who can field an entire 'official' GZG style force of one type or
another. Now, are we going to go about thumping on them because they are
buying the 'official' gzg
miniatures? I doubt it. Granted, GW is known for its silly arms race -
but it has toned down a bit the last year or so and much of the scamper for
the latest army has to do with just having the army that no one else has on
the
block , again - a sort of collecting 'I got it you don't' mentality sets
in. In fact, the last two new armies released were less powerful that the
other already in place armies, but the miniatures were really nice.
ick ick ick, I'm apologizing for GW - I'm off to take a shower..... ;)
Allow me to make a few points, I have repented all things GW and I am shocked
at the cash I threw down a bottomless pit of a game system I ALWAYS
hated. I have to admit though, I really wish I still had that IG army -
it looked darn cool.
> As for cardboard counters littering the battle field and using
This is going to make me sound even worse, but the chits are the reason I
could never play DSII. A shame really, it looked like such a good game.
Just give me dice to throw that is all I want.
In a message dated 98-09-24 02:29:00 EDT, you write:
<< Exactly! Learning to win is not an important consideration for me. Learning
to play without constantly consulting the rulebook is. >>
I concure, thats why I gave up on SFB, shure its fun, if you have don't mind
having the rulebook with you at all gaming times, it just bogs the game down
to much. My $.02 Bye Stephen
> >Maybe it's my (heretical) background in Car Wars, but I *enjoy*
The same is true for me, SGII looked like a good game and we gave it a go. It
seemed to play alright with a few problems, but that was expected. It was
probably about mid way through the evening that we decided to put it away. The
fact that it lacked a points system robbed it of just too much. You can always
ignore the points system a game has if you wish, when
designing a scenario or some such - but you can't do the opposite. The
lack of a points system gave me only part of a game with SGII.
For all the arguments brought against points systems it must be remembered
that a game without one can't even try to accomplish what a game can do that
has a point system (good or bad). I remember going to one convention here in
Ohio (USA) about a year or so ago and I ran into one of the list members from
here. We got to talking a bit about Full Thrust and within a
few moments we were dragging out our miniatures (my tyranid/savasku
conversions against his human ships) and had a game going. That game would not
have take place if FT lacked a points system.
If a game has a point system and you don't like it you can ignore it (and thus
you have SGII if you like) or you can change it to fit what you feel is
balanced. Either is much easier than trying to add a points system and then
hope that someone you happen to run into will just happen to agree with you. A
game without a points system is not a complete game and I would not (again)
buy one. Just as now with computer games I would not buy one that is not
playable over the internet. It either has all the basic features I want, or I
spend my money some place else. There are simply too many games on the market
for me to bother with something that doesn't have all the features I want.
The sad thing is that SGII COULD be the giant killer to 40k, but it won't do
it without a points system. That is just the way things are. If GZG wishes to
sell SGII to a wider group then a point system must be included in the next
edition. I don't see how that can be gotten around.
Chad
[quoted original message omitted]
> On Wed, 23 Sep 1998, laserlight wrote:
> I think someone is losing a distinction here also. You have to first
Exactly! Learning to win is not an important consideration for me. Learning to
play without constantly consulting the rulebook is.
> On Wed, 23 Sep 1998, Wayne wrote:
> Playing a game once every three months isn't giving it a fair go.
Tough. It's becoming much harder for new game systems to make an impression.
Maybe they learn the lesson boardgame designers have known for ages: The game
has to accessible.
> I played battletech for two years while at high school before I won
Winning is not important. Learning to play fluidly (i.e. without consulting
the rulebook) is. Learning to set up interesting, balanced games is.
> I continued to play cause I enjoyed the game
How can you know if it's any good if you don't read (buy) it?
I buy maybe 10-20 game systems a year. I guess I collect them. I read
them through, if it impresses me we try it out a couple of times. If it really
impresses us, it might get to be the "focus" game, played biweekly or so. If
not, it's off to the reference book department.
Which is just a fancy word for dust collection duty.
> Designing scenarios can be just as much fun.
Yeah, that's why I GM our RPG sessions. I love scenario and world building.
But I like to actually get to *play* every once in a while.
> If you are playing a scenario that you didn't design and with hidden
Who's going to write it? Ok, I *might* get one off the net that fits my
figure collection. Who's going to referee it? You, over CU-SeeMe? It can
be fun, but it's not the same thing. It's not *my* tank battalion, it's the
scenario designer's battalion.
