Yes, we used 6mm figures with the 25mm ground scale -- given the
capabilities of modern equipment, it looked like a pretty good match between
the ground scale and the figure scale.
The best part about it was the terrain -- GeoHex hills are BIG hills
for 6mm figures, and taking & owning a hill can be a real advantage.
-- Rick
I apologize for the junk appended to this message by the mail server.
[quoted original message omitted]
> Rick Rutherford wrote:
> Yes, we used 6mm figures with the 25mm ground scale -- given the
I also like doing this. Sure you don't get the beauty of the figures but you
get more of the tactical manuever and sense of appropriate scale. (I'll have
some 6mm SST figs down at the con, maybe I'll run an SST battle if I have some
spare time.)
> Los wrote:
> Rick Rutherford wrote:
I've been painting a bunch of 6mm figs for use with SGII. I like the sense of
scale a great deal.
> (I'll have some 6mm SST figs down
Sounds great. I'll pack the plastic bugs I won at ECC II. <g>
-Mike
In a message dated 2/25/00 8:38:39 AM Central Standard Time,
los@cris.com writes:
<< I also like doing this. Sure you don't get the beauty of the figures but
you get more of the tactical manuever and sense of appropriate scale.
(I'll
have some 6mm SST figs down at the con, maybe I'll run an SST battle if I have
some spare time.)
> [quoted text omitted]
If you are into historicals, did you ever play "She Wore a Yellow Ribbon"? the
rule set SUGGESTED as small a figure scale as you could get to "capture the
feel of the old west." It does quite nicely.
> Yes, we used 6mm figures with the 25mm ground scale -- given the
Irregular miniatures do a range of WW2/modern an SF in 2mm,but if you
think 6mm is small...
I agree that 6mm is the way to go. Infantry weapons are problematic in 25mm
scale (100 to 150 inches for SMG's, 300 to 600 inches for rifles, 600 to 1000
inches for MG's). You can't even begin to do vehicle in 25mm scale. The ranges
they have are too great.
The biggest problem with SG is that it takes too much time to field battalion
sized forces... And 6mm let's you field battalion sized forces...
On Fri, 25 Feb 2000 08:50:35 -0500, "Rick Rutherford" <Rick@esr.com>
wrote:
> The best part about it was the terrain -- GeoHex hills are BIG hills
I haven't found hills to be THAT big an adantage, ecept that anything behind
them is beyond Line Of Sight. There are no cover advantages for being on a
hill, which I sort of disagree with.
On Sat, 26 Feb 2000 08:02:03 -0500, "Imre A. Szabo" <ias@sprintmail.com>
wrote:
> The biggest problem with SG is that it takes too much time to field
Well, SG isn't intended for battalion sized games. That's what DSII is
for...
*S*
> On Sat, 26 Feb 2000, Allan Goodall wrote:
> On Sat, 26 Feb 2000 08:02:03 -0500, "Imre A. Szabo"
<ias@sprintmail.com>
> wrote:
Well, smaller games of SG II are often unsatisfying. Of course, having to call
it a night half way through a game is even more so.:)
OK, I've got to ask, why are smaller games of SG unsatisfactory? By smaller
do you mean smaller than Coy/10 suads a side? Or smaller than Pl/4
squads a side?
Owen G
> -----Original Message-----
Well, I have to admit I have a pretty limited SG2 experience, maybe 20 or so
games, but from the games I've had...
3 small squads/side [or less] pretty much breaks down into who gets
lucky/unlucky with the clear suppression rolls.
6 squads 4-10 members and a couple vehicles/side seem to be too
dependant on dice rolls still. A couple lucky penetrations on the armor and
maybe a squad advantage means the other side unlikly to be able to recover.
Spending a couple hours to have a game basically decided by a
couple 1's being rolled, and at non-critical times to boot, isn't
really cheering.
We've had a lot of success with 8+ squads + armor/side. I want to
play
an 18 squads [100 infantry] + armor /side game to see how it goes.
Thats my impression anyway, others in the same games might have had different
impressions... I guess it depends on who rolled those '1s'.
:)
> On Sun, 27 Feb 2000, Glover, Owen wrote:
> OK, I've got to ask, why are smaller games of SG unsatisfactory? By
> sportyspam@harm.dhs.org wrote:
> Well, I have to admit I have a pretty limited SG2 experience, maybe
:)
> [quoted text omitted]
I think 4-6 squads aside with a bit of support and armor seems about
right, to many more squads slows the game so much that you only get about 1
turn an hour. with that few squads I do admit it is hard to recover from
mistakes made earlier on in the game but it is realistic. I've found that even
bad die rolls are reasonably easy to recover from. one thing that always
helps, never ever ever send in a single squad at a single target. never leave
a squad by itself unless you plan to use it as a reserve.
Correct me if I'm wrong but it sounds like you are playing all your games
along the approach of 'last man standing' style? Are you using scenarios with
diferent objectives for each side?
We regularly play Coy level games (as part of our ongoing Esperance
Campaign)with one side having perhaps a Mechanised Infantry Coy with some
support elements; a dozen or so squads and vehicles and will often throw in
two or three tanks as support (and targets for the oppositions GMS!). The
defender will have usually about half of this but some sort of balance
element; artillery, Air support mines etc. In most of these games we generally
find the board breaks into 2 or three separate game spaces; as long as we keep
track of the game turns accurately the play continues almost as three
simultaneous games. Otherwise some players can end up waiting for over half an
hour to move their few squads...
