[OFFICIAL] Where we're going from here...[LONG RAMBLE!!]

16 posts ยท Aug 23 1997 to Sep 1 1997

From: Ground Zero Games <jon@g...>

Date: Sat, 23 Aug 1997 14:00:35 -0400

Subject: [OFFICIAL] Where we're going from here...[LONG RAMBLE!!]

Hi everyone!

For the last few days I've been following with interest the threads concerning
speculation on the future of FT, with particular reference to the Fleet Book
and FTIII. I thought it might be of some use at this point to share a few
thoughts with you all, and to gauge the reactions to them. Before starting,
let me just explain a few things and set some parameters for the discussion to
get things in perspective.

1) GZG is still a VERY, VERY small operation; even though I now have an
assistant (Dave) helping out with a lot of the actual miniatures
production, most of the running of GZG is still a one-man operation
(me).
We do almost everything in-house, from designing new miniatures through
to mouldmaking, casting them, packing them and taking them down to the post
office. When I'm busy packing and despatching peoples' orders, the phone is
ringing with customers asking "when's the next book coming out?"; while I'm
trying to design new miniatures, everyone asks "when is my order going to be
despatched?"; when I'm trying to write the next rules publication or
supplement, everyone asks "when are the new miniatures going to be
ready?"...... I'm sure you get the general idea. Sure, we could rent a bigger
workshop, take on a dozen staff and a secretary [18 and blonde, please, typing
skills irrelevant but must make good tea and have really great legs...:)] and
really go for it... and probably end up down the tubes in 18 months with the
bank, taxman and creditors after us like so many, many other games companies
that have gone this route.

What I'm getting at is there isn't time to do everything we'd like to. Yes,
I'd love to put out three or four books and supplements every few months like
some publishers do; but then they'd be all written by different people, and
I'd be back to flying a desk like I used to years ago. I'd rather go on trying
to give you all what I hope you want, even if it is not quite as frequently as
you (or we) would ideally like!

2) This has to be said: We ARE in this to make a living. Sad as it may seem,
we DO still have to exist in the real world for at least part of the time
("Reality is for people who can't handle Science Fiction...") and the bills
have to be paid; running GZG has to allow me to put bread on the table and
dogfood in the bowls, or else I've got to give it up and return to being a
wage slave again. KR (GeoHex) and I have both agreed in the past that neither
of us will probably ever make a fortune out of this business, because neither
of us are ruthless enough to try and shaft the punters and the opposition.
This said, I can honestly state that I have never yot been forced to make or
write anything I didn't want to do or wasn't happy with, just because of
economic pressure; if we ever get to the point of churning out endless
substandard product (paper or metal) because we "know" that our slavering
hordes of sycophantic followers will buy everything we tell them to, then
we'll truly have sold out to the Powers of Gaming Darkness! If I can make a
modest but comfortable living doing what I love (no, I mean games design...)
then that is fine by me.

3) The feedback and ideas from this list are invaluable to us, and we really
do consider the opinions expressed in it. The members of the FT list are
probabaly among the keenest users of our games (FT in particular of course)
out there. However, please don't forget that the total list membership
actually represents only about 2% of the gamers worldwide who have bought FTII
since it was released! This means there are probably almost 10,000 owners
(hopefully players, though you can't be sure) of FT who are NOT on this list
and whose opinions we therefore cannot easily canvass. The only time we hear
the views of this vast "slient majority" is when the occasional member of them
talks to us at a show, or takes the trouble to write in. This is why it was
particularly interesting to read
the reports of Jeff Gullion's thoughts as a US retailer - he sees the
people we don't, and what THESE people want from the game (and any new
add-ons) is not always the same as the FT list membership.
So, we tread a bit of a tightrope here - we'll never manage to give
everyone what they want all the time, so we're just going to have to go with
the best compromise we can!

OK, so where ARE we going from here??

