> textfilter: chose text/plain from a multipart/alternative
And there I was, thinking that the trend was for smaller tables.... (a lot of
skirmish games these days seem to make a big feature of the fact that you only
need a 4' x 4' table, and for some of them as
little as 2' x 2'). ;-)
On the subject of groundscale, the sort of thing I'm thinking of for SG:AC is
1mm = 1 metre, which conveniently converts (near enough for Government work)
to 1" = 25 metres. Thus 4" (100mm) = 100 metres. To me, that just feels kind
of "right" for 15mm figures, allowing for reasonable length infantry moves
while also accommodating
modern/SciFi weapons ranges too.
That fits nicely between to the DSII recommended groundscale of 1" = 100
metres and the SGII one of 1" = 10 metres.
textfilter: chose text/plain from a multipart/alternative
> On Sat, Sep 13, 2014 at 12:07 PM, Ground Zero Games <jon@gzg.com> wrote:
> That fits nicely between to the DSII recommended
I agree with the idea of ground scale, and I would be very happy to see a
version of Stargrunt with a more balanced mix of infantry and vehicles-
preferably without vehicles being *too* fragile.
I've read in several places that the EW rules in SG2 could use an overhaul,
but I haven't experienced the problems firsthand.
> What do YOU want out of a 15mm SciFi ruleset?
I think there's a lot that SG2 does right, though perhaps it could be
streamlined a bit. I'm a fan of Allan Goodall's alternate armor rules:
http://www.hyperbear.com/sg2/sg2-house-rules-quick-dirty-fire.html
Currently, the SG2 rules collapse with anything more than about 3 squads per
side. What would be the best ways to address this issue?
textfilter: chose text/plain from a multipart/alternative
> On Sat, Sep 13, 2014 at 8:33 PM, Seamus <fomorianwolf@gmail.com> wrote:
Er, that should read "...more than about 2 platoons per side".
I blame that mishap on the head-cold which I just fought off.
> textfilter: chose text/plain from a multipart/alternative
Some detail on your experiences with this would be very useful - in
what way(s) do the SGII rules "collapse" with larger forces, do they just get
too slow to play or do you find other more specific problems?
If we know the problems that need to be addressed, we will have a better
chance of fixing them.....
> On Sunday 14 Sep 2014 11:05:01 Seamus wrote:
wrote:
> > Currently, the SG2 rules collapse with anything more than about 3
We've had battles (using 25mm) with 3-4 platoons a side, including
vehicle platoons. The only problem was that I seem to recall damage
against vehicles was very random - you could take one out in a single
hit, or it could survive lots of hits unscathed.
textfilter: chose text/plain from a multipart/alternative
On Sun, Sep 14, 2014 at 12:29 PM, Samuel Penn <sam@glendale.org.uk> wrote:
> We've had battles (using 25mm) with 3-4 platoons a side, including
Thanks for the input! The more feedback we get will help.:)
What do you think contributed to this problem? (Was it the opposed armor
rolls, for example?)
It's been a while and my memory is a bit hazy, but IIRC with about two opposed
companies on the table, the game can get bogged down
in opposed rolls; weapons-fire results and morale tests.
The alternate fire resolution method that I linked earlier helps a bit, though
I'm sure it's not everyone's preference.
Does anyone else have any experience or suggestions?
textfilter: chose text/plain from a multipart/alternative
> On Sun, Sep 14, 2014 at 12:49 PM, Seamus <fomorianwolf@gmail.com> wrote:
> textfilter: chose text/plain from a multipart/alternative
wrote:
> >
It's been too darn long since I last played a game of SGII. :-/ So I
can't really give any contributing data points.
I do hold, though, that a company-level game would be a nice one to
have. I've been playing Tomorrow's War a fair bit in recent years, but that's
still platoon/squad level (I do like their vehicle combat rules, though
some of the guys who I play TW with don't; <shrug>)
Mk
textfilter: chose text/plain from a multipart/alternative
I have talked to a few folks who tried TW and they went back to SG2. You have
a bit more fidelity in SG2 than you have in TW. TW works but SG2 works better
IMHO.
There was a comment about SG2 croaking at a certain point. IMHO, the games
starts to drag when you have more than four players. Especially in
con-games where attention gets drawn away easily.