> Hmmmmm. Read my first paragraph and then contact some other like
I have a clue for you. Check the.sig. Check the address. Where do I live? Is
there a gaming club I could join? No. Does the local shop (note: singular)
have gaming nights where I could meet new opponents? No. Does the shop have a
notice board for players? Yes.
Does it have notices from anyone besides pre-pubescent teens playing GW?
No. How many copies of FT are sold in Finland (entire country)? Half a dozen,
maybe. How many are regularly used? Mine, it appears.
I play with the people in my gaming group because we're friends and enjoy the
same kind of games. They just don't feel like devoting quite as much time,
money and energy into it as I do. Plus the old "I can't paint" excuse.
> This is a pity cause playing with cardboard counters is great fun (I
Yeah, if I could tolerate counters, I'd probably still be playing Squad
Leader.
> It is also a cheap way to find out if you
Cheap? I'm going to use my minis with the game anyway. I do appreciate the
effort though.
> I'm going to make a judgement call now and if I'm wrong I apologise to
If you had followed my postings for any length of time here or on
r.g.m.m.
you'd know you couldn't be farther off the mark.
> I suggest
I don't need to win to have fun. I just need to have a fair chance of winning.
I don't mind being beaten by a better opponent. I don't even mind losing due
to pure chance. But I do mind losing due to never having a chance to begin
with.
(And I'm talking about winning the *game*, not the battle here)
> It all comes down to having FUN. If your not having fun then you
Hey, we agree.
> On Thu, 24 Sep 1998, Glover, Owen wrote:
> Please forgive me if I sound a little slow here; but one of the
I don't agree. FT is simple enough. SGII isn't. I can learn a simple, elegant
system well enough in one go.
> Under these circumstances I dare say Bring'n'Battle is certainly not
Au contraire. It's almost the only way to play. I can say: "We're playing FT
in two weeks. Make sure you have a 2000 point fleet ready." and presto! half
my preparation workload is delegated elsewhere.
The only other way, without a referee/scenario designer, is to use
pre-packaged scenarios -- and SG doesn't score very high in that
department either.
> I'm sorry but I can't see how someone can expect to learn a set of
I don't actually play against strangers, but the ability to do so is what I
expect from a gaming system. I don't have the time to devise, write,
analyze and playtest house rules -- so the game has to playable as
written.
> This is going to make me sound even worse, but the chits are
You need a copy of DSI then, lotta dice, few tables, NO CHITS or COUNTERS its
more FT like than DSII in that you can brain dump the rules after a few plays.
I still play it for those very reasons.
Now its LONG out of print of course. It would be *nice* if perhaps GZG do what
a lot of SW companies do which is to give away an old version of a program on
a magazine in the hope that you will buy the new version. DSI could be easily
given away on the WWW with no cost (all you need is a scanner and some OCR) It
can't at the moment as it would violate the copyright.
[snip]
> As for cardboard counters littering the battle field and using
You don't have to have the counters on the table if you don't want them (with
the exception of ones for hidden stuff like mines, snipers etc.,
which most other rules sets use (or similar) anyway) - as we mention in
the rules, it is perfectly OK to either keep the counters on a unit roster
sheet off the table, or even to dispense with the counters and write the unit
values on the roster sheet. We simply find that having the counter by the unit
or figure makes it much harder to forget (accidentally or even
deliberately - perish the thought....:) exactly what a unit's status is
at that moment. It's all down to personal choice.
[quoted original message omitted]
> -----Original Message-----
Owen Glover responded:
> Please forgive me if I sound a little slow here; but one of the
Sorry, Owen, but I only play DBA/DBM/HoTT a couple times a year--or
less--and I don't have a problem with remembering the rules mechanisms
(and if DBA, DBM and HoTT weren't all slightly different, I'd have even less
problem). I need to keep the combat factors & results page in front of me but
I don't have to flip back and forth. Likewise for FT, just put the
weapon range/to hit/damage information in front of me and I'm in good
shape. Sure, if an unusual situation--e.g. boarding--comes up I'll have
to hunt for it, but it just doesn't happen that often. Rules should, in my
opinion, be transparent. The purpose is to give you the feel of commanding a
battle, not the feel of doing a research paper.
