Brian:
AFAIK, SG2 is pretty "generic". Nothing in the rules (except the "if you want
to use em" TO&E starters at the back) ties you to NAC, ESU, or anybody else.
All the rules are thoroughly generic. Me and Mr.Goodall have discussed
Traveller done SG2 before, and I think you could easily do 2300AD or many
other backgrounds VERY easily without doing much to the basic rules (just
modifying kit a bit to match the millieu).
FT - strange you should suggest FT as tied to the Tuffleyverse. If you
run the aliens, then yeah maybe. But the design rules certainly aren't. And
from
what I've seen on the list MOST folk use non-standard designs. Those who
stick to FB or basic FT designs are in the minority. The rules include beams,
pulse torpedos, etc. etc. but any of these systems could be installed on a
newly designed ship. Some of the KV stuff from the old world (pre FB2) would
have tied you to a very Tuffleyverse design, but nothing on the human sides
would tie you thusly.
I think the only reason DS2 seems more generic is because very little has been
done (officially) to provide large force tables and army lists (unlike most
mircoarmour games...). SG2 at least included a fair cross section (though
still far from complete) of units at the back of the book, as did FT (esp FB).
Now, many of us like the 'canon' history, which is why you'll see it discussed
a lot. Sure it has holes (like North America and Canada would gladly revert to
being servants of the English Crown...NOT...), but it is quite interesting,
rich with opportunities, and a lot of fun.
Tom.
Tom,
Thanks for the insight. Admittedly, my exposure to FT and SG is limited pretty
much to this mailing list. It just seems like a lot of the examples and
battles discussed do refer directly to ships designs, or at least minis,
straight from the story line. If the other games are as generic as DS, Mr.
Tuffley's more of a genius than I've already given him credit for. And while
the official story line does sound pretty detailed and full of possibilities,
there's something equally fun about creating your own.
What I've started to do is basically GM a whole universe, where my friends are
recruited to represent new budding powers, and we apply this story line to
different RPG's and wargames, depending on the situation.
Brian Bilderback
----Original Message Follows----
From: "Thomas.Barclay" <Thomas.Barclay@sofkin.ca>
Reply-To: gzg-l@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
To: "GZG List (E-mail)" <gzg-l@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU>
Subject: SG2 vs DS2 vs FT
Date: Sat, 25 Mar 2000 21:30:51 -0500
Brian:
AFAIK, SG2 is pretty "generic". Nothing in the rules (except the "if you want
to use em" TO&E starters at the back) ties you to NAC, ESU, or anybody else.
All the rules are thoroughly generic. Me and Mr.Goodall have discussed
Traveller done SG2 before, and I think you could easily do 2300AD or many
other backgrounds VERY easily without doing much to the basic rules (just
modifying kit a bit to match the millieu).
FT - strange you should suggest FT as tied to the Tuffleyverse. If you
run the aliens, then yeah maybe. But the design rules certainly aren't. And
from
what I've seen on the list MOST folk use non-standard designs. Those who
stick to FB or basic FT designs are in the minority. The rules include beams,
pulse torpedos, etc. etc. but any of these systems could be installed on a
newly designed ship. Some of the KV stuff from the old world (pre FB2) would
have tied you to a very Tuffleyverse design, but nothing on the human sides
would tie you thusly.
I think the only reason DS2 seems more generic is because very little has been
done (officially) to provide large force tables and army lists (unlike most
mircoarmour games...). SG2 at least included a fair cross section (though
still far from complete) of units at the back of the book, as did FT (esp FB).
Now, many of us like the 'canon' history, which is why you'll see it discussed
a lot. Sure it has holes (like North America and Canada would gladly revert to
being servants of the English Crown...NOT...), but it is quite interesting,
rich with opportunities, and a lot of fun.
Tom.
On Sat, 25 Mar 2000 21:30:51 -0500, "Thomas.Barclay"
> <Thomas.Barclay@sofkin.ca> wrote:
> AFAIK, SG2 is pretty "generic". Nothing in the rules (except the "if
I did a GW based game two years running at GenCon, Marines and Squats versus
Orks. I kept the game mostly SG2 and simply cobbled together stats for the
squads. I could have made the squads more "GW-ish" but it played rather
well as is. SG2 is definietly generic (I was going to say "very generic" but
generic is an absolute. *S*). I have half thought of trying to do SG2 in
another mileu, say 19th Century. Any further back than horse and musket and
the simplified hand-to-hand rules are just too silly. Theoretically it
should work (with some modifications to the morale rules, of course).