Well, the Fleet Book is actually, really, truly under way now! (Shock,
horror...). I have a very good artist working on some line drawings for all
the ships in the FT line (including the Kra'Vak and the Sa'vasku), and am
starting the long job of designing the various fleet stats and actually
writing the book. We won't make it in time for the Christmas market, but our
target for publication is as early as we can in the new year. Realistically,
whether we make this or not will largely depend on the speed at which the art
gets done (with getting on for 100 different ships to illustrate, its not an
overnight job...). Two important things: the FB WILL use a new, revised ship
design system, and it WILL contain quite a bit of supplementary rules material
designed as a "stepping stone" between FTII and the coming FTIII. I know that
one or two people have commented in the past that they would not want to buy
the FB because they didn't use the GZG background, and therefore would not be
happy with "having" to buy it just to get the rules updates. Well, the best
thing I can say here is that the FB should not be looked on as just a
listing of "official" ship designs and stats - look at it as a
compendium of all sorts of ship designs that you can lift out and drop into
any background you want, just by changing the names! Because the FB gives
stats for an NAC Battleship and has a nice picture of the FT110 miniature,
this doesn't for a moment mean that you can't take the ship diagram and stats
and use them for your scratchbuilt "Grobillian Slobnik-class
Hypercruiser" if you wish.....

The new and amended rules that we intend to include in the Fleet Book will
cover most of the modifications that we plan to make for FTIII, and we hope
that these and the large number of pregenerated ship designs will make it a
worthwhile purchase for most FT players.

Once the FB is out, we will be turning our attention to FTIII itself (all
other work permitting, as explained above!). We don't as yet have any kind of
projected release date for this, as it is all still in the relatively early
stages of testing.

So, why change FT at all? Well, I think most members of the list will agree
that there are some things that need changing, and even if these are
relatively few in number they will have a major impact on certain aspects of
the game.There have been a few adverse comments regarding the idea of a new
design system, most notably that it will invalidate all existing ship designs.
This is true, but it is an inevitable result of the need to fix
one of the most important problems with the old FTII design system - the
Battery Mass issue. Whatever mass values we decide on for beam batteries in
the new system (and we are still testing this), as soon as we change ANY mass
value from FTII we automatically invalidate the ships designed under the old
system. So, having accepted this, we are proposing a radical overhaul of the
design rules to improve them wherever possible, including removing the odd
effects of the artificial "break points" between size classes and closing many
of the loopholes that are so exploited by the powergamers and the minimaxers.
It won't be perfectly balanced (no system ever will be, IMHO, unless you play
chess) but we hope it will be a lot better than FTII. Several list members
have commented more than once that their biggest problems stem from HAVING to
play with the dreaded minimaxers and
ex-Warhammer Weenies simply because they are the only opponents
available in their area. We hope that tightening up the design system will
help to cut down on such problems without taking away the fun of doing your
own
ship designs - it just MIGHT get some people to think more about fleet
tactics than just how to get the most for their points....

Allan (I think) commented that the system being playtested for FTIII ship
design was mass-only, and dispensed with points altogether. This is only
partly true; we have been TESTING a mass-only system, yes, but have by
no means finalised what to use; the new system will PROBABLY still use points
as well as mass in some form at least, although points may be more directly
related to mass than they are in FTII. Perhaps the biggest single change in
the design system is that different thrust drives will take different mass
amounts, unlike the old FTII system of including drives in the 50% of mass for
"general bits". Most of the testers so far seem to like this idea, and it
actually gives the player more freedom in his ship designing. All the ships in
the FB will be rated under the NEW design system, because there is no point in
producing the FB using FTII designs a few months before FTIII comes out! (OK,
so some companies would do EXACTLY
that...).
However, rest assured that the FB will include all necessary rules to fully
use all the designs given.

Moving on from the design system to discuss the rest of the proposed changes,
we don't believe we are doing anything that will affect the way that FT plays
on the table. The order writing, turn sequence, firing mechanisms, damage
resolution and movement systems will all be effectively
unchanged from those in FTII/MT (the "basic" FT movement system WILL be
retained, but SUPPLEMENTED by the "true vector" system as an additional
option, to be used if and when desired according to what kind of game style
you prefer).

There will be some new weapon systems (offensive and defensive) in addition
to all the original FT/MT ones. We are testing some new armour rules,
where armour basically becomes like additional hull boxes (bought with mass at
the design stage) that absorb some damage that would otherwise start degrading
the hull and systems. This makes armour "feel" different to screens, which we
think is a good thing. As Allan mentioned, we ARE proposing a maximum screen
level of 2 rather than 3, as this has the important effect of reducing the
"invulnerability" problem of big ships. This is something that has been
discussed on the main list several times recently, and most comments seem in
favour of this move. There are also proposed changes to the layout of the hull
boxes (and hence the threshold points) which are a result of removing the
artificial class break points between Escorts, Cruisers and Capitals; again,
these are all still under test.