"Increased realism" at the cost of playabilty is NOT increasing realism
because a real commander wouldn't have to worry about finding the exception
to section III.B.7.j.iv--he'd be worried about that enemy coming around
the flank, and are there enough reserves to deal with them?
Of course, not everyone agrees with this--someone must have been
buying Advanced Squad Leader.
> On Wed, 23 Sep 1998, Jared E Noble wrote:
> "Once you have experience" is the operative word here. How many games
> Playing a game once every three months isn't giving it a fair go.
When I
> buy a new game system I commit myself to learning it and playing a
> Must be nice - you apparently have much more free time than some
Opps....I should have pointed out that I bought most of my new games when I
was at high school/University and could put aside one day of the weekend
for gaming and it was easy to find people who were interested in playing. I
think in the last two years the only new system I have bought is StarGrunt and
I guess I bought it knowing I could organise my time so that I coud play on
the weekends cause I am back at university doing a course. That also makes it
easy to find people to play against.
> Unfortunately, this is NOT a realistic alternative for many. Often I
True...I think I should have cast my mind a little bit further back in time to
when I was working a rotating shift and didn't play much.
> .... contact some other like minded people through the retail store
> But unfortunately it sometimes DOES mean exactly that. Look, I live in
Being from a country town in Australia, I can understand your problem (though
it isn't as bad as your situation). From personal experience I find most
people in this situation do use mail order as their main source of gaming
material. I was lucky to have a small group of people who roleplayed and
wargamed where I lived so it wasn't all a lost cause.
> And I absolutely hate cardboard counters...
> I'm going to make a judgement call now and if I'm wrong I apologise to
> The GW comment is rather low (not directed towards me but it sort of
Hmmmmm.....I think I'm going to get into trouble for that comment.... Putting
it in context, I'm a little fed up with my local 40K players and their need to
have the most up to date, offically sanctioned figures. To the point where
they only use offical space wolf, blood angel figures in their squads.
(there's no such thing as a generic space marine model in their armies) I hope
they grow up sometime soon and then I might start playing 40K again.
As for cardboard counters littering the battle field and using cardboard
tokens in stead of miniatures, I see them as just part of playing wargames and
don't get to annoyed when they distract from the aesthetic appeal of
the table/game. Dice do that already so it seems a litle pointless
getting annoyed at some counters on the table as well.
> On Thu, 24 Sep 1998, Glover, Owen wrote:
> If you say that FT is
I guess I lack your mighty mental powers then.
> OK, I fibbed, I almost give up. Sorry, I'm sure your argument in a
Not
> Bring'n'Battle by your earlier definition.
Eh? I have always regarded "B'n'B" style to include a points value limit
agreed upon prior to the game, be it 5 days or 5 minutes, and ideally no other
conditions. This does include the "Out of the miniatures you brought with you,
construct a X pts. force" style, though I dislike the waste of gaming time.
Must apologize for not being clearer on this.
> I get the impression you are back
Back? This has always been about points.
> The sad thing is that SGII COULD be the giant killer to 40k, but it
> Chad
It was Jon T's decision not to include a points system in SGII. It was based
on a number of reasons, one of which was that we ran out of space (!!). It was
mainly borne out of a feeling that points systems lead to "power gaming".
Anyhow, if the nub of the problem is that you want an easy way to put together
a quick game, then why not do what commanders have to do in real life? In SGII
the player is at most in the role of a company commander (more usually a
platoon commander). He has the troops he has been given. No more, no less. He
MIGHT get some support assets if higher thinks he needs them and they are
available, but it all depends.
So, two players want a game. Each brings along their current force. You've got
three understength platoons against my elite platoon? OK, you're guarding this
installation and I've got to attack it... Result instant game
- and no need for a points system.
Rarely will forces be equal _by any form of measurement_ So what? Thats
real life....
Perhaps its too close to real life for comfort.
My views, not official GZG.
Mike Elliott
________________________________________________________________________
___
> At 01:03 PM 9/24/98 +0100, Mike Elliott wrote:
<snip>
> Anyhow, if the nub of the problem is that you want an easy way to put
You've
> got three understength platoons against my elite platoon? OK, you're
If this is how y'all think games should be organized, then why not cook up a
"standardized" method of generating a half dozen basic scenarios to
facilitate pick-up games.