> FT - strange you should suggest FT as tied to the Tuffleyverse. If you
I found that my first go around with FT was to tie it to a universe. I
started, not surprisingly, with Star Trek ships. This worked, however in order
to get the ships looking and behaving like ST ships, I did a little tweaking.
Not much, but a little.
I discovered that the problem isn't FT, it's most of the background universes.
They simply aren't that interesting from a wargame perspective. Star Trek
ships are very generic. If you look at the standard ship types in classic
Trek, there isn't that much difference between a scout, a Constitution class
cruiser, and a dreadnought except the number of hull boxes and number of
weapons. There isn't THAT much difference between the Feds and the Klingons,
either. Compare this to the Tuffleyverse and you see more variation in ships
within one fleet.
This is common throughout a number of science fiction universes. Even B5 has
shown fewer ship types in most scenarios than you'll find in a standard FT
scenario. This isn't a failing of FT. In fact, it shows that the Tuffleyverse
is a more interesting playground than most media backgrounds. This is probably
why you see a lot of Tuffleyverse players. It isn't a reflection of FT's
generic nature, but rather the lack of features in medai sci-fi.
This having been said, media games are very popular at cons. It's easy to drag
players into it. It's easy to drag non-gamers into it. And even if one
background universe isn't very diverse, you can always have one universe
battle another. Dean Gundberg did this with his Sci-fi Crossover games,
and they work well. Can a Fed phaser (read beam) fleet handle an Imperial
Stardestroyer (read battledreadnought) fleet? What about a Battlestar (read
fighter) fleet? This can be pretty interesting, if a little less than serious.
> I think the only reason DS2 seems more generic is because very little
On Sat, 25 Mar 2000 19:25:27 PST, "Brian Bilderback" <bbilderback@hotmail.com>
wrote:
> If the other games are as generic as DS, Mr.
I would say that FT is a little less generic, but SG is as generic (if not
more so) than DS2.
> And
Oh, definitely. I have two universes of my own. One, I ran a PBEM game in a
couple of years ago. The background information and ship designs were well
received (I am planning to ressurect it, but waiting for FB2 to come out). The
other doesn't have much in the way of starship combat, but would work VERY
well with DS2 and SG2. I'll roll that out at some point.
> Brian Bilderback wrote:
> Thanks for the insight. Admittedly, my exposure to FT and SG is
To see just how flexible FT is, have a look at
http://www.uwm.edu/~cthulhu/FT/back.htm
> Allan Goodall wrote:
This seems to be a scenario that would attract a lot of attention at a gaming
con. "What's this? Star Trek meets Star Wars meets B5 meets Battlestar
Galactica? Man, I gotta play this!!"
> At 07:25 PM 3/25/00 PST, Brian B... um, Bilderback, that is wrote:
> pretty much to this mailing list. It just seems like a lot of the
That probably isn't so much of a reflection on wwhat ships and designs people
use to play as it is how much easier it is to make comparisions off the
baselines of the provided fleets. When Oerjan wants to make a point by
playtesting something (see the banzai jammers vs. SML fleet a couple months
back), I'm sure he could whip up a few designs special for the occation
On Sun, 26 Mar 2000 08:23:59 -0500, Nyrath the nearly wise
<nyrath@clark.net> wrote:
> This seems to be a scenario that would attract a lot of
I really should post my GenCon pictures. I have a bunch of them from last
year. I have some good ones from Dean's game, with Star Trek, Star Wars, B5,
Galactica, Space: 1999 and Space: Above and Beyond. It's a very good con game,
though... brings in the sci-fi fanboys and fangirls very nicely. *L*
Actually, I've come up with a favorite design for a HBT, let's see what people
think:
Class 5 Fast Tracked (I went with Fast Tracked over Grav or Hover for two
reasons: first, it offsets the high price of the rest of the gear on the
tank, and second, it can traverse lightly wooded ares, it seems a bit more
rugged design.) FGP, Armor 5A, 4 levels of stealth, Superior ECM, Superior
targeting, Backup Systems, Amphibious. Main Weapon: MDC 5
Secondary Weapon: Coazial DFFG 2 (mainly for anti-personnel use at
range) Other systems: Superior PDS, 2 APSW's (1 Free, 1 paid for), APFC
Brian Bilderback
----Original Message Follows----
From: Aaron Teske <ateske@HICom.net>
Reply-To: gzg-l@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
To: gzg-l@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
Subject: Re: SG2 vs DS2 vs FT
Date: Sun, 26 Mar 2000 09:19:46 -0500
Unfortunately, that variation is a bit harder to carry over into DSII
vehicles, but one might nation may favor
size 2-3 vehicles with the occational size 4, while another uses size 5
almost exclusively, each a fortress in it's own right... not that I've
designed any of these, just tossing off ideas.