On Fri, 23 Jul 2004 15:40:55 +0200 Oerjan Ohlson
> <oerjan.ohlson@telia.com> writes:
<snip> I want DS and SG to actually be the SF games they claim
> to be, not historical games in disguise :-/
I think I see. Or perhaps not.
You want to 'Stepford Wives' the game. Not just fix the flaws in the
current game (simple plastic surgery - like removing the weapons per
class rule) but take the mechanics that are deemed best in the FMA
system(s) - one argue that the differences between SG 2 and DS 2 are at
best divergent - and replace the things you don't like (the "1980's
Historical game") with elements that you do like [an undefined something that
reflects "...the SF games they claim to be..."] And that's a valid view but
it's not DS 3 as much a change of such proportions to merit a new title. * And
I am not saying that might not be the best route but not one that I thought we
were talking about.
Strangely, I think the best books/stories in SF dealing with war/battle
are inspired by mankind's past military history. To use two books that I read
this year that pander to this view I refer to Tanya Huff's two SF
books that I know of (yes, she is primarily a Fantasy writer - if number
of books are how one's main genre are determined - and oddly enough I
haven't read any of her fantasy books.) I think this style of books are not
what O. O. is referring to though.
I also think that war/battle (assuming we continue as we currently are
doing on into 2050 to 2183 (+) which I highly doubt) will not be
anything like we currently see it. If rate of change continues (maybe, maybe
not) then major changes will occur in the next decade or two.
The machine gun was overlooked for a while by many (or at least seen as an
adjunct not a change agent) as was the tank. Yes most people saw it playing a
big role but not as it turned out with possibly rare exceptions in 1920 when
it had been exposed to operational events. Even after the role of the tank was
clearer in the 1930's you had designs like the
Sherman - arguably the 'most successful "worst" design' for a tank in
WW2. Why should we expect to know what future war will be like in 2100?
That view may be from my roots which come from historical war games even if I
play more SF lately (past few years) but I think it's because we think in
terms of what happened in the past (consciously or
unconsciously) and project that into our SF games. While the SG 2/DS 2
games HAVE been passed by historical events (my rules show copyrights of
1996 and 1993 but they grew out of re-writes of older games -dates???)
that might imply major surgery - as in the 6 Million Dollar man model -
faster, stronger, better - the better question might be "What do you
(plural) think a SF war game should be like?"
I think we have no idea what future Wars beyond 50 years will look like.
I think we no longer have wars (certainly not declared wars) as such but
undeclared conflicts that start and end with less and less certain dates.
I guess I need to get a better feel for what you (O. O.) and others think a
"SF game" should look like.
so let me ask officially:
"What do you (plural) think a SF war game should be like? What elements are
not in SG 2 and DS 2 that should be to reflect that view?"
The forum is open.
Gracias, Glenn
* and if you do that and call it DS 3 can we inject a little cultural and
political reality and make the LLAR a serious second or third tier
player? I will buy off on the UK/Canada recycling the USA (national
bias overcome) and possibly Mexico (getting a little iffy in my mind) to
include parts of Central America maybe (If I cede Mexico I can see parts of
Central america being sucked in.) But all of South America? If that happened
then the NAC would not be as portrayed because of simple
population and language factors --or-- would be tied up militarily
with
neo-national and neo-ethnic strife and unable to be the power it's
portrayed as being.
Oerjan Ohlson said:
> <snip> I want DS and SG to actually be the SF games they claim
GlenW said; <snip> replace the things you don't like (the "1980's Historical
game") with elements that you do like [an undefined something that reflects
"...the SF games they claim to be..."]
SG and DS claim to be SF games, but you can't do with them things
that present-day troops can do (eg laser-designation for artillery /
missiles). So while they are good *games*, they are not good as
*science fiction*. That's a hazard of anyone's writing science
fiction, not just limited to GZG. Ideally you would be able to use the system
to play Viet Nam scenarios and Iraq scenarios too, but if you have grav tanks
and helmet comms and plasma guns and such in the rules, they ought not to feel
like Merkava and hand signals and bazookas. To fix that, something has to be
changed, but it doesn't
necessarily need to be the basic mechanics--could be "vehicle
movement factors" and "artillery accuracy" and such. Or it might need
to be mechanics--for example, the range from d4 to d12 might not be
enough to cover the difference between the sights for a T72 and a Mk1 Bolo
while still capturing the difference between the T72 and an Abrams.