My only *really* negative comment I have regarding SG2 deals with the alarming
number of "1 and N" where N="Max Die Result of the Highest Die Type Rolled"
results that I get. Yes. Logically I know this is a frustrating variant of
"Indy's 1" and cannot be fixed with the mechanics as printed. But if you can
I'd appreciate a fix to the former while leaving the latter alone.
Other than that I will echo other postings about the vehicle combat system in
SG2. I know what you were going for when you wrote the rules but over the
years I've seen a LARGE number of destroyed wrecks on the table and they tend
to occur turn 1 or 2 for some reason. You either kill them outright or nothing
happens. I've seen a number of GM's throwing the "WTF just happened" glare
when you smoke the opponents heavy vehicles turn
one...
I'm partial to everything in DS except for the chit draw and infantry
mechanics (which you already said are present to give the tankers fun instead
of nervous fits). A flanking rule would be appreciated ala Spearhead or any
other number of games that allow folks to bring in some forces at the side of
the table. I've tried the telescoping time DS variant and it doesn't make
sense in the least.
I would also like to see the new set be scale agnostic.
D.
> On Mon, Sep 15, 2014 at 8:13 AM, Indy <indy.kochte@gmail.com> wrote:
> textfilter: chose text/plain from a multipart/alternative
wrote:
> > textfilter: chose text/plain from a multipart/alternative
Just when this discussion was starting to get interesting and useful, it seems
to have fizzled out.... anyone else got any opinions or input they'd like to
give?
In anticipation,
Jon (GZG)
> textfilter: chose text/plain from a multipart/alternative
wrote:
> textfilter: chose text/plain from a multipart/alternative
wrote:
> >
textfilter: chose text/plain from a multipart/alternative
Sorry, Jon, I went on travel as the discussion got interesting.
I'm on the opposite side of the table from Damo wrt TW and SG2. IMO TW is
where I think SG2 should have evolved to. Despite the somewhat
non-intuitive reaction system, I think it flows better. <shrug> BUT,
this is not about SG2, but SG:AC.
I would like to see something between SG2 and DS2 come out. Right now the
closest thing I can think of that fits that might be Future War Commander, but
I caveat that I have not yet played that system so I don't know
(yet)
if it's more DS2 for 15mm or closer to what SG:AC might or should be.
Mk
> On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 2:51 PM, Ground Zero Games <jon@gzg.com> wrote:
> Just when this discussion was starting to get interesting and useful,
wrote:
> >
textfilter: chose text/plain from a multipart/alternative
Mechanics and such apart, I'd like to see a game that could use the multitude
of drone models now out there (GZG and others) in interesting ways.
I remember the intro to SG2 (or maybe DS2?) dismissing the "couple of robots
stalking each other across an otherwise empty battlefield" as a boring game,
but with so many neat drone models around it seems a shame not to have some
interesting rules for them.
Brian www.warbard.ca
(trying to resist getting back into 15mm SF after a many-year hiatus,
but
so much cool stuff out there, and I really want to re-start my red Mars
project. Maybe this winter...)
> On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 6:26 PM, Indy <indy.kochte@gmail.com> wrote:
> textfilter: chose text/plain from a multipart/alternative
wrote:
> > Just when this discussion was starting to get interesting and
textfilter: chose text/plain from a multipart/alternative
I think there are aspects of TW that are superior to SG2 - mostly the
soft rules arranged around the core (which I don't really care for). The
assumption of the data net overlaying the battle space is great - at
15mm and 6mm you can def. have drones on the table as well as national assets
up in orbit. The relative tech levels work well. The basic alien creation
system is neat.
Anywho...additional ideas/wants/nice to haves:
1) I really like the pre-game sequence in PBI and the old AK-47. In
relation to the data net mentioned above a pre-game segment to determine
the health of that net would be neat e.g. invaders managed to nuke 75% of your
net...so the effectiveness of off table comms and intel are borked. That said
100% functional doesn't equate to 100% reliable.:)
2) I would like to see a better psychology model in there. Not
uber-realistic because that wouldn't be fun -- but if real wars were
fought by wargamers we'd somehow manage 200% casualties and still win. This
should probably be an optional rule because some folks hate to have their 15mm
minions not listen to them. As an aside I read through a WW2 study that
implied that Green units typically did better on the battlefield than
Vets -- mostly because Vets knew when to stop pushing while Greens
tended to keep on going. I wish I could remember the name of the report but it
implies the exact opposite of how most games work.
3) A simplistic campaign system with unit improvements over time.