You may well be thinking "so, if I buy the FB and already have FTII and MT,
then I'll have all of FTIII anyway, so I won't need to buy FTIII when it comes
out?" Well, yes and no. You'll probably have most of the rules variations,
true, but we hope to put a LOT more into FTIII by the time we get it to print,
including a campaign system, some scenarios, more background (don't worry, not
TOO much) and of course lots of new art and pretty bits. Oh, and maybe even a
counter sheet for little stuff like vector markers, missiles, debris etc....
We hope that FTIII will be a sufficiently attractive product in its own right
that you'll WANT to buy it. However, if you REALLY don't want to then we
promise not to a) excommunicate you forever from the GZG Gaming Hobby (TM), b)
force you into the games store at gunpoint and pry your wallet from your dying
fingers, or c) cause your existing copy of FTII to dissolve in your hands.....
In other words, keep on playing FTII for as long as you like if you still
prefer it, and don't let anyone tell you otherwise!

FTIII really MUST come if we are to keep the game progressing and improving.
We have reprinted the FTII rules three times now, for a total of over 10,000
copies over six years, and can't really justify another simple unaltered
reprint. I am very flattered by the comments which say it can't really be
improved much, but I think most of you will agree that there are aspects that
need attention. We certainly DON'T plan to fix anything that doesn't need
fixing, and we are as keen as you are (more so probably, because our
livelihood depends on it!) that anything we do makes the game better, not
worse. We sincerely hope that when FTIII comes out (as with the FB), many of
you will want to buy it and will enjoy playing it as much as you've enjoyed
FTII.

One important aside - a number of the changes we are proposing to use in
FTIII (such as the combined use of "cinematic" and vector movement) have
already been incorporated in the forthcoming EA sourcebook rules to the
Babylon Project; once it is out, those who buy it might like to give us your
reactions to it as a "taster" for FTIII!

Well, there it is. A long ramble that I hope has explained a few things, maybe
quashed a few rumours and hopefully whetted your appetites. Now I just wait
for the hail of reactions....:)

Jon (GZG)

PS: for those of you who play DSII and SGII, we WILL be working on more
material for them as and when time permits; BDS (Bugs Don't Surf) WILL see the
light of day as soon as we can. Oh, and between everything else, we're also
considering a FANTASY version of the FMA system (provisional title:
BLOOD AND THUNDER) which will be playable at any level from man-to-man
skirmish right up to mass-battle and with any scales from 6mm to 25mm;
it
will have a simple sub-Tolkein generic fantasy setting, (unlike most
Fantasy miniatures rules, it will be 90% rules to 10% background rather
than the other way round...) - you know the sort of thing:
"Elves are pointy-eared tree-huggers; Dwarves are short, hairy and
beerswilling; they don't like each other..". What more background do you
NEED...?  :)

From: Groucho <paulf@d...>

Date: Sat, 23 Aug 1997 17:02:02 -0400

Subject: Re: [OFFICIAL] Where we're going from here...[LONG RAMBLE!!]

> Ground Zero Games wrote:

Well what can I say but thanks for the insight for the future

now all I have to wait for is the EA sourcebook

From: Sutherland <charles@n...>

Date: Sat, 23 Aug 1997 17:29:48 -0400

Subject: Re: [OFFICIAL] Where we're going from here...[LONG RAMBLE!!]

I love this stuff. Thanks to Jon for letting us in on what he is up to.
 I
feel that anyone who puts this much effort into knowing his customers and
letting his customers know him cant be all bad.(refraining from a rant about
other less endearing corporations.)

You have an excellent group of core games and with this much effort I dont see
myself letting much of your handiwork slippin by me.

really need to get my grubby little appendages on the alien sourcebook for
SGII though. Been doin my own conversions but the real thing is easier to get
other people to play with.

From: Mikko Kurki-Suonio <maxxon@s...>

Date: Sun, 24 Aug 1997 16:30:35 -0400

Subject: Re: [OFFICIAL] Where we're going from here...[LONG RAMBLE!!]

Thanks, it's always nice to know where we're heading.

A few notes for the fleetbook:

I'm one of those who originally criticized it... but reading your notes,

I think I will buy it once it comes out. It's simply a question of how much
usable stuff there is for me.