Ideally, playing Nam - era scenarios in SG / DS will feel the same
as they do now, but playing scenarios from a war in 2100 will feel
substantially different. If not, why play a SF game in the first place?
> "What do you (plural) think a SF war game should be like? What
Better comms. Higher movement rates. Cover less important; sensors,
countersensors, and point defenses more important. Drones / RPVs.
Fast and deadly.
> Glenn Wilson wrote:
> I think I see. Or perhaps not.
-
> one argue that the differences between SG 2 and DS 2 are at best
Yes, it *is* DS3. It won't be DS*2*, of course - but it will be
*DirtSide*, just like Full Thrust with all the Fleet Book modifications is
still *Full Thrust* even though it is no longer FT*2*.
> Strangely, I think the best books/stories in SF dealing with war/battle
> are inspired by mankind's past military history.
Of course they are. Which is why DS2, based on books that were essentially
'Nam stories with some weapon and vehicle names changed, is a quite good
rules set for playing 'Nam battles and seems 'real' to all those who got
their main impression of warfare during the 'Nam period or the years
immediately afterwards. But try using DS2 to represent, say, the battles in
John Ringo's books (can't remember the titles - the ones where Earth is
invaded, anyway) and you run into problems rather quickly even though they too
are IIRC based quite heavily on 'Nam experiences. Or the various BOLO battles,
or any ground combat out of Weber's books, or Schlock Mercenary, or...
> Why should we expect to know what future war will be like in 2100?
We don't - but we can be fairly certain that war in 2100 *won't* be like
war in 'Nam 1979 or the Fulda Gap 1985 (in a historic-fictional
non-nuclear
WW3 that fortunately never happened).
> ...the better question might be "What do you (plural) think a SF war
For starters, allow the lowest-tech units in the game to at least get
close
to doing what today's real-world soldiers and military hardware can
already
do (particularly in terms of speed, accuracy etc.) - DS2's lowest tech
tier is after all supposed to represent stuff not very far *in advance* of
what we have today.
Then add further capabilities to that. Mere weapons power and armour ratings
aren't very interesting (advances in the one area will most likely be
countered by advanced in the other before very long anyway); more
important is the sensor/counter-sensor game allowing the players to
detect (or execute) hidden movements, disrupt each others' communications and
so
on. Effective area-defence systems similar to the Slammers' "Calliope"
(though maybe not quite as long-ranged), able to destroy bombs, missiles
and artillery shells in the air before they can do any damage (prototypes of
such systems were successfully tested last year, but so far they're far
from being small and robust enough to be mobile) - imagine what such a
system in the wrong army could do to today's US military doctrine! Grav
vehicles - yes, they're very "high SF", but they're also a stock feature
in many SF backgrounds... so let us make them behave like they do in those SF
books, instead of like some amphibious WW2 vehicles...
Create a dual unit design system which separates the points cost (which
measures the unit's combat value in terms of the rules, and which does not
depend on what background you play in) from the design rules determining
what vehicles are physically possible to create in your chosen background
(which *will* vary from background to background, and which can easily vary
even between different powers within a single background). This would be a
very powerful tool for allowing players to customize the game to match their
view of what future combat should be like.
With luck, we might even be able to push DS3 into covering warfare in the
2020s... *before* we've already seen what warfare in the 2020s is actually
like :-/
I think Doug put it pretty well:
"Anyway, for GZG gropos, and I count SG and DS both in this case, you want
something recognizable as warfare as we know it, with a strong illusion of
future. Sometimes, you just have to toss current capabilities and potential
aside as 'victim to unforseen advances'."
I don't think you can toss either current capabilities or potential
near-future advances - because
nothing destroys the illusion of future more effectively than a TV clip
showing such more-advanced-than-the-SF-rules-allow capabilities used in
real-world combat.
"So, I'd say the REAL goal is to make the games adaptable to anyone's
comfort level. Just don't expect Evil Empire(tm)-style point systems."
Bingo. Ideally the game should *allow* 'Nam-era battles for those who
are
comfortable with viewing the future like a slightly re-named 'Nam... but
it
shouldn't be *restricted* to 'Nam-era battles like it is now :-/
Later,
> On Saturday 24 July 2004 17:48, Oerjan Ohlson wrote:
but it
> shouldn't be *restricted* to 'Nam-era battles like it is now :-/
For a future campaign like Traveller, where there is a wide range of tech
capability, sometimes 'Nam type battles will make sense.
