> --- Andy Cowell <andy@cowell.org> wrote:
A quick question to all out there; not terribly relevant to anthing in
particular, but maybe an interesting topic for discussion... When you are
playing a ground combat game (any game, not just SG or DS),
what "role" do you see YOU, as the player, actually playing - it it the
highest level commander ON-TABLE (eg: the Company Commander if you've
got a company deployed on the table), or the next higher command level
overseeing
the battle from off-table (the Battalion Commander in the foregoing
example)? Personally, I've always felt that in SG or FMA it's probably the
former,
and in DS the latter - but YMMV, so what do you think?
> A quick question to all out there; not terribly relevant to anthing in
I tend to view myself in the same roles as John has mentioned. We do a fair
amount of campaign gaming also, which tends to up the level one or two again
also.
> When you are playing a ground combat game (any game, not just
When I play I tend to see myself as the highest command on table. However, I
also sometimes feel a disconnect with the army I am playing. I think it comes
from having the "God's eye view" of the game. Sometimes it feels like I am
playing chess, where it is only an exercise in out thinking the opponent
rather then "fighting" a battle.
90% of the time I am right there on the table with my troops.
However, there are times when I go DOWN a level and latch onto a favorite
single character or unit that isn't necessarily a command level unit. Case in
point would be last year's Grey Day ECC Scenario. I really enjoyed playing the
KraVak Sniper. (Of course, there was no dereliction of duty there...) heh...
-=Kr'rt
Quoted and/or trimmed Ground Zero Games <jon@gzg.com>...
> A quick question to all out there; not terribly relevant to anthing in
"I was there at the dawn of the third age of mankind."
The Grid Epsilon Irregulars - Grid Epsilon 470/18/22
> --- Ground Zero Games <jon@gzg.com> wrote:
> A quick question to all out there; not terribly
Heh... definitionally, nothing from gzg can be
off-topic on a gzg-list. . . But anyway. . .
> When you are playing a ground combat game (any game,
Third option--depends on the decisions I'm making.
When it comes to force design (which in my case is ALWAYS mix and match from a
pregenned list) I think at
least one level up--batallion or brigade. Usually to
the level that's assigning the support.
Once I roll onto the table, it's basically roleplaying as the commander on the
table. For some decisions, I do what would make sense to his subordinates. For
instance, if I have an infantry company with an engineer platoon on the table,
the engineers will achieve their mission as they were assigned, not
necessarily as the infantry would want them to do. It depends on what level of
control I'm giving the main force over their attachments.
But then, I'm also in a line of work where the difference between "attached"
and "assigned" and "in support of" is a major issue.
> Ground Zero Games wrote:
SG: When playing SG, my point of view changes from move to move. When I move a
squad, I ask myself what the leader of that squad would do, and when I move a
platoon or company commander, I ask myself what that commander would do. When
I move a green squad, I sometimes do something foolish,
like charge out into the open -- the world is especially unkind to young
Lieutenants...:)
In message <E50E940B390AD31192BB0008C7A4E3F203AB0E7F@1crp234.corp.disney.com>,
> "Casquilho, Daniel" writes:
I've got to admit, I never really feel the part of any level of command, at
least consciously. Even when I'm doing my best to play realistically, rather
than just to have fun or to win, I can't say
I've ever felt more than a detached spectator-- this platoon leader,
Remembering I'm a vac-head, you may be surprised that I'm usually
nowhere to be found either when playing ships or ground pounders. Oh, I've
named characters on board or in the mud, but they are always in a movie
running through my head.
I REALLY hate people who refer to board or table-top games as
'role-playing', as if Monopoly or Risk are inherently such. Not that I
haven't played them that way, but they certainly don't require it.
Diplomacy probably comes closest, and usally by indirect method, to causing
it's players to actually role play.
The_Beast
-Douglas J. Evans, curmudgeon
One World, one Web, one Program - Microsoft promotional ad