In message <850490734.54840.0@basil.acs.bolton.ac.uk> "Joseph A. Noll" writes:
> > What other fertile SF genres are there? Car duelling? Unfeasable
Funny that you should mention Heavy Gear, it strikes a chord with one or two
things that have been on the list here, as well as the musing of an Australian
fellow that was sent to me privately. I would recopy what he wrote to the
list, but that would be extremely rude to him.
Anyway the point was: could GZG games ever have been written by an American? I
don't want a nationality flame war here, but I say not.
Heavy Gear is a (North) American game that nicely represents what
the publishers Dream Pod Nine's fellow-Canadian Allan Goodall was
saying about what distributors and shops like about games over in (North)
America.
For those who don't know it Heavy Gear is, at heart, a pretty smart little
mecha game... which has been bloated into a dreadfully
over-written RPG-cum-skirmish game with a titanically overblown
design system for all the minimax spods to slaver over. The fat,
square-bound rules are also hideously done-over by some graphic-
design-reject (but *very* nicely illustrated). The game is
"supported" by a constant stream of pointless and expensive glossy supplements
churned out by the design team. Like, you can buy "field guides" containing,
maybe, twenty mecha, half of which are completely useless (being obselescent
designs, or construction 'gears or whatever) and most of the rest being minor
varients on the designs in the basic rules. Many of the designs in the guides
for the two power blocks, North and South, are functionally identicle, but
feature in both supplements.
Value-for-money, it is not.
GZG simply doesn't work like this. It can't work like this... as a
one-man-band JMT physically couldn't churn out all the pointless
bullshit to generate the required quantity of product drivel.
...Gotta love that man...
> Anyway the point was: could GZG games ever have been written by an
Hold on there, buckaroo!! It seems to me that a little company called
Microgames back in the old days produced a game called OGRE which remains one
of the
all-time most fun game systems to muck around with! OGRE with it's
sibling GEV are an exellent way of simulating a wide battle front with all the
occompanying support units!! For the LOW<LOW cost of $5 at the time, it was
probably the best game I ever spent money on....
> Anyway the point was: could GZG games ever have been written by an
I agree. No American could have ever written:
2057 Britain, Canada and the United States unite under the Crown and create
the [New] Anglican Confederation. Admiral Dewsbury appointed Lord Governor of
the territory previously known as the United States of America.
This reminds me of a joke:
Q: How many Centauri does it take to change a light bulb?
A: Just one. But in the grand old days of the Republic, 10,000 servants would
have leaped to change a thousand light bulbs at our slightest whim.
Hmmm...a rather obtuse point of view: Fire & Fury They Died For Glory Legacy
of Glory The Sword & The Flame Tactica Armati Drums of War Desperado Johnny
Reb Washington's Wars Any of the Canadian Wargaming Products(French & Indian,
War of 1812 & Medieval)...all decent rules sets with original ideas without
scads of modules to waste money on...I sure some of the died in wool SciFi
types could provide some some SciFi rules...and who are those GW people
anyway? Lost Americans?
> Anyway the point was: could GZG games ever have been written by an
Good point. In fact, these days, it would be nice if Great Britain ALONE
could unite under the crown. :-)
----------
> From: David Brewer <db-ft@westmore.demon.co.uk>
writes:
> > > What other fertile SF genres are there? Car duelling? Unfeasable
Well just by saying you don't want one doesn't mean that your comments wont
start one.
> Heavy Gear is a (North) American game that nicely represents what
I have watched closely the development of HG from it's birth and I can tell
you that yes supplements are nesessary for this game. BTW it wouldn't hurt GZG
to put out a few more supplements of it's own.
> For those who don't know it Heavy Gear is, at heart, a pretty smart
Whoa there, IMHO the design system is pretty nifty. It is open-ended
enough to be generic within the genere of the game but rewards SENSIBLE
vehical design. This is done through cost and lemon dice.
The fat,
> square-bound rules are also hideously done-over by some graphic-
I love those Illistrations, and do agree that the computer graphics are
sometimes a bit much. And I hate no color maps.