So, optional rules and ready designs I can and will use, whatever you
call those ships, but a 20-page essay on the 3rd NAC-ESU war, fluff
short stories etc. are not very high on my list.

Just:

a) PLEASE double-check all designs. I haven't seen glaring errors from
you, but several other publishers frequently print examples that can not

be replicated under their own rules. Keep up the standard you've had so far.

b) PLEASE no nation/race-specific "freebie" bonuses in designs. Or if
you must include such, please write them so the ship is still usable (and
book-legal) in generic environment. E.g. "NAC PDAF's get +1 to hit"
rather than "NAC PDAF's weigh only XXX and cost only YYY". With the
former, I can just take the ship and ignore the nation-specific bonus,
with the latter, the entire design is useless.

From: John D. Hamill <finnmaccool@e...>

Date: Mon, 25 Aug 1997 14:23:58 -0400

Subject: Re: [OFFICIAL] Where we're going from here...[LONG RAMBLE!!]

> Ground Zero Games wrote:
snip This is why I like GZG, the fact that you actually listen to your
customers, at least the ones who post here!!
> OK, so where ARE we going from here??
it
> will have a simple sub-Tolkein generic fantasy setting, (unlike most
I also like the idea of a fantasy version of the FMA rules, but it would be
more helpful to introduce more people to DSII and SG if we had more than just
the rulebooks for them. Even if you just put out a supplement of the variant
rules for either game (of which there are many on the net), along with some
additional scenarios, this would be helpful. If you didn't want to write
everything yourself you could always license the supplement out. I don't know
about anyone else, but I would love to see DSII as the OFFICIAL game system
for David Drake's Hammers Slammers universe, with a full supplement detailing
that. Or maybe just some Orders of Battle supplements for SG, detailing some
of the major and minor powers troops.

From: Allan Goodall <agoodall@a...>

Date: Wed, 27 Aug 1997 23:15:32 -0400

Subject: Re: [OFFICIAL] Where we're going from here...[LONG RAMBLE!!]

> At 01:23 PM 8/25/97 -0500, you wrote:

I agree wholeheartedly. I think Jon might be too late for a fantasy version,
anyway. A bunch of us started to do this earlier this year but we didn't get
too far. Too many cooks spoiling the broth and all that. It looks, though,
that it would be a fair bit of work. As it stands, Chipco's _Fantasy
Rules!_
looks to be the best alternative to WHFB and it's already fairly well
established.

A DS2 and SG2 supplement is needed. A lack of alien rules (the same criticism
as early Traveller, funny enough) is stopping some people from trying the
game. So is the lack of a point system. I'd rather see a DS2 and SG2
supplement come out before FT3 but I seem to be in the minority.

From: Allan Goodall <agoodall@a...>

Date: Wed, 27 Aug 1997 23:20:05 -0400

Subject: Re: [OFFICIAL] Where we're going from here...[LONG RAMBLE!!]

> At 11:30 PM 8/24/97 +0300, you wrote:

> b) PLEASE no nation/race-specific "freebie" bonuses in designs. Or if

I'm with Mikko on this. I wouldn't mind seeing some races using weapons that
other races don't (I think most people assume this, anyway) but I want to be
able to use all weapons for my own universe. However, letting some races
"cheat" when designing ships, well, you might as well throw away the design
system. I don't think we have to worry about this from Jon, though, based on
his track record. When it comes to his games, he might as well have called his
company Integrity Games.

From: kx.henderson@q... (Kelvin)

Date: Thu, 28 Aug 1997 00:49:30 -0400

Subject: Re: [OFFICIAL] Where we're going from here...[LONG RAMBLE!!]

> I also like the idea of a fantasy version of the FMA rules, but it

As do I. I've had a long hard look at the FMA system after Jon's original post
and have seen that it is easily adaptable to a fantasy setting and provides a
great amount of realism for it.

> A DS2 and SG2 supplement is needed. A lack of alien rules (the same

Well, add another to the minority. I would much rather see expansions made to
the SGII and DSII games than to see FT get an overhaul. A Fleet Book with
expansion rules to give a taste of FT3 would keep most people happy for a
while while SGII and DSII supplements are well overdue. Perhaps there could be
a combined publication for SG and DS detailing the aliens and other stuff.
They are closely linked and so I think a combined supplement
wouldn't be too out of line.  Except maybe for Jon's profit margin! ;-)

From: Kevin Pavlick <PAVLICK@x...>

Date: Thu, 28 Aug 1997 09:47:08 -0400

Subject: Re: [OFFICIAL] Where we're going from here...[LONG RAMBLE!!]