In Charlie Company for example, they give the basic outline of squad, platoon
and company level assets available "on paper" for both the US Army and Marine
Corps during each year of the Vietnam war and then guidelines for rolling
randomly to see what you really have in the field. (Like
1D6+4
men in a squad, 1d10 LAW rockets, 25% chance of a support weapon, maximum of 1
per squad, whatever... something similar would be a good format for an "GZG
Official Background" SG reference ala the FT Fleetbook) I'd take it as a given
that no force in the field will ever be at full "on paper" strength AND fully
equipped AND have experienced troops...not for long anyway.
Then outline several basic scenarios; "Two patrols running into each
other", "Sweeping a guerrilla-held village", "Raid on a supply dump",
etc. Outline the objectives and basic force level parameters like you did
above "Defender gets three understrength platoons, attacker gets a reinforced
company." Cook in some basic modifiers like "Low on supplies, -1 on
rolls
for support weapons" or "Low tech defenders: +1d4 recruits with rifles",
"NSL gets 1d4 PA troops" or whatever.
If you come up with enough scenarios, you could cobble together a framework
for a campaign; "Play 'Scenario 1' then either 'Scenario 2 or 4' depending on
the outcome. Then play 'Scenario 5'; loser of 2 or 4 gets benefits of 'Raw
Recruits' while winner gets 'Short on Supplies'". And so on...
Give folks a framework in which to play that allows them to get past the
force design, min-maxing, point-counting stage and pick up games between
strangers with minimum preparation will be not only possible, but quick, easy
and fun.
And why can't they do it themselves, you may ask? Because unfortunately, if
it's not written down in a rule book somewhere, then it is subject to debate
and gamers (being gamers) will spend more time arguing force composition and
scenario parameters that playing the game.
> John Crimmins wrote:
Any chance you might post those rules?
In a message dated 9/24/98 10:29:43 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
> jjarrard@ford.com writes:
> John Crimmins wrote:
Yes please, I went out and bought a Godzilla figure collection for a DSII
battle and have not played DSII since. I'd like to see the stats you came up
with if you don't mind sharing.
Was that the game that was played Saturday night at Gen-Con earlier this
month? It looked like you guys were having a lot of fun.
Kent
> ----------
> Jeff wrote:
[snip]
> If this is how y'all think games should be organized, then why not cook
depending
> on the outcome. Then play 'Scenario 5'; loser of 2 or 4 gets benefits
This, in theory at least, sounds good. It would need a lot of very careful
thought and planning to put into practice, because it wouldl have to be
generic enough to be useful with most forces that players will have available,
heowever that isn't to say it couldn't be done. The main thing that I've
gathered from the recent discussion is not that we need a points systems for
its own sake, but that what is needed is a way of at least
> Jon (GZG) writes:
I would be happy with this. I also recognise the impulse to "build the
best XXX point force" in my spare time. As someone said - there lies
madness.
> This, in theory at least, sounds good. It would need a lot of very
I for one would be very interested in such a non-point based system.
Though I have used point systems in the past, I find that in my experience the
players play to the point system, not the game. While optimizing the forces is
certainly understandable, it does shift the emphasis from learning the
strategy and tactics of the game to victory through ruthless exploitation of
the points system. For example, I've observed this in BattleTech, Full Thrust,
and the various permutations of the WRG Ancients rules.
My solution, at least in Full Thrust, is to use the pregenerated ships in the
rules. These are not maximized (or so my players complain), but rarely is real
life military hardware. It is often (at least in the US) a product of
political compromise and expediency rather than strict military needs. As much
as possible, I try to set a series of linked scenarios against the backdrop of
an ongoing campaign, often without the players knowing they are particpating
(I run the campaign for my own amusement: don't have to worry about getting
folks to turn in moves, or replacing them when they drop out). Anyway, then I
assign fleets to the players i.e., whomever shows up (the more realistic
option: few Commodores, in real life or SF get to
custom design their squadrons/task forces/fleets), or give them a pool
of predesigned ships to draw from. Once chosen, they are stuck with them.
Am I anti-custom design? Nope. More power to those who enjoy it. Just
that I don't have the time and energy to check each player's design, fuss and
fight with the designer of the rejected ships, as well as design/referee
the games.
Anyway, just my two francs worth...
> Jon (GZG) writes:
This sounds like a very good system - instead of mucking around with
points values - and probably having to list _every_ weapon, system, etc
used in SG2, just have a page or two of tables - start with 'Roll dX+X
for force size...etc' and go on from there.
