> At 07:26 PM 7/30/98 -0400, you wrote:
<snip>
> I really, really like the game (it just has too many %T$$#"%&$#
> I would have to agree. I find FT "elegant" but DS2 is definitely not.
b)
> have a container; c) remember (or look up) what combinations are valid.
Each
> troop type has a die roll bonus, which may vary by class of target.
For
> example, Light Horse is +2 against everything; archers are +4 vs
Good comments guys. I (and most of the guys in my gaming group) tend to agree.
Full Thrust, DBx and its variants and the fairly new Charlie
Company (RAFM's Vietnam skirmish/roleplaying rules) are probably the
most popular because they are adaptable, fast and the rules don't get in the
way of the game.
When I first joined, I asked if they ever played DS2. Most of the criticisms
of it and SG seemed boil down to "too many fiddly bits." Anything where you
can write the relevant rules on the back of an index card and finish a game
(or two) in an afternoon is a hit.
I own both of the FMA games and like their content, but don't really care
for their mechanics. I'd like to see the chits and n-sided die column
shifts replaced by the "fists full of six-siders" mechanic you see in FT
and Charlie Company.
(For those of you who've never seen/played it: Charlie Company is a
squad-based Vietnam RPG/skirmish game. Base fire power is one die for
every rifle, two or more for larger weapons. Fire is squad versus squad(s).
Modifiers can halve or double the number of dice rolled and are cumulative.
Sixes hit. Then you roll to see which troopers of the target squads are hit
and whether they are wounded or killed. Good points: Quick and simple, easy to
learn. GM keeps everything moving along and reduces
rules squabbles. Bad points: It is locked into the GM-controlled RPG
format. While that works very well for ambush scenarios and other
fog-of-war situations, it lacks the team vs. team aspects that I like in
most other games.)
Jeff spake thusly upon matters weighty:
> When I first joined, I asked if they ever played DS2. Most of the
Wow. Although most of the guys I game with like to finish a game, if the game
is too simplistic, they can't be bothered. They find it more a waste of their
time to play something that doesn't give them the right (to their mind) feel
and complexity. I can't imagine us playing a game where the rules fit on an
index card.
> I own both of the FMA games and like their content, but don't really
Why do you prefer ten zillion six siders to say a d1000? And it sure isn't
better than the die levels Jon has worked out for Stargrunt. I don't
necessarily see that using a bunch of d6s is an improvement. It works for FT,
but I don't see it working well for SG2.
> (For those of you who've never seen/played it: Charlie Company is a
Seems (on the surface) like a lot of dice are rolled here too (moreso because
of the way you conduct fire combat).
Good points: Quick
> and simple, easy to learn.
Bad points: Simple. That one cuts both ways.
GM keeps everything moving along and reduces
> rules squabbles.
Doesn't sound like there is a lot to squabble over. Now, mind you, put two
gamers in an empty room and they could still squabble...
Bad points: It is locked into the GM-controlled RPG
> format. While that works very well for ambush scenarios and other
And it sounds like it lacks a higher level organizational aspect. I think the
command rules are part of what makes SG2 a good game. To often I've seen games
where command is not represented as significant. Nor troop quality. SG2 does
this (IMHO) very well. That make all the difference in the real world, I'd
guess.
Tom.
/************************************************
Thomas Barclay Software Specialist Police Communications Systems Software
Kinetics Ltd. 66 Iber Road, Stittsville Ontario, Canada, K2S 1E7
Reception: (613) 831-0888
PBX: (613) 831-2018
My Extension: 4009
Fax: (613) 831-8255
Software Kinetics' Web Page:
http://www.sofkin.ca
SKL Daemons Softball Web Page:
http://fox.nstn.ca/~kaladorn/softhp.htm
**************************************************/
> agree. Full Thrust, DBx and its variants and the fairly new Charlie
As a friend of mine once put it: "When I am gaming, I want to be spending my
time thinking about the game, not about the rules." I think
that this sums my way of thinking up pretty well. It should be noted, as well,
that "simple" does not neccessarily mean "easy" or "stupid", or
"childish" --when you get right down to it, Chess is a really simplified
set of wargaming rules.
It's simplicity is, I think, one of the primary virtues of the Full Thrust
rules. Its adaptability runs a close second.
> You wrote:
> Wow. Although most of the guys I game with like to finish a game, if
Neither can I. I mean, space combat you can do this way--it's
basically a couple of machines going at it on a flat, level surface with no
obstructions. But ground combat is a little more complex than that.
> Why do you prefer ten zillion six siders to say a d1000? And it sure
Hear, hear. Once you get used to it, DSII has an elegant simplicity.
You want _real_ complexity, play CDII.
> significant. Nor troop quality. SG2 does this (IMHO) very well. That
Yeah, no joke. An Airborne Ranger with a rifle is, methinks, somewhat more
effective than a NLF irregular with a rifle. And there should be some
differentiation in a ruleset intended to 'kreigspiel' rather than serve as a
glorified poker game.
> At 11:51 AM 7/31/98 -0500, Thomas Barclay wrote:
> Anything where you can write the relevant rules on the back of an
I absolutely agree that the "right feel" is essential to any good game.