> Well, add another to the minority. I would much rather see expansions
;-)
> -Kelvin.....
I Third that motion! SG and DS are past due for supplements.

From: Allan Goodall <agoodall@a...>

Date: Thu, 28 Aug 1997 10:17:39 -0400

Subject: Re: [OFFICIAL] Where we're going from here...[LONG RAMBLE!!]

It's been another hectic week. I'm only now getting a chance to respond.
First, I think this is absolutely great that Jon takes the time out to not
only read our messages, but also think about what we said and actually
respond. I can't think of any other game where the players have such a close
relationship with the designer. Thanks for the message, Jon. I know I greatly
appreciated it, and I'm not the only one.

> At 07:00 PM 8/23/97 +0100, Jon wrote:

> 1) GZG is still a VERY, VERY small operation; even though I now have an

I think that's something we all tend to forget.

> Sure, we could rent a bigger workshop, take on a dozen staff and a

There's nothing worse for a small business than to expand far too rapidly.
Under capitalization has killed more small businesses than anything else; over
expansion is probably next in line.

> 3) The feedback and ideas from this list are invaluable to us, and we

That's quite true. But, don't forget that the list members make up the "heavy
half." That is, we may only be 2% of the gamers, but we make up for more than
2% of the sales, I'd wager. We're also the ones most devoted to the game.
Sure, you could probably sell almost anything to us with "Full
Thrust" written on it (although--I'm happy to see--you have no intention
of doing that). However, if it won't fly with us, you'll have a hard time
getting anyone else to buy it.

> So, we tread a bit of a tightrope here - we'll never manage to give

That's about as good a definition of "small business" as you're likely to
find.

> Two important things: the FB WILL use a new, revised ship design

I don't know if this was mentioned before (it might have been) but I hadn't
realized this. One of the biggest problems with switching from one new game
version to another is that you end up leaving people behind. One of the
reasons you leave people behind is that people don't often want to
re-buy
something they already have. By using the fleet book as a stepping stone,
there's a good chance that by the time FT3 comes out most players will be up
to snuff with the majority of the new system. I like this idea. Also, if
people absolutely HATE the new design system (not likely, but you never know)
you'll hear about it before you've committed the money needed to produce the
FT3 book.

This should ease my one main concern with a new version of FT: that FT players
dissolve into two camps, the FT2 camp and the FT3 camp.

> I know that one or

That's exactly what a number of us said at GenCon. Even if you don't use the
official miniatures it would be nice to get ship design ideas.

> The new and amended rules that we intend to include in the Fleet Book

I'm sure it will.

> Well, yes and no. You'll probably have most of the rules variations,

That would be fantastic. Besides, since the dog got a good bite out of my FT
rulebook, I'm looking forward to a replacement...

> Oh, and maybe even a counter

That would be nice.

> FTIII really MUST come if we are to keep the game progressing and

Wow, 10,000 copies? Most board wargames are doing well if they sell 5,000
these days.

> Oh, and between everything else, we're
it
> will have a simple sub-Tolkein generic fantasy setting, (unlike most

Some of us attempted this last year (as you probably remember). I have the
notes from our month long session. The problem we ran into was that we had
about two or three different ways to go with the game. We realized that we
needed one person with one vision to direct the project. I've been
semi-tinkering with it for a little while, but it's been on the back
burner as I work on my own samurai skirmish game. When you're ready to work on
this, let me know and I'll forward the mail on to you. There are some very
interesting points brought up.

In another message I sent last night, I mentioned that _Fantasy Rules!_
has a pretty good stranglehold on the "alternative to Warhammer" side of the
hobby. It's also building quite a following. This might be your strongest
opponent in this realm. I just read your comments, though, and hadn't realized
you were intending to create a game that handled skirmish to full battles.
That's rarely been attempted and I don't know of any game that actually
succeeded. I think that would be the edge that got people forgetting about FR!
and that other company's game.

From: Tony Christney <tchristney@t...>

Date: Thu, 28 Aug 1997 12:07:54 -0400

Subject: Re: [OFFICIAL] Where we're going from here...[LONG RAMBLE!!]