You may have 1960/USA technology up against Imperial armies vastly
in advance of the defenders. Any rules would have to allow both types of
armies on the battlefield at the same time.
Such a battle may well be worth fighting if the Imperial armies are cut off
from supplies, and vastly outnumbered.
Orbital support can make a big difference (especially if one side has very
high resolution images from a ship holding position in LEO directly above the
battle field).
What about cybertech? Another thread talks about the US army giving free
plastic surgery to troops. What about high tech forces giving free cybertech?
If cloning and braintaping is cheap and easy, troops may not care if they die.
Troops may be controlling Terminator style remotes.
> You may have 1960/USA technology up against Imperial armies vastly
"The Imperials win."
I think that anything more than 1-2 tech levels difference means
that the low-tech side cannot win a battle. Even that may be
stretching it--imagine an Abrams platoon against a battalion of WWII
Panthers. Infantry vs infantry would be a little more even, the modern guys
would only have the advantage of night vision gear, better
comms, better anti-armor weapons, body armor, APC's, automatic
weapons, better medical, airmobile, artillery, counter-battery... The
low tech side could operate as terrorists, but that's not a good game. So the
system needs to handle a difference of a tech level or two, and needs to
handle a range of tech levels overall, but I'm not convinced that it needs to
be able to handle Nam grunts vs Imperial Marines.
There was a story called "Hawk among Sparrows" by superb SF author Dean
McLaughlin. He postulated a brand new fighter time-slipped back to WW1,
trying to fight German biplanes... Missiles didn't work, because the engines
were too cool and radar signatures poor (wood/paper planes).
Couldn't hardly land because runways were too short. Fuel wasn't available,
and he finally had to strain what they had 20 times to get it to the point
where his plane could burn it.
He was finally reduced to using the supersonic wavefront as a weapon, and
eventually sucked something into his jet intake with painful results. Fun
read.
But your point is taken...
> On Saturday 24 July 2004 23:07, Laserlight wrote:
All else being equal. Lack of men and support could really reduce the
effectiveness of a high tech unit. High tech often requires a *lot* of
support, from high grade fuel to accurately engineered bullets.
Orders may also compromise the effectiveness of troops. Maybe a small unit has
been put down on a planet (they were the only force available) to suppress a
rebellion by the natives. But they absolutely musn't cause a bloodbath. They
need to win while causing a minimum of casualties.
These are all special cases however.
> --- Laserlight <laserlight@quixnet.net> wrote:
> > "What do you (plural) think a SF war game should
Agreed. In addition, Generic. Give the ranges and damages for any given
weapon, and give it a point value based on these factors. But separate the
points cost from the construction system. In fact, make the construction
system optional, and in the future offer supplements that provide specific
cusntruction systems for specific backgrounds and time periods. A weapon that
does X amount of damage at Y range is going to be much bulkier and heavier now
than it will be 100 years from now, so it will have different construction
requirements, but the same value in the game. Also,
allow variable Movement rates -- not every fast
tracked vehicle out there has the same speed.
> --- Samuel Penn <sam@bifrost.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> For a future campaign like Traveller, where there is
Yes, sometimes they will. Which is why OO said:
> > Ideally the game should *allow* 'Nam-era
However, your point doesn't really refute his point, which is:
but it
> > shouldn't be *restricted* to 'Nam-era battles like
> On 24 Jul 2004 at 20:28, Glenn M Wilson <warbeads@juno.com> wrote:
> "What do you (plural) think a SF war game should be like? What
I'm primarily an SG2 player (or was, as I've mostly been working in
historicals lately), and have limited experience with DS2.
For me, a futuristic game not based on a cinematic background should _at
least_ handle what modern combat handles. The exception to this is a
game sufficiently far in the future that it just doesn't work as a good
simulation of modern reality.
I've compiled a list of things I'd like to see fixed in SG2, but I'm sure few
here want to see that list. In broad terms, though, I'd like to see support
weapons, vehicles, and artillery be at least as effective as they are today.
Take artillery, for example. SG2's artillery model is circa 1970. Modern
mortar rounds don't deviate as wildly as they do in SG2, let alone precision
munitions.
I know some folk will argue that if you make artillery more accurate they will
dominate the table top. To offset this you have to take into account the
"whole picture". I have a few notes on a ArDE system: Artillery Defense
Environment. This would work at an abstract level like the Air Defense
Environment, and would simulate other assets shooting down
incoming rounds, counter-battery fire messing up incoming attacks, etc.