Jeff, do you want to expand on your original suggestion & post, say, sample
tables or something?
Later,
> At 12:21 PM 9/24/98 -0700, Brian Burger wrote:
> >Jeff
OK, I admit defeat (and I only just started). But wouldn't the easiest way to
accomplish the above be to use a points system? After all, how can you get
more generic than a points system? So, does this mean that you intend to
remove the points system from FT or DS on the same theory?
Chad
> Mike.Elliott@bull.co.uk wrote:
This can be a justification for the classic method of scenario construction:
Player A designs the scenario. Player B gets to pick which side they play.
( from the classic method of evenly dividing a piece of pie, Sally divides it
and Davy gets first pick)
> chadtaylor wrote:
> OK, I admit defeat (and I only just started). But wouldn't the
Actually a point system usually has to be very specific to be worthwhile.
Each factor - range, penetration, power, ammo, armor, movement, type of
movement etc. needs to be evaluated and assigned a value then the unit's value
tabulated. A generic system on the other hand allows people to say here are 4
heavy tanks, a similar armed force would be X, Y and Z. The down
side is when you play with people who are nit-picky as in "well your
tank has one more armor factor on the front side so really my 4 heavy tanks
are a lot worse and I should get another tank to even things out". Reasonable
people should be able to agree to things like that, otherwise you get bogged
down in counting points, and unless the designer has tested each and every
possibility of weapons vs. armor at various ranges under various conditions,
there are bound to be weapons which are over/under rated.
One of the problems in converting skirmish games to point values is that it is
extremely difficult to correctly assign values, since in reality the value of
the
weapon is how you use it - i.e. a 100 point light machine gun may be
worth
more or less than 100, 1 point pistols - if the combat range is in
hundreds of yards then the pistols will lose, if it is dense jungle and the
LMG is attacked
from multiple directions at close range, the pistols will win. How then would
you equilibrate the values? Are pistols worth less than 1 because they have no
long range capability? Are LMG's worth less than 100 because they can only
cover 1 arc at a time? What happens if you get multiple LMG's, does the price
go up for each additional one, even if they aren't placed together? Does ammo
become a consideration? an LMG with one round is much less valuable than 100
pistols with one round each. Do big weapons get unlimited ammo? Does each
additional ammo cost extra? and how much? Is a weapon used by different units
costed the same way? (i.e. a sniper rifle in the hands of a sniper would be
much more effective than in the hands of a mob) Is portability an issue?
Easily transported items would have to cost more or might that be offset by
differences in range, ammo or penetration? Imagine having to do this for each
and every
weapon system available - from a pocket knife to plasma cannon and
determining how troop types, terrain, range, penetration value, area effect
value, morale value all effect each weapon and then trying them out to make
sure that the point values are correct. I merely point to GW to show what
unbalanced points can do. It's not totally GW's fault, but they don't test the
systems hard enough to figure out what really creative and enthused players
will do for an edge.
FT, especially FT/FB alleviates this in that a) there is minimal terrain
and
movement types, b) there are only two types of damage - normal and stuff
that bypasses screens, and c) there are basically 2 types of weapons ones
that roll dice based on range and those that roll a to-hit then roll
damage.
FT/FB simplifies stuff and it is evident that if you nit-picked some
things would not be realistic (i.e. a heavy freighter with a PDS should not be
able to destroy a Superdread with Firecons and engines out, but given enough
turns the PDS will be able to destroy the SD by rolling enough 6's) You can
still
min\max in FT/FB but it's less obvious and the advantages are much less.
So
I would suspect that most of the points have been equilibrated in FT/FB
and it won't need much more tweaking in the future.
Some fuel for the fire.
--Binhan
> In a message dated 9/24/98 10:29:43 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
I just finished them off last week, and have not had a chance to actuallt
playtest them yet. If all goes well, I'll be doing that tomorrow night. If the
game is, in fact, playable I shall post it on my (currently empty) web page,
along with some pictures.
The game mechancics are based, in a vague sort of fashion, on the Shock
Force rules--attacks are resolved with handfulls of opposed d6 rolls.
The only real goal that I had was to make a system that was easy, fast, and
playable, while avoiding the use of any charts or chits. The monsters
themselves will be big 25mm figures; mostly old D&D monsters, and some
Grenadier Cthulhu figures.