The game is
> "supported" by a constant stream of pointless and expensive glossy
Okay I use most of the design varients in my senerios, including the MP
variants and the Engineering Gears. Let me get one thing strait here the
concept behind HG is not only a game but a story arc, that allows players to
be interactive withing the said story arc. It's sort of like Bablyon 5, but
you are a player within that universe. You see the supplements lay down the
ground work and advance the storyline within the game. Each of the movers and
shakers of the Story Arc are represented and though you could play one it is
generaly the practice that you will have limited interation with them if at
all. But what you will have interation with is the results of thier decisions
and activities. When I by a HG product I don't feel cheated I feel that I am
getting another part of the storyline along with an expansion of the rules. I
don't feel cheated at all. BTW, DP9 products are right in the mainstream for
pricing here in the USA, so I wouldn't call them expensive, just status quo.
> Value-for-money, it is not.
Matter of opinion.
> GZG simply doesn't work like this. It can't work like this... as a
Well GZG and DP9 are putting out two totaly differnt games in two totaly
different generas. JMT seems to have a hands off approach to product
development, by allowing the players to have free reighn (sp?) within his
rules, I really like this about his games. DP9 Takes a different appoach and
has put down a congruent story line for the players to adventure in.
They want you to play in thier universe, by thier rules, many good
roleplaying/minatures games have done this. I find nothing wrong with
it.
> ...Gotta love that man...
He is on my miniature game designers god list right along with Arty Conliffe
Rick Haesauser Jim Getz Scott Bowden and for his OB's alone Nafziger. there
are others..but no more time.
JNoll
> --
> From: Rukesh Korde <rkorde@dolphin.upenn.edu>
...
> I agree. No American could have ever written:
Because it's too much of a British Monarchists wet dream. It's insane, and
silly where not crazy. The rest of the background is alright enough, but the
NAC is ludicrous.
> From: Rukesh Korde <rkorde@dolphin.upenn.edu>
Actually, another great game which is let down by it's background is Ogre.
Love both it and FT, but the implausability of both histories just leave me
cold.
Now, Space 1889. THERE was a damn fine game for the Anglophile in all of us!
(Well in me, at any rate).
John "Born in Manchester, 1962" Kovalic
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
|
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
********************************************************
"This must be Thursday. I never COULD get the hang of Thursdays"
- Arthur Dent
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
* "Wild Life": a Web comic --
*
> >> 2057 Britain, Canada and the United States unite under the
I don't have my book handy, but doesn't this happen after most of the US in
under control of canada anyway? (that's the gist of what I got briefly
scanning the history part of the book...)
> Anyway the point was: could GZG games ever have been written by an
banzaiiiiiiii!!!!!!
> It seems to me that a little company called Microgames back in the
Agreed there. 'Cept I got mine for $2.95. ;-) I'm holding in one hand
my copy from eons gone by... :-)
Mk "gee it's hard to type one-handed!!"
At 3:44 PM 12/13/96, Rukesh Korde wrote:> >
> This reminds me of a joke:
Q: How many Markab does it take to change a lightbulb
A: Both of them
> At 03:48 PM 12/13/96 GMT, David Brewer wrote:
<<snipped a lot of true stuff about Heavy Gear>>
Yeah, that's basically it. Funny enough, my local game stores tell me that
it's more popular now than when it first came out due to all the supplements
out for it. There seems to be a critical mass point at which people say,
"There's a lot of stuff out for this game, it must be good."
On the other hand, the base system looks fine. The Gear figures sell locally
for C$5 to C$8. Full Thrust ships sell for C$10 to C$12. This may not be a
good comparison since Heavy Gear figures are sold locally (I saw them at
GenCon selling for US$5 to US$8 which didn't make them worth buying for
Canadians). There is about the same amount of lead in a Gear as a fair size FT
ship. The Gear are modelled in 20mm, which makes them unfeasable but less
ridiculous than most mecha games. I'd probably buy some if I didn't already
have a tonne of lead waiting to be painted.
I've been waiting to see the Heavy Gear infantry and (supposedly upcoming)
vehicles to see if they would work with SG2.
> At 03:53 PM 12/13/96 +0000, you wrote:
Ah, Ogre. It was a great game to play with your idiot friend who couldn't win
a game more complex than checkers. Give him the big tank, you take all those
other counters. Even with your idiot friend behind the big tank, the game was
a challenge.
The only reason I didn't complete with my Space Marine to Ogre Miniatures
conversion was that I picked up DS2. Ogre is better at doing large
Ogre-type
vehicles (surprise surprise), but DS2 seems to handle more conventional forces
better.