4) A points system. Yeah they suck...but they're a good way to get close. But
please don't over analyze it.
5) The rules should form an onion -- the core should be a simple
mechanic in which you overlay consistent bits of chrome. You should be able to
remove layers without hurting the core. I know Jon has experience with this
(ala the FMA system in general).
6) Support on- and off- table assets. Telescoping time and distance
rubs people the wrong way. Maybe only one side can have their assets on the
table assuming that the scenario in question represents a fight where the
aggressor has already penetrated the front lines and the "defender" set up
a quick line to protect their brigade/corp/whatever assets? Probably
better as a specific scenario.
7) Unit and vehicle construction rules. Should allow for near future
conventional stuff as well as far future alien weirdness.
8) A continuation of the SG2/FT/DS setting. But not cooked into the
rules proper.
> On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 8:26 PM, Indy <indy.kochte@gmail.com> wrote:
> textfilter: chose text/plain from a multipart/alternative
wrote:
> > Just when this discussion was starting to get interesting and
Some very useful input - many thanks! I pretty much agree with
everything here, just a few specific comments that may promote further
discussion....
> I think there are aspects of TW that are superior to SG2 - mostly the
Agreed, there are a number of elements that TW has that we really
ought to include in SG:AC - not surprisingly, given the two rulesets
(TW and SGII) were written almost twenty years apart.... ;-)
> Anywho...additional ideas/wants/nice to haves:
Agreed, the pre-game concept is something I've always liked too - it
needs careful design to avoid it "spoiling" the main game completely (eg: by
changing the situation so much that one side is too disadvantaged to have any
chance of winning) BUT this can be balanced
by altering the victory conditions in response to the pre-game events
- in effect, it is the pre-game that actually determines the scenario
that will be played in the game itself. For example, if the pre-game
reduces the effectiveness of one player's force significantly, then what might
have been a simple meeting engagement actually becomes a "hold this position
for x turns" defence game.....
> 2) I would like to see a better psychology model in there. Not
Interesting, and yes, I can understand the reasoning behind this; that is how
most soldiers survive to reach Veteran status after
all....
It CAN be handled by a combination of motivation and confidence levels along
with the troop quality stats, but this merits much more discussion!
> 3) A simplistic campaign system with unit improvements over time.
Agreed, always a nice thing to have.
> 4) A points system. Yeah they suck...but they're a good way to get
Yes, in principle I agree; the problem is coming up with one that is
simple and quick without allowing too much mini-maxing.....
Whatever we do, SOMEONE will instantly over-analyze it and then
gleefully inform the entire internet that it is "broken", thus proving how
much smarter they are than the people who put a lot of
effort into designing it.... ;-)
> 5) The rules should form an onion -- the core should be a simple
A very good principle to aim for - not always 100% possible, but a
target to keep in mind throughout.
> 6) Support on- and off- table assets. Telescoping time and distance
set up
> a quick line to protect their brigade/corp/whatever assets? Probably
Yes, pretty much agree with all that!
> 7) Unit and vehicle construction rules. Should allow for near future
Agreed, you should always be able to design 20th/21st Century "real
world" equipment and units and have them feel right.
> 8) A continuation of the SG2/FT/DS setting. But not cooked into the
Agreed, maybe with a little bit of updating of the early part of the timeline
to account for the fact that not all of what was written
twenty-five years ago has (thank the Gods) come to pass - yet,
anyway.... ;-)
Best,
> On Thu, Sep 25, 2014 at 12:17:02AM +0100, Ground Zero Games wrote:
I'm not much of a ground-based wargamer, but I've recently been
playing a bit of Chain of Command, and the emphasis that it puts on giving the
right orders at the right time is very welcome: it's the closest I've come to
the ideal of making the decisions that the bloke on the ground has to make.
(On the other hand it's underspecified and sometimes simplistic when it comes
to the actual shooty stuff.)
> Agreed, the pre-game concept is something I've always liked too - it
A slight side note:
I'm always wary of the "two equal forces line up and blast away at each other"
school of gaming (which I met first in Battletech, but it's not unique to that
game). It just doesn't seem to happen that often in the real world; a smart
commander knows that he has to save
his forces for the _next_ battle, and if he realises that the enemy's
force is as tough as his he may well be looking for a chance to fade away (and
so will the enemy). I'm much more interested in asymmetrical games: a big
force attacks a smaller force with a good defensive position, a scout unit
tries to gather information and then escape, that sort of thing.