This all came about because I used Bartertown--an online site for people
who want to trade GW figs--to accumulate a ton of the old cardboard
buildings from Space Marine. I have enough, when used with Geo-Hex
Cityscape Cloth, to cover a BIG table with urban terrain. I am really looking
forward to being able to do DSII on this table....
> Lon writes:
This, in theory at least, sounds good. It would need a lot of very careful
thought and planning to put into practice, because it wouldl have to be
generic enough to be useful with most forces that players will have available,
heowever that isn't to say it couldn't be done. The main thing that I've
gathered from the recent discussion is not that we need a points systems for
its own sake, but that what is needed is a way of at least
roughly balancing ad-hoc games; how many people would be happy with
achieving this in a non-points-based way, such as suggested here?
Jon (GZG)
Well, I have never used a points system in any GZG game I've played, and I've
played a few. That reflects more on the players, than the system, though. I've
always played with the 'Bring what's painted, and we'll whip something up'
plan. But again, the players are all big military history
&
military-SF fans, so coming up with ideas is not hard.
Any point system needs to make the decision between being a 'historical'
system, in which items are costed by availability, not performance, and a
'generic' system, in which performance is the only factor. Both would be the
better way to go, but probably the most time consuming. They would not
be compatible - Historical for 'official' battles, generic for 'bring
all your 25mm' battles. It wouldn't stop me from buying the game, but I would
rather see the time & effort used to produce more Orders of Battle for the
'Official GZG Universe', and minis (of course!). A 'points' system based
on a variable OB would be a great add-on - I think it would help the
newer players a lot. And a random scenario generator (Player A v. Player B
dispositions, support available, etc.). It could end up being very random, but
eventually it would be used to spark ideas, as opposed to roll dice.
> On Thu, 24 Sep 1998, Ground Zero Games wrote:
> This, in theory at least, sounds good. It would need a lot of very
I've always been for generic scenarios. Go for it. However, balancing
something like this ("Roll up your troops") is very difficult. We must
remember that Charlie Company is *very* different in style -- it's
players vs. GM, and the GM can adjust the scenario *midgame* without the
players noticing, simply by adding or removing hidden VC forces.
> The main thing
Is there something particularly wrong with PhilP's point system? Couldn't it
be used as a starting point?
[quoted original message omitted]
> On Thu, 24 Sep 1998, Nyrath the nearly wise wrote:
> This can be a justification for the classic method
If it just were this easy. A slice of pie is much easier to eyeball than
a SG squad.
It also kills the surprise factor and design fun.
This is a fundamental problem with "bidding systems" too. They assume that
every bidder can make a fairly accurate value appraisal. In reality, the less
experienced players just get screwed twice.
I've been following this discussion and it make me wonder.
How many opponents are involved? What are the sizes of their forces? How do
you set the terrain? How much time do you normally have to setup, play and
tear down?
Given answers to these, I think I could come up with a set of scenario cards
with out using a point system.
Also, as I play historical minis, there are a wealth of scenario
books/articles, some dealing with random forces. If you can find it,
Try "Programmed Wargames Scenarios" and "Scenarios for Wargames" by Charles
Stewart Grant and published by WRG
Michael Brown
PS or try the mini-campaign on my web site
http://www.wco.com/~mkkabrow/Rebel1.HTM
----------
From: Mikko Kurki-Suonio
Sent: Friday, September 25, 1998 7:11 AM
To: FTGZG-L@bolton.ac.uk
Subject: Re: [MISC] [OT] Bring and Battle
> On Thu, 24 Sep 1998, Nyrath the nearly wise wrote:
> This can be a justification for the classic method
If it just were this easy. A slice of pie is much easier to eyeball than
a SG squad.
It also kills the surprise factor and design fun.
This is a fundamental problem with "bidding systems" too. They assume that
every bidder can make a fairly accurate value appraisal. In reality, the less
experienced players just get screwed twice.
I'm coming out of lurker mode for a moment here because 1) I was also puzzled
by the below statement on relative complexity, and 2) I think there is an
important factor being overlooked.
> -----Original Message-----
The point I think that has been overlooked regarding how easy or hard a system
is to learn is: my interest. I have owned all three GZG games for a couple of
years. I play SGII lots, have played FT once (at a con), and DSII once (at a
con). FT appears to be a simpler mechanic than SGII, but I found SGII easier
to learn and get started in than FT because I am more interested in land
warefare than space, naval, or air battle. As a result,
I have 3 painted platoons of SGII figs (including sci-fi lizards) with
about 4 more platoons waiting for paint, and nothing painted for FT (although
I have bought some ships).