Anyone played Ogre Miniatures enough to compare it to DS2?
> At 04:09 PM 12/13/96 EST, you wrote:
For the record, these are _Habitants and Highlanders_, _Rockets Red
Glare_,
and _Flower of Chivalry_ respectively. Don't forget _Legendary Battles_
and
_Great Battles of World War 2: The Canadians in Europe_.
You might also want to add _Volley and Bayonets_.
...all decent rules sets with original ideas without scads of
> modules to waste money on...I sure some of the died in wool SciFi types
> could provide some some SciFi rules...
There's the original _Striker_, _Soldiers Companion_, and BattleLust
(fantasy/Dark Ages).
> At 05:29 PM 12/13/96 -0600, John Kovalic wrote:
Yeah, the Ogre background was a bit far fetched, but not much more than most
SF games. The Renegade Legion background was pretty dopey, too.
> Now, Space 1889. THERE was a damn fine game for the Anglophile in all
Except for the Britain versus Prussia angle, which was ahistorical. Germany
didn't become Britain's main opponent until just before WWI. At the end of the
19th century, Britain was more focused on France and Russia (ironically, the
same two countries that became their allies before the Great War). We've been
running a Space 1889 scenario (using GURPS) for about 4 or 5 years now. We've
had to fix some of the real politics that was going on at the time.
Other than that, I agree with you. Mind you, my character is William
"Wullie" McKay, steam engineer, would-be gunslinger and very Scottish
person.
> John "Born in Manchester, 1962" Kovalic
> At 03:39 PM 12/13/96 -0800, Brian Lojeck wrote:
Ah, that's the REALLY unbelievable part. I mean, the US under the control of
Canada? Give me a break. We Canadians wouldn't have them. (Grin, duck)
Hey, it was a joke! :-)
> At 11:44 PM 13/12/96 -0500, you wrote:
> Ah, that's the REALLY unbelievable part. I mean, the US under the
Wouldn't have them? Wouldn't want them is more like it:) (Diving for cover)
Well maybe New Mexico and Washington but the others, nah <Grin>
In message <vines.sKx7+3MQgmA@bantst.ml.com> FTGZG-L@bolton.ac.uk
writes:
> Hmmm...a rather obtuse point of view:
I admit there are plenty of counter-examples but...
> Fire & Fury
...like you hint at, they are historical. JMT comes IMHO from the same
tradition as the historical crowd, cheap, small press rules that you can use
interchangably with your forces.
SF and fantasy games come generally from a fantasy RPG tradition of creating
an official fantasy background and leading player around them by the nose and
selling them official figures.
It's not so easy to include a lavish and constantly expanding
design-system when you're putting together, say, a battalion of
Napoleonic infantry.
..."I think we should redesign the men to mass 200 kgs each, and run at four
times the usual speed, terribly expensive but since their move exceeds weapon
ranges we needn't give them any muskets, just knives. The increased mass
should cover cases where the French have
re-armed with super-extended range rifles from the 1812 technical
readout. I don't think he owns it anyway."...
> and who are those GW people anyway?
*sigh*
You got me on that one. How embarassing. They learnt from TSR and sent it all
back with official miniatures added in spades.
> In message <B0000089554@urza.n-space.com> "Mike Wikan" writes:
OK. So, who makes cheap SF mini-games these days? I'd love to find
out that I'm wrong about American games these days... obviously I only see
what gets imported.
In message <199612140444.XAA01768@smtp1.sympatico.ca> Allan Goodall writes:
> >modules to waste money on...I sure some of the died in wool SciFi
Don't know the last, am I right in saying the second was a Space:1889
derivative? It seems SF wargames generally come attached to an RPG, to drawn
in crossover sales of background material.
(Irony note: we're all waiting on JMT's B5 game rules, attached to an SF RPG.)
I did get my hands on Striker once. It's from the original black-book
Traveller days. I haven't seen StrikerII... but I'll wager it's a
bigger, squarer-bound, more illustrated, fatter book with a larger
typeface than the original... and as for outrageous design systems, can the
original Striker *ever* be beaten?
I gave it a look-over we were playing DirtSide (one). No contest.
> Because it's too much of a British Monarchists wet dream. It's
To warm for ya down here, eh?
:-)
Mk
> John "Born in Manchester, 1962" Kovalic
Ya know, y'all be scary guys being born way back then.