> Interesting, and yes, I can understand the reasoning behind this;
As a role-player, I'm willing to compromise: the on-scene commander
(my avatar on the battlefield) should do just what I tell him to do, but the
blokes he's commanding should be at liberty to say "could I have that in
writing, sir?" (and similar phrases that should chill the heart of any
competent officer).
> Yes, in principle I agree; the problem is coming up with one that is
While it may smack a bit of the GW approach, I think that having standard
organisations can go a long way to covering up the cracks in a point system.
If your NAC Marine company is a standard roster plus a bit of optional
support, you won't get the problem of someone taking lots of a single unit
type (which is very often where a point system breaks down).
> On Thu, Sep 25, 2014 at 12:17:02AM +0100, Ground Zero Games wrote:
Interesting - I have a copy of CoC, but haven't done more than glance
through it so far; I'll give it a better look when I get the chance.
> Agreed, the pre-game concept is something I've always liked too - it
We're on the same page there! :-)
> Interesting, and yes, I can understand the reasoning behind this;
Yes, I think that's exactly the sort of feel that we should be aiming for. The
kind of player who wants 100% perfect control over every figure in his army is
most probably already lost to us anyway, and I don't see much point in
compromising the game just to suit that type of player.
Perhaps the most important thing as a first step is to actually
define the target players for the game - if anyone wants to chime in
with some thoughts on that, feel free!
> Yes, in principle I agree; the problem is coming up with one that is
Yes, I agree - the problem comes when we're trying to write a generic
ruleset with an optional background, rather than one where the
official background is almost "compulsory" - as you say, we can give
a TO&E for an NAC Company, but then Joe Q. Munchkin turns up at game night
with his homebrewed "King Thrognord of Flibble's Royal Guard Company" which,
of course, has every trooper in heavy power armour with a fusion gun.... and
then everything goes to Hell in the proverbial handbasket....
There are possible ways round this problem, and I'd love to discuss it
further.
textfilter: chose text/plain from a multipart/alternative
> On Thu, Sep 25, 2014 at 8:17 AM, Ground Zero Games <jon@gzg.com> wrote:
> >On Thu, Sep 25, 2014 at 12:17:02AM +0100, Ground Zero Games wrote:
By "target players", do you mean those who will be playing the game, or those
we will be shooting at?
Mk
> textfilter: chose text/plain from a multipart/alternative
How did I know that someone would ask that....? ;-)
> How did I know that someone would ask that....? ;-)
> Jon (GZG)
SomeONE? In the grand old days of the listserv, dozens of members would
simultaneously fire off hundreds of...! *ahem*
Never mind.
The_Beast
textfilter: chose text/plain from a multipart/alternative
I think the idea of standard "squads", "platoons" etc. are a good idea. Those
can be the framework. If Mr MunchkinHammer wants that all PA force, fine, he
just needs to pay for it, and the support structure to go with it. Maybe some
"economic" rules for force building. Something that takes into account the
"tooth to tail" needed to support the force
you are building (I'm pretty sure Traveller/Striker had this).
My ideal would be:
single figure for leaders/key personnel
stand (2-5 figures) = Fireteam/Weapons crew
vehicle = single vehicle
Players would control @ a company (12-16 stands), with of table support.
Mission/scenario generator that uses force ratios.
textfilter: chose text/plain from a multipart/alternative
> On Thu, Sep 25, 2014 at 8:17 AM, Ground Zero Games <jon@gzg.com> wrote:
> Interesting - I have a copy of CoC, but haven't done more than glance
I played CoC once -- and it was a tremendous bore. Granted it was a
prior version of the game but at the time it seemed like we spent the entire
game just pushing units back and forth e.g. on my turn I shot unit Z and they
fell back and on their turn unit Z advanced, shot my unit and I feel back...ad
infinitum ad nauseum. Maybe it's better now?
> Perhaps the most important thing as a first step is to actually
I think the better question is what kind of community do you want to build up
around the system? For all their evils the point based games tend to invite
tournaments. Earlier I mentioned that the core rules shouldn't be intimately
tied to the background but there is nothing saying you cannot have "The
complete guide to NAC" style "army" books.
I will point to the local success of Bolt Action which I cannot explain based
on the rules alone. There is a rather large and vibrant BA community near work
who meet weekly to try new armies or combos. I ask myself "Those rules...do
you know any better?" and in some cases they probably do not. In other cases
they possibly overlook the rules happy to have a local community to game with.