Carefully thought out and balanced scenarios seem to go a lot further to the
game success rather than the size of the game. Anyhow, that's how we find it.
Cheers,
Owen
> -----Original Message-----
Agree absolutely Chris...does anyone feel like there's about only 5 or 6
people NOT at a Con this weekend?
> -----Original Message-----
> Denny Graver wrote:
> >Yes, we used 6mm figures with the 25mm ground scale -- given the
2mm, no thank you. I can tell 6mm troops apart with a good paint job, I don't
think I could do that with 2mm Just too small.
Looks good. I particularly like the map. Even just a description of 'dense
terrain' usually isn't enough as people often have a very different idea of
what 'dense' is, and it can have a huge effect on the game.
> On Sun, 27 Feb 2000, Allan Goodall wrote:
> On Sat, 26 Feb 2000 23:49:49 -0500 (EST), sportyspam@harm.dhs.org
Ambushes,
> engineers destroying a facility, and most recently an evacuation
> On Sat, 26 Feb 2000 23:49:49 -0500 (EST), sportyspam@harm.dhs.org wrote:
> 6 squads 4-10 members and a couple vehicles/side seem to be too
That's interesting. This is the size of game I usually play. I haven't noticed
this. In the games I've played, position and tactical mistakes usually rule
the game. True that the occasional bad suppression removal roll, or lucky
penetration, can have a big effect. The scenarios I writer don't usually
revolve around something that can be eliminated easily with one lucky shot.
Most of my games have been some sort of "get off the table" game. Ambushes,
engineers destroying a facility, and most recently an evacuation scenario.
After playing it a couple of times I can usually come up with a range of
victory conditions. The evac scenario, for instance, gives one player a
decisive win if 25+ figures are removed, minor victory if 20 to 24 are
removed, a draw if 11 to 19 are removed, and a loss if less than that are
removed. Sometimes the difference between a major and a minor victory can come
down to one lucky roll, but with this approach I've rarely seen one or two
unlucky rolls mean the difference between winning and losing. (I HAVE seen a
chain of bad rolls do that, but that's what happens with a game containing a
luck element.)
Stargrunt scenario design is a skill in and of itself, however. I have two on
my web site. Once I've playtested the two I am creating for GenCon, I'll
include those as well.
I have thought of creating a repository for Stargrunt scenarios on my web
site. If anyone has some scenarios that they've playtested, work well, and
would like to see on the web, I'd be willing to host them.
Well, this seems to be wrong on it's face. If two identical forces can not
produce a successful game, because of dice influence, I fail to see how a
scenario can be balanced better aside from making said scenrio not involve
dice... Although having objectives to worry about can certainly make the trip
more fun!
:)
> On Sun, 27 Feb 2000, Los wrote:
> "Glover, Owen" wrote:
> Carefully thought out and balanced scenarios seem to go a lot further
Amen to that!
> On Sun, 27 Feb 2000 20:18:11 -0500 (EST), sportyspam@harm.dhs.org wrote:
> Well, this seems to be wrong on it's face. If two identical forces
I'll contend things go the other way. Assuming both sides are even and both
players are equal in ability, the game will be decided on the balance of dice
rolls. Everything else is even.
The problem with balanced forces is that the terrain also has to be balanced
or one side will have an advantage. I find tactical problems to be what
interests me. I prefer the forces aren't balanced, but that the scenario is
balanced.
Hmm, actually from your original post I would be inclined to agree that
exactly equally matched forces have LESS of a chance of a successful game
exactly because it will come down to dice.
I think it might be a case of how we define a successful game too. Pitting
your own numerically smaller force against a larger force but with perhaps
time on your side (or some other balancing factor) and managing to
outwit/outmanouvre your opponent is one measure of success. Another
might be pushing your numerically superior force against a smaller more
determined opponent; you have numbers and fanatacism on your side perhaps and
the joy in the game is in keeping in character with your force rather than the
simple acheiving of an objective!
Our group must have played out about 75 scenario based games over the last 15
months playing out our mini campaign; all 'balanced' but every one with
disparate sized forces, ranging from two squads of Recon troops caught afoot
by hoards of Hill Tribes to a convoy of APCs and supply veh's ambushed by 6
Walkers!
I don't think any of them finished without one of us muttering a comment like
"..I should have really gone around the other flank...." rather than "If I
hadn't have rolled a 1 on that morale check....". Any game involving dice will
eventually have a crappy game because of a bad run of "1"s but that is going
to be the exception rather than the rule.
Our big games are fun because we have more people playing and we can 'heckle'
as a group perhaps but certainly just not because we have more squads on the
table. That example scenario of two squads versus 6 Hill Tribes was a really
enjoyable game! Even though the Recon troops lost 50% casualties they won!
Why? Their objective was acheived whilst preventing the Hairy Headed lot
acheiving theirs and the Recon guys had the crappy dice rolls!?
We work hard to make our games enjoyable and varied,
That's why we keep playing even if we "lose" more than we win.
Cheers,
Owen
> -----Original Message-----
> sportyspam@harm.dhs.org wrote:
THere was that and more at GZG-ECC III this year. ;-)
After-con reports will follow, after I get unburied from the
due-in-two-days
projects I gotta get done by tomorrow. :-/
Mk