You need this sort of thing if your artillery isn't going to dominate the
game.
The proper "checks and balances" need to be included. You can't just fix
vehicles in SG2 without fixing anti-vehicle missiles, and then also
fixing anti-missile rules. You can make vehicles more effective without
them taking over the game completely. To do that you have to make anti-
vehicle weapons more realistic and useful (dropping the requirement of firing
missiles with a separate action from the rest of the troops firing is a
start). You may have to add reactive and ablative armour to vehicles in
compensation, but since they exist in DS2 as well you should anyway.
I did some work on fixing SG2's vehicles (I've mostly abandoned this, and no,
I haven't typed up my notes in any form to hand over to someone else, which
some folks have asked for). What I did notice was that once you began fixing
vehicles there comes a point where you need to fix artillery. There is not one
single thing that can be fixed in SG2, but a
myriad of interconnecting things. Funny, this interconnection is exactly
what we see in modern combined arms combat.
I agree with what you say about the futuristic battlefield looking nothing
like it does today. SG2 suffers from the "commander in the corner" syndrome,
where a command unit is best hiding off in a corner somewhere, safe to do
transfer actions. I've seen people suggest that this is realistic, because
futuristic communications, battle networks, and enhanced imaging will make
this feasible. This may be possible, but I argue that if this were the case
then combat should evolve into something else entirely. If the futuristic
battlefield is as transparent as some suggest, then why have the command unit
on the battlefield at all? Why not eliminate individual platoons and have
squads directed from afar by the army's equivalent of an AWACs for ground
engagements? Why risk the
command elements at all (or why even _have_ command elements)?
My point is that you might PSB the "commander in the corner" syndrome, but you
run the risk that your PSB leads to a "better solution" than the
one on the board. You end up with something that doesn't look much like modern
combat but isn't thought through enough for futuristic combat. If, however,
you eliminate the "commander in the corner" syndrome (just as example) and
allow something that mimics today, people will tend to fault you less for it.
In other words, don't do half the job. Either allow it to mimic modern combat
to a certain extent, or take it far off the scale
and make it far more futuristic.
Note that if you do make the game sufficiently futuristic you loose the
generic nature of it. This is another argument for grounding it in the "hear
and now", as near future combat is as valid a genre for a generic game as is
Star Wars, Star Trek, or the Tuffleyverse.
Personally, I really, really wish that there _was_ a game that looked
far enough into the future that combat didn't resemble modern combat at all.
Unfortunately there isn't. Almost every sci-fi game out there is a
variant on one of the GW games, or it is based on some media source. SG2
has flaws (some of them, IMHO, fairly serious) but it's about the best thing
out there, and one of the very few generic games in existence.
---
I haven't read Alan's comments yet, so if any of this overlaps, I apologize.
I went to the trouble of jotting down some changes I'd like to see in DS 3, so
here goes:
1. Semi-direct fire; ie., artillery-delivered attacks
on specific vehicles instead of area effect. 2. Allow for elements other than
the firing element to designate targets for GMS. 3. Allow for a greater
variety of armor levels on all sides of vehicles.
4. GMS that can top-attack, at some increased
vulnerability to ADS/PDS
5. PDS that can engage incoming MDC/HKP/HVC/SLAM
attacks.
6. Expansion of GMS classes to 1-5 (call them P, L, M,
H, and SH if you like) 7. Expanded CBR rules, including a modifier for the
mobility type of off-board arty.
8. Expanded C3 rules that allow for greater and/or
less reliance on on-board C3 element.
9. Expanded AI rules
10. Mast-mounted Firecon for VTOLS to allow for
"Hull-down" protection while firing.
11. Expanded rules for Biped Vs. Quadruped+ walkers,
walker speeds independent from "Infantry walker/combat
walker/transport walker" designations
12. Allow GMS to engage VTOL & Aerospace units 13. Allow direct fire weapons
to engage High Mode VTOL's 14. Make ZAD a Firecon system attachable to any
direct fire weapon 15. 5 classes of PDS and ZAD
16. Fire-on-the-fly; allow vehicles to fire at any
point before, during, or after movement. 17. Remove rule permitting fire of
only 1 weapon system per turn 18. Permit better Firecons to engage multiple
targets per turn 19. Expand opportunity & Defensive fire rules
20. 5 levels of firecon for single-range weapons like
GMS, CBR, and HEL's
21. Allow arty to self-spot.