The BA folks will be producing a Scifi version in the near future and will
probably see success.
If you want to target the same set of folks who got into SG2, DS2, and FT then
the outcome, for you, will probably be the same. You may be ok with that but
you may also be losing a commercial opportunity.
Your shop your rules after all.:)
D.
> On Thu, Sep 25, 2014 at 11:06:04AM -0400, Damond Walker wrote:
I have a couple of blogged reports at
http://blog.firedrake.org/archive/2014/01/Chain_of_Command__Game_2.html
and
http://blog.firedrake.org/archive/2014/05/Chain_of_Command__The_Battle_o
f_Grange_Farm.html
which you may find interesting. That certainly doesn't describe the game as
I've experienced it.
The thing I like about it is that shock level is a fluid and per-unit
thing, and a battle generally ends when one side runs out of determination
rather than running out of men.
> I think the better question is what kind of community do you want to
The existence of Serious Tournament Play seems to put off at least as many
people as it encourages. This is especially true in a historical
setting, where someone's custom army may be vastly more game-capable
than a genuine historical force.
> I will point to the local success of Bolt Action which I cannot
Really? I thought "the rules are basically Warhammer" was the principal reason
for its success: a simple system that people know.
R
Good morning, I've not done much commenting in the last year or so, just
"lurking" but I thought to toss in my two cents.
In my opinion, the targeted players are those who wish for more context than
simple "head-banging" face up matches. There have been comments above
inconclusive games. These happen (sadly) all too often when you're using point
based, matchup games. It becomes the challenge of the presenter to build a
good scenario that provides victory conditions or success criteria that
challenge the players to do more than body count.
I'm long been a fan of GZG games, and greatly enjoy the scalability inherent
in the rules. Our group, here in St Louis has conducted several
mini-campaigns as well as linked games with the scale of the engagement
with the "campaign" determining which set of rules we've used. The transition
from epic to tactical (DS to SG and back) as the size of the engagement fluxes
can add a flavor not seen elsewhere. There are issues with these rules and I
concur that point based rules can and do generate tournaments. I must confess,
I too have a 40K army that occasionally sees the table in local tourneys' but
it also is more likely to be used with other rules than GW.
So, let's consider rules than can do more than just build points but an
approach that can both add context (scenario's that aren't just randomized)
but also allow for the occasionally beer and pizza face2face
"head-banger"
Patrick Connaughton
"Learning is not compulsory... neither is survival"-W. Edwards Deming
E-mail - ptconn@earthlink.net
Skype - j.patrick.connaughton
[quoted original message omitted]
> On Thu, Sep 25, 2014 at 10:25:29AM -0500, Patrick Connaughton wrote:
Speaking for myself --
(an aside here: things I like and things that are commercially successful are
pretty much two disjoint sets, so doing stuff I like is a horrible way to make
money)
-- I very much agree. Even if you only have time to play a single
game, there should be some sort of outcome more than "I won, you lost".
Whether that's a lightweight campaign system, or just a victory evaluation
system that rewards you for preserving your forces as well as for killing the
bad guys, is a matter for the designer.
Chain of Command (again, sorry) has a campaign system that promises a
three-way evaluation: what higher command thinks of the bloke, what
his men think of him, and how he feels about himself. In practice it's a bit
of a disappointment: did he achieve his objectives, did he get people killed?
But something along those lines would certainly be welcome.
> There have been comments above inconclusive games. These happen
Yes, I think that some sort of objective, even if it's just "get your guys off
the other edge of the map", almost always improves things.
R
textfilter: chose text/plain from a multipart/alternative
On Thu, Sep 25, 2014 at 11:25 AM, Roger Bell_West <roger@firedrake.org>
wrote:
> That certainly doesn't describe the
The game I tried was at Historicon a number of years ago -- like I said
perhaps the rules are better now? Or perhaps the GMs thought they'd "simplify"
the rules for a con game? Who knows. I do remember four hours of the most
awesome levels of tedium and frustration. I'd certainly give it a another go.
I'll give your batreps a read.
> The existence of Serious Tournament Play seems to put off at least as
You can't please every person every time. We know of several companies who've
followed that route and have been wildly successful wrt tournament style play
and the markets that spring up around that concept. It's Jon's ultimate
decision of course but the concept has legs as proven by the industry in
general.