Mk "Born in Ravenna, 1962"
> Ah, that's the REALLY unbelievable part. I mean, the US under the
> Wouldn't have them? Wouldn't want them is more like it :) (Diving for
We'll throw in Kansas and Nebraska for free. No, really, take 'em! It'll save
me grief, pain, and misery next time I drive across the country...
:-)
Mk
> On Fri, 13 Dec 1996 15:48:00 GMT, you wrote:
> Funny that you should mention Heavy Gear, it strikes a chord with
Thanks for the courtesy David, I logged on and got, 50 messages ROTFL!
you have made a good point. but I have a better one which an ENGLISHMAN
(preferably a Yorkshireman doing a Geoffrey Boycott impersonation, if you can
find one!) should make:
Which was the first set of simple rules to come out to cater for the jaded
wargamer? before fire and fury before all the others?
DBA! is the progenitor of all these!
BTW you may find it amusing to note I am infact a dual national I also am an
American and I know how difficult it is to reason with an American one you
have pushed his patriotic button.
Where else would a naional competition have a baseball world championship?
It's hard to get a lot of?US folks to look at things from a
non-american perspective.
Well with reference to the Bob Blanchett's "Where else would a national
competition have a baseball world championship" where else but in Britain
do you get world championships on Pooh-Sticks and Conkers??
Cheers, Martin
> >>John "Born in Manchester, 1962" Kovalic
Bloody Yanks, no sense of the Grande Production.
Alexander "Born in Atlanta, 1972 and thinking of recreating Sherman's
> In message <vines.sKx7+3MQgmA@bantst.ml.com> FTGZG-L@bolton.ac.uk
Actually, I'm working with Arty Conliffe on a fantasy version of Armati.
Hopefully a 1997 release, tantatively called "Fantasi."
> At 06:52 AM 12/14/96 GMT, David Brewer wrote:
Yes, you are right. In fact, BattleLust is a skirmish miniatures set derived
from the Harn RPG. So you're three for three.
> I did get my hands on Striker once. It's from the original black-book
Different scale. Striker was mostly the same scale as SG2. It wasn't bad (for
the time) but had a serious deficiency since it lacked a book of sample
vehicles. Striker II is, indeed, "a bigger, squarer-bound, more
illustrated, fatter book with a larger typeface than the original". It's based
on the
_Combined Arms_ game system. As such, it LOOKS like it should be a DS2
"replacement" but it only really works in the same scale as SG2. I'd rather
play the GZG games than Striker II.
> Allan Goodall wrote:
IIRC, Canada was supposed to have helped with the 'pacification,' but I don't
think they controlled the US. Didn't the three combine all at once when the
NAC was formed? If is *does* say that Canada controlled the US, where is it
(so I can add it to my combined history)?
> Rukesh Korde wrote:
Heh heh... it is an interesting idea though. And of course, a British person
(what *do* you call yourselves?) would never have
made the US the dominant partner, as an American would have done! :-)
~2020 The economies of the USA, the former Soviet States and many of the
poorer nations of Europe are decidedly shaky. Increasing industrialisation in
South America, Asia, and parts of Africa begin to show dividends for these
countries in the World markets, while Japanese technological innovation
continues to expand at a virtually exponential rate. [FT:40]
It is interesting here that the US is lumped in with a bunch of "poorer"
nations and weak economies. While I don't feel we have the most stable
economic system, it is fairly strong. OTOH, if Social Security isn't abolished
we may well be in serious trouble in 20 years! In any case, the demose of the
Federal government and military leadership is hard to swallow. My own personal
doomsday scenario would have America slowly weakening economically and
militarily until we are no longer significant on the world scene. Entropy is
more likely than collapse.
Ironically, the NAC *could* be read as the "North American Confederation"
meaning that the US and Canada were the dominant members of the new
government. However, I like "New Anglian" since
it is non-specific, and one could easily view the members as equal
partners; just looking at population, the US would certainly have a huge
cultural impact, which would filter up into the government, so in the end I
doubt it makes much difference. Certainly, if America ever did merge with
other countries, Canada and Britain would be at the very top of my list.
> Rukesh Korde wrote:
I guess it depends where you were born. As I was born in England, I'm English,
but I am also a member of the British Isles, or to put it another way,
British.