Complexity, in and of itself, doesn't do much for me. Other peoples mileage
may vary of course, but then some people like Star Fleet Battles. <g>
If I wanted accurate to the point of being tedious, I can alway haul out my
copy of Tobruk. You have to strike a balance. Like I said, I like the
content and complexity of the DS2/SG2 games, I just feel the mechanics
get in the way.
> I own both of the FMA games and like their content, but don't really
Well, there's more than one way to skin a cat.
You can draw cards or chits, you can roll percentile dice and look up the
result on a chart, you can roll dice versus dice, you can toss fistfuls of
six-siders or whatever.
Chits always bugged me, sorry. YMMV.
Percentile dice and charts are okay, but the more charts you have the
longer it takes to get anything done. After 4+ hours, this gets
tediuous.
Dice versus dice has its good points and its bad points. The DBx system is
hard to handle until you've memorized all the modifiers. Then it's pretty fast
to play. On the down side, there are only 36 possible outcomes (most of which
do nothing) and in many cases it bogs down into a pushing contest. The FMA
system gives a broader range of outcomes but memorizing the die shifts is as
much of a pain if not more so. (Or at least that is the opinion in our group.
YMMV, of course. Maybe it wouldn't be as bad if FMA had stuck to chits or
dice, but not both.)
A handful of six-siders has the advantage that it give you a nice
bell-curve distribution of outcomes and that it is quick, easy and fast.
Bell-curves are good because they actually reduce the amount of
randomness in outcomes over time. That way, although any given outcome may
been extreme, on average a given "volume of fire" will result in a given
outcome.
It all comes down to random number generators. When I want a heavy duty
simulation these days, I fire up the computer and let it draw the bloody chits
or whatever, as long I don't have to be bothered with it. But then I miss out
on the social aspects of the hobby.
> And it sure isn't better than the die levels Jon has worked out for
I'm relatively new to SG2 so I won't comment much on this one.
> I don't necessarily see that using a bunch of d6s is an improvement. It
> works for FT, but I don't see it working well for SG2.
In purely aesthetic terms, I like the "volume of fire" feel that you get from
that mechanic. To me, it doesn't much matter if its particle beam batteries,
M16 rounds or gauss rifles. The greater the volume of fire, the more likely
someone's gonna get hurt. By tinkering with your mods in the number dice
rolled, you can simulate any bell curve you want. To me that is no less
artificial that "my d10 beat your d4" or whatever. *shrug*
> <snip description of Charlie Co. mechanics>
You might be surprised. I seen better (but not many) and I've seen worse
(we playtested something called Beer-and-Pretzel-Skirmish (B.A.P.S)
once. Same "volume of fire" idea but then you had to index it on a chart and
roll a d20. Almost the same effect, but not nearly as elegant.)
> Good points: Quick and simple, easy to learn.
Simple is not necessarily the same as simplistic.
> GM keeps everything moving along and reduces rules squabbles.
No argument there!:)
> Bad points: It is locked into the GM-controlled RPG
Agreed. It lacks what I think of as the "content" portion of DS2/SG2.
In Charlie Company the poor little buggers will just keep on fighting as long
as the gamer tells 'em too. That's a problem as far as I'm concerned.
My philosophy is that when gaming, you should be able to get into a world
where things work the way they are supposed to in the real world. A cavalry
charge should "feel" like a cavalry charge and the players should be able to
"feel" their way into making reasonable choices. When something that seems
reasonable fails to work, its should be because of poor choices on the part of
the gamer or simple bad luck not faulty rules mechanics. I don't care for
those games that are so random or unrealistic that the gamer never learns to
improve his or her tactics.
> Tom Sullivan wrote:
> As a friend of mine once put it: "When I am gaming, I want to be
I guess I'm the only one here that plays ASL.... <g>
I like simplicity too, (And at a con, you're pretty much limited to that
route) but I don't like rules that disallow basic things you would do in real
lfe. Once abstraction gets in the way of that then the rules are too simple
for me and we might as well just distill the whole game down to a single die
roll to determine winner and loser.
One thing that IS nice hwoever is the use of a well designed Game Assiatance
program. I play napoleanics also and there is this ruleset called carnage and
Glory. WHat an excellent set. All the cmlexity goes into the front end
building of your OB and campaign. But when it's time to play it's pretty much
"Unit A firing at Unit B, 250 meters), the system does all the morale
chacking, combat resolution, reporting, etc with lots of charming details.
There is NO dice rolling. The player has his little reference card that tells
how far you can move in what terrain in what formation and the range of
weapons. That's all you need to know. Here you really are concentrating on
fighting the battle but not giving up on all the little things that can happen
in a battle that makes the game interesting. (check out my review and AAR at:
http://www.concentric.net/~Los/CGC/carnage/carnage.htm
I would like to see something liike this for GZG games. You get all the fun of
designing your forces, naming and organizing them etc. Then during the battle,
you don't have to consult tables screw with chits etc etc. Would be nice.
The downside to most GAPS is that when