> Really? I thought "the rules are basically Warhammer" was the
Folks throw that description around for any system that uses buckets of
dice to hit/damage/save. Folks used to say that FOW was successful
because it was Warhammer WW2 (perhaps they still do?). I always found FOW to
be much more subtle than anything in the Warhammer line. That said FOW
certainly shared the IGOUGO move-shoot-assault model.
D.
textfilter: chose text/plain from a multipart/alternative
On Thu, Sep 25, 2014 at 11:33 AM, Roger Bell_West <roger@firedrake.org>
wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 25, 2014 at 10:25:29AM -0500, Patrick Connaughton wrote:
Ambush Alley had or used to have available a very short (4-page; 3 of
which
were the rules, one was the rules cover :-D ) set of WWII 'patrol'
campaign rules which each side would roll secretly for their force's
game/scenario
objective. A friend and I adopted it to do a short (9-game) TW campaign
a couple years ago, and it worked really well. One of the objectives was to
exit the other end of the table with half your force or more. There were six
objectives that you would roll for on each side, with each side keeping their
rolled objective a secret from the other. Made for some interesting battles.
(and a couple of potentially boring ones when both of our objectives were to
withdraw; but that happened far less often than the other combination of
objectives).
Mk
textfilter: chose text/plain from a multipart/alternative
On Thu, Sep 25, 2014 at 11:57 AM, Damond Walker <damosan@gmail.com> wrote:
> textfilter: chose text/plain from a multipart/alternative
I think the Glen Burnie group you are familiar with still describes FoW to
newbies in terms of Warhammer. :-/
Mk
textfilter: chose text/plain from a multipart/alternative
do you have that adaptation somewhere?
Michael Brown
mwsaber6@msn.com
> Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2014 13:20:50 -0400
campaign
> rules which each side would roll secretly for their force's
textfilter: chose text/plain from a multipart/alternative
I have the original pdf.
Mk
> On Thu, Sep 25, 2014 at 1:23 PM, MICHAEL BROWN <mwsaber6@msn.com> wrote:
> textfilter: chose text/plain from a multipart/alternative
> textfilter: chose text/plain from a multipart/alternative
campaign
> rules which each side would roll secretly for their force's
That is similar in some ways to the classic "Seastrike" random
objective method - each player draws an unmarked envelope from a
stack of a dozen or so, and a card in the envelope tells them (a) the budget
for their force, (b) any specific restrictions on their force composition and
(c) the objective they must try to achieve, with an alternative secondary
objective (which is usually, but not always, to prevent the enemy from
achieving their own objective) that the player may fall back on if the main
objective becomes impossible.
Having drawn and read your objective card, you then "buy" your ships,
aircraft, land bases etc from the pool of counters (each has a price
in millions of pounds/dollars) up to the allowed budget on the card,
and then the game deployment starts.
The objectives range from a relatively small budget and a mission to render
just one enemy surface vessel inoperative (to "make a point"
to a sabre-rattling enemy), to a huge budget that allows you to buy
almost your entire counter mix but with a mission requiring you to completely
neutralise all enemy forces.
As Indy mentions, it is possible to get some odd matchups - though
having the blind envelope draw rather than a die roll does mean that both
sides will never get the same objective. The classic very short
game is a small-budget objective to simply destroy the enemy's
(land-based) command post - unless the enemy has heavily invested in
SAM sites, then you just spend almost all your budget on strike aircraft and
wallop the hell out of him in the first turn....
This system has been "borrowed" many times over the years, most notably by
Brilliant Lances (the Traveller starship game), because it works! I certainly
borrowed some of the Seastrike system icon ideas for FT, as many of you may
have noted long ago, but I've not actually
applied the objective card system to a game - though it would lend
itself very well to FT games, and I'm sure it could be made to work for ground
based games too.
[I've kind of assumed that most here know what Seastrike is - for
those that don't, it's a hybrid board/tabletop game of mid-to-late
20th Century (post-WW2) naval combat between two smallish states set
in an island archipelago, with surface units varying from missile boats
through frigates and destroyers up to a single cruiser (rather vulnerable and
seldom used, in my experience!) available to each fleet, plus strike and
interceptor aircraft and land bases such as SAM and radar sites to place on
the islands. Play occurs on a tabletop rather than a board, with card islands
placed at random as "terrain". All combat is very simply driven by a clever
special card deck.]
textfilter: chose text/plain from a multipart/alternative
"This system has been "borrowed" many times over the years, most notably by
Brilliant Lances (the Traveller starship game), because it works! I certainly
borrowed some of the Seastrike system icon ideas for FT, as many of you may
have noted long ago, but I've not actually
applied the objective card system to a game - though it would lend
itself very well to FT games, and I'm sure it could be made to work for ground
based games too."