Of course I could also be described as a resident of the U.K., but definately
not ukish!
> This reminds me of a joke:
Excellent! You're catching up, slowly but surely. You've got some doozies
coming your way in the next 4...no, 6....no, 8....no....you've got some
doozies coming your way for the rest of the season. :-)
Mk
> On 15 Dec 96 at 14:04, Stuart Murray wrote:
> >Heh heh... it is an interesting idea though. And of course, a
Generally agreeing with what Stuart said, most people born in Britain whose
families have been in Britain for several generations would claim to be
Englsh, Scotish, Irish, or Welsh, depending either on where they were born, or
which part of Britain their family came from. More recent arrivals would more
often claim to be British, or would quote where their family came from, even
though they may have a British passport.
The authorities OTOH prefer to call us all British. It keeps things simple.
> At 06:36 PM 12/14/96 -0800, you wrote:
I don't want to turn this into a economic/societal think tank, but bear
in mind that every one of the G7 have a stronger social security system than
the US. Social Security ISN'T what's hampering the US economy.
Oops. Hit the send button too soon. Here's the full post.
> It is interesting here that the US is lumped in with a bunch of
I don't want to turn this into a economic/societal think tank, but bear
in mind that every one of the G7 have a stronger social security system than
the US. Social Security ISN'T what's hampering the US economy.
> In any case, the demose of the Federal government and
That's a more likely scenario. If you believe Tofler, it will all depend on
who can transform from a second wave economy to a third wave economy. The US
is heavy into both (industrial and information) so it could still swing either
way.
> Ironically, the NAC *could* be read as the "North American
It would be more likely that the North American Free Trade zone would merge
into one continental government. Some of the economic theories I've seen
indicate that while the US, Canada, and Mexico each stretch "from sea to sea"
the best lines of communication and transportation are north to south. North
Dakota, Wyoming, Alberta, and Saskatchewan have more in common with themselves
than they have with California, New York, Georgia, Ontario, or Nova Scotia.
People in Seattle feel more of a kinship with people in Vancouver than people
in LA.
A more interesting hypothesis is that North America becomes a "super state",
with state governments bonding together to form regional entities. Eventually
the federal level of government loses its purpose to either the super gov or
the regional govs. Now, throw in a war or other turbulence in Europe, have
Britain be the odd man out ala World War II, and then have the Super Gov of
North America bring Britain in under a protectorate status. Now you've got the
NAC (North American Confederation) pretty much in its GZG form but with
Britain acting less like the stern parent over a bunch of unruly children, and
more the role of incontinent geriatric who is relying on the kids for "elder
care."
Of course, no Brit would ever come up with this scenario, unless they were
transplanted to -- say -- Canada... :-)
> On Sun, 15 Dec 1996, Allan Goodall wrote:
> At 06:36 PM 12/14/96 -0800, you wrote:
So why did you give an opinion? A word of advice to all. The best way
to keep a non-topic discussion from getting out of hand is not to state
"I
don't want this to happen" and THEN give an opinion. Just say "I don't want
this to happen" and then stop right there. You can't get people to lay down
their swords by saying "let us be friends" and then giving them a swift hit to
the jaw. I'm just a bit tired of the "my country makes better games than your
country" thing that is finally fizzling out, let us not
start another economic/societal discussion - and leave it at that.
> bear in
> At 01:31 PM 12/15/96 -0500, you wrote:
Sorry, but I was just replying to what I THOUGHT was a discussion on a
hypothetical future history. The comment of "not wanting to turn this into
an economic/societal think tank" was a plea to MAINTAIN this as a
hypothetical discussion and not have it turn into an off topic flame war.
This wasn't clear on my first post (which was a mistake; I tried to click on
the "Window" menu item and hit the "Send" button instead) but I thought it was
clearer on the second (full) post as the entire post was a discussion of a
future history. I guess by your post that it wasn't. I apologize for that.
> Rukesh Korde wrote:
> I agree. No American could have ever written:
To give you an idea of how far behind Oz is in B5, that particular joke aired
this week.
---------------------- <> <> How doth the little Crocodile
> From: db-ft@westmore.demon.co.uk (David Brewer)
[snip]
> GZG simply doesn't work like this. It can't work like this... as a
David, Are these market forces a (something) American Illuminati conspiracy.
If so, how do you account for the great and powerfull Games Workshop?