  

From: Rick Rutherford <rickr@s...>

Date: Thu, 28 Aug 1997 14:25:22 -0400

Subject: Re: [OFFICIAL] Where we're going from here...[LONG RAMBLE!!]

> On Thu, 28 Aug 1997, Allan Goodall wrote:

"Fantasy Rules!" is a good game, but I'm afraid that the level of command
leaves me cold -- I can't relate to hordes of massed troops on a large
battlefield (which is probably why I don't play historical miniatures games),
especially since they're represented by only a dozen stands of figures.

I'd much rather see a fantasy miniatures game which uses the same
command level as StarGrunt (units of 4-20 figures per "squad", and
somewhere between 2 and 6 "squads" per side). In fact, the SF miniatures game
that seems (to me) would be easiest to adapt to fantasy is Warzone.

From: Stuart Murray <smurray@a...>

Date: Thu, 28 Aug 1997 20:28:28 -0400

Subject: Re: [OFFICIAL] Where we're going from here...[LONG RAMBLE!!]


  

From: kx.henderson@q... (Kelvin)

Date: Thu, 28 Aug 1997 20:37:45 -0400

Subject: Re: [OFFICIAL] Where we're going from here...[LONG RAMBLE!!]

> OK so perhaps this wil start a flme war, I truly hope not.

Woo-hoo!  A chance for a heated discussion!  Cool.  Haven't had one of
those since I unsubscribed from the Warhammer 40K lists!

> I personally don't think it is possible to make a generic SGII

Ah. But the main difference between Human forces and Aliens forces is their
structure and Psychology. With that in mind, it would be very easy to come up
with a generic system for Aliens. For instance you could simply have the
psychologies and probable structures for generic aliens listed. Eg, there
could be Hive Aliens (Heinlien's Bugs, the Aliens, etc...), Warrior Aliens
(the Klingons, the Kra'Vak), Collective Aliens (like I originally invisioned
the Borg, a collective consciousness without a central control) as well as any
other alien types that people can think of. As for tech, well that is really
up to the individual tastes of the players for their personal universes, but
generic examples could be given such as Bio weapons, Energy weapons, Kinetic
Weapons, etc.... Then after all that the "Official" GZG background and rules
for it can be put in place.

> Having said this I would like to see supplements that expand upon the

Oh definately, but as I said above, there IS a way to genericise it (man
that sounds clumsy.  "Genericise".  Seesh! ;-)).

From: Darren <rider@w...>

Date: Thu, 28 Aug 1997 21:59:17 -0400

Subject: [OFFICIAL] Where we're going from here...[LONG RAMBLE!!]

> > Well, add another to the minority. I would much rather see
;-)
> >

Add my name to the list of people that would like a supplement for SG2. New,
scenarios, alien races and background is what I'd really like to
see!!!!

From: Oerjan Ohlson <oerjan.ohlson@t...>

Date: Mon, 1 Sep 1997 14:12:58 -0400

Subject: Re: [OFFICIAL] Where we're going from here...[LONG RAMBLE!!]

> On Thu, 28 Aug 1997, Allan Goodall wrote:

> >Oh, and between everything else, we're

<snip>

> In another message I sent last night, I mentioned that _Fantasy

And just like GZG, Chipco is a very small operation - two people :)
And FR! is written for use with any models you happen to have, and works in
any scale, too.

> I just read your comments, though, and hadn't

Neither have I. The problem is basically Detail vs Playability - ie,
in a skirmish involving a few dozen men per side, the equipment and training
level of each fighter will be quite important, and you can afford to keep
track of the morale of each fighter or small group of fighters. In a large
battle (...ie, thousands of men per side) the
exact equipment and training doesn't matter too much - it averages
out anyway, and if you try to keep track of it you'll need a week per
turn. I once tried to fight a battle between one legion of Romans -
roughly 5000 men - and roughly the same number of Gauls, using
Warhammer rules... no, I don't have that many figures. We used
counters to represent the various sub-units. Anyway, we gave this
(historically speaking rather small) battle up after two turns and
two weeks - the detail level was killing us, and no-one on either
side had any grasp of what was happening strategically. Just as historical
commanders must've felt if they got involved in the
fighting, but much slower :/

Basically, Jon, you're attempting to do a game which covers both DSII scales
and SGII scales. Why?

> I think that would be the edge that got people

If it can be made to work, perhaps. If not, it'll kill B&T very fast.

Later,