Gee, I wonder where I got the idea for the mission cards I did so many moons
ago... (Having BOTH SeaStrike and Brilliant Lances)
Michael Brown
mwsaber6@msn.com
> Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2014 18:49:04 +0100
campaign
> >rules which each side would roll secretly for their force's
textfilter: chose text/plain from a multipart/alternative
Mike, trade you a scanned copy of Seastrike for the Dead Man's Land pdf
:-)
Mk
> On Thu, Sep 25, 2014 at 2:00 PM, MICHAEL BROWN <mwsaber6@msn.com> wrote:
> textfilter: chose text/plain from a multipart/alternative
the
> > budget for their force, (b) any specific restrictions on their force
textfilter: chose text/plain from a multipart/alternative
deal. Counters too?
Michael Brown
mwsaber6@msn.com
> Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2014 14:24:54 -0400
wrote:
> > textfilter: chose text/plain from a multipart/alternative
3 of
> > which
There were
> > > >six objectives that you would roll for on each side, with each
the
> > > budget for their force, (b) any specific restrictions on their
textfilter: chose text/plain from a multipart/alternative
Only if you're feeling up to it. Primarily interested in giving the rules a
thorough reading. :-)
Mk
> On Thu, Sep 25, 2014 at 2:28 PM, MICHAEL BROWN <mwsaber6@msn.com> wrote:
> textfilter: chose text/plain from a multipart/alternative
wrote:
> >
There
> were
A bit of search through TMP and LAF will show I've bragged you up more than
once, and mentioned on the FT Yahoo! group, as well.
Doug
[quoted original message omitted]
textfilter: chose text/plain from a multipart/alternative
Want to feel old? Those were done in the 90's
My boys are picking up FT Fever, I'm about ready to introduce them to the
mission cards
Michael Brown
mwsaber6@msn.com
> From: devans@nebraska.edu
> > >> your guys off the other edge of the map", almost always improves
> > >well. One of the objectives was to exit the other end of the table
> > in millions of pounds/dollars) up to the allowed budget on the card,
> > and then the game deployment starts.
> > render just one enemy surface vessel inoperative (to "make a point"
> > almost your entire counter mix but with a mission requiring you to
> > both sides will never get the same objective. The classic very short
> > game is a small-budget objective to simply destroy the enemy's
> > SAM sites, then you just spend almost all your budget on strike
> > in an island archipelago, with surface units varying from missile
> > vulnerable and seldom used, in my experience!) available to each
I can do a lot better than that to 'feel old.' ;->=
The_Beast (Who can't use the same signature twice...)
[quoted original message omitted]
On the subject of creating scenarios by a pre-game random method
(whether it is a die roll, a card draw or any other system), how do
people feel about that in general - what I'm wondering is whether,
when a player turns up for game night with their completely finished and
beautifully painted full Company task force with all the support
elements, they are going to fell a bit miffed when the pre-game
scenario generation tells them that they are a last-ditch defensive
force that has to delay the enemy advance for six turns, and that all
they get to use is a couple of badly-shaken short platoons...?
Now, I know that those of us who like and understand how these things
work would probably be fine with that situation - because in next
week's game they will probably the the side that gets to put all
their toys on the table - but I'm just wondering about how it would
sit with Joe Average Club Gamer....?
Oh, and just to clear one thing up - I don't see SG:AC as ever being
a major commercial project for me - I don't feel any great need to
sell thousands of copies and have it hailed as the best 15mm SF game ever,
with huge tournaments dedicated to it. It's a project I'd really like to do
for the fun of it, and with the hope that it might help to sell a modest
number of the figures and vehicles that I make
my living from. :-)
Jon (GZG)
> >
wrote:
> >
textfilter: chose text/plain from a multipart/alternative
> On Thu, Sep 25, 2014 at 4:04 PM, Ground Zero Games <jon@gzg.com> wrote:
> On the subject of creating scenarios by a pre-game random method
I suspect they will do the Gamer Thing and ignore it if they don't like
it. :)
Referring back to AK-47 and PBI -- wasn't it possible to lose (or gain)
forces based on the pre-game stuff? I'd have to look again.