I have seen this same pattern in myself and others through the years. I am
willing to play anything: historical, fantasy, sci-fi, RPG, computer,
(no cards please <g>); including naval, land, space, and air battle. However,
I am only willing to invest money and time in an army for periods and modes of
battle that really interest me. The result is that all of my armies
(historical and sci-fi) are er... armies (i.e.,land based).
I think the bottom line of all this is the reasons we choose to game in
certain periods with certain rules are far more complex than anyone who has
contributed to this thread has acknowledged.
Sorry, I couldn't stay quiet any longer. No offense intended to anyone, and
I'll go back to lurking now.:)
> ---- mikko wrote:
this is fine for two players, but gets complicated with more than one. really
complicated. PhD's have been done on this problem.
> It also kills the surprise factor and design fun.
true, but it works with bring + battle. if you'll excuse the pun, you
can't have your cake and eat it.
> This is a fundamental problem with "bidding systems" too. They assume
how about teaming up a veteran with a novice: mentoring is a highly effective
way to learn. the novice doesn't get screwed and learns quickly, the veteran
gets someone to do the grunt work (moving figures,
etc) and get the coffee / fizzy pop / beer in. many experts enjoy
teaching occasionally as it gives them a chnce to show off.
alternatively, you could allocated sides randomly. the scenario designer (who
is going to be one of the players) would have an incentive to design a fair
scenario, as otherwise he would have a 50% chance of being screwed himself.
> On Sun, 27 Sep 1998 tom.anderson@altavista.net wrote:
> ---- mikko wrote:
When you have more than 2 players, I think it helps alot just to pair up
into 2 teams with one commander making the initial decisions -- picking
troops/scenery, devising a strategy, directing a subordinate to move and
such. If another player doesn't like the decisions the commander makes, stuff
it. Your turn will be coming up soon.
I realize that this method takes a leap of faith, but seems to work rather
well in my 2 weekly groups (neither, sad to say, are playing GZG games right
now). We also play with limited control, so the commander can make
a general order, but the player interprets that order as s/he please. I
can see a problem if you have people in your group with overactive egos.
However, it really is the only way to go when you're playing a wargame with 6
to 8 people playing regularly.
> Tom <tom.anderson@altavista.net> wrote:
Another alternative is a team scenario. You and a friend face an
implacable horde of hideous foes (Bugs/Aliens/Kra'vak/Orcs) flooding
onto the battle field. Whatever you bring is OK. The implacable horde's goal
is to get to the other side of the table. If together, you are slowing or have
stopped the horde, and have some survivors, then you've both won! With this,
there is no need for a balancing points cost. The balance is provided by the
horde being larger than either team member's forces.
> On Sun, 27 Sep 1998 tom.anderson@altavista.net wrote:
> this is fine for two players, but gets complicated with more than one.
Yes. That's why I didn't propose it.
> true, but it works with bring + battle. if you'll excuse the pun, you
Yes I can. I can have a secret design bring'n'battle in FT. I can have it in
FR! I can even have it in DSII once some factors are locked down (and I
don't mean terrain -- I mean leadership ratings which are not costed).
Why is it so bloody hard for SGII?
> how about teaming up a veteran with a novice: mentoring is a highly
Doesn't really work with two players, now does it? See, you're assuming a
large club with large player base again. Some of us just don't have it.
P.S. Is there something wrong with you shift-key?
W. spake thusly upon matters weighty:
> I realize that this method takes a leap of faith, but seems to work
I
> can see a problem if you have people in your group with overactive
Fraid I can't agree. I've seen and done this one on and off for years now. In
our groups, we either have people excercising there own dominion and 'doing
their own thing' (which is sometimes chaotic but often entertaining) or we
have leadership by consensus of plan. No single person on a side necessarily
MUST be given the right ot call
the plays - it is possible for everyone to contribute and help in the
decision making process. It is also possible for the dissatisfied to ignore
'Royal Proclamations' and do their own 'best judgement' actions anyway. In
short, there are more ways under Heaven and Earth, Horatio, than that one way
of organizing siz to eight people. Depends a lot on your players.
:) Tom.
/************************************************