D.
in AK 47 both players roll pregame dice call the build up.
Each time a player 'wins' a build up event they can roll on a table for their
army and can get additional assets. these are usually bonus dice to roll for
assets or counters to temporarily improve the status of units. Such as
president issues new helmet plumes. Units is impressed and can become
professional (elite) for one turn.
The difference in players build up scores determines who is the attacher and
who is the defender and how organised the defender is. In a suprise attack
situation the defender gets less units on the table and more entering from
reserve.
This makes each game very variable even though there is only one scenario.
This is good if both players have the time to go through the process but it's
not so good if you wanted to play it at an event. But then the whole game
isn't designed for tournament play.
> textfilter: chose text/plain from a multipart/alternative
Interesting.... maybe part of the pre-game is a serviceability check
on all vehicles and high-tech equipment (PA suits etc), with the
chances of passing linked to the tech level of the equipment and the level of
logistical and maintenance support available to the force.... skimp on the
support, and you run the risk of half your
grav-tanks or PA suits being unavailable for the battle because the
spare parts you need are 27 light years away.... and suddenly the local
forces' wheeled APCs that run on grain alcohol don't look such
a joke. ;-)
> My ideal would be:
Either singles or a 2-man command stand on something like a small FoW
base.
> stand (2-5 figures) = Fireteam/Weapons crew
Typical "element" stand of normal infantry 3-5 figures, a Power
Armour element a 2-3 figure stand. Weapons crew and weapon is a
single element on a stand. Typical stand sizes would be the FoW medium bases,
or a 40x40mm like the very useful Victrix plastic ones.
> vehicle = single vehicle
Yes, definitely; though I don't mind WW2 rules with downscaled
organisations (so 1 tank = a troop, 3-4 are a squadron etc), I don't
think it feels right for SciFi - not quite sure WHY, it just doesn't!
Jon (GZG)
> Players would control @ a company (12-16 stands), with of table
> That is similar in some ways to the classic "Seastrike" random
I have the original "yellow folder" edition of "Seastrike" (bought in my
final year at high-school), and played a lot of games, so I stole the
game's basic structure for my old "Belt Wars" hard-SF Full Thrust
universe. I think there is a lot to be said for hidden asymmetrical
objectives. For one thing, it makes it difficult to minimax up a
"perfect" army/fleet.
As for referring to <game> as "basically Warhammer/W40K", we should
remember that 1) people are lazy and stupid, and 2) at a certain level
of abstraction *all* table-top wargames are basically Warhammer/W40K. On
the other hand, there is nothing wrong with introducing a new
game/ruleset to people who are already familiar with Warhammer/W40K by
comparing and contrasting the new with the already-familiar.
I have not played Bolt Action at all. Having looked at a rules summary, I
think the idea of randomising the order in which units can activate is not
without merit, but I'll have to think about it further.
textfilter: chose text/plain from a multipart/alternative
At my club we play a number of games with random activation orders,
driven by decks of cards which also have random events in - these are a
mix of commercial rules and home-brew ones. I'm definitely a fan of
this, it creates a real fog of war effect with army commanders having to react
to the sequence of events rather than being able to stick to a rigid plan.
Some of the games also have an 'end-of-turn' card in - this means that
not all units are guaranteed to be activated every turn (and turns can be very
short if that one comes up early).
---- Robert N Bryett wrote ----
> That is similar in some ways to the classic "Seastrike" random
> On Thu, Sep 25, 2014 at 04:12:36PM -0400, Damond Walker wrote:
Yup. People who want the One True Way to Play probably won't be
playing this anyway. :-) (That's why I dislike tournament play: it
turns too easily into gamesmanship. There's this trick in Star Wars:
X-Wing where you hide a unit on the edge of the map next to an
asteroid so that it can lurk away from the fight and still give ECM bonuses,
because the actual movement rules don't let you stay still.)
Slightly more seriously, I don't see anything wrong with _supporting_
a battle with pre-set forces, if that's what people want to do.
Speaking for myself, I'm not a big minis buyer or painter anyway (sorry Jon),
so I'm not that worried about getting all my toys on the table. In the case of
the campaign game, this may be revolutionary, but if you don't want to carry
more than you play perhaps you could do
the pre-game rolling by email before you turn up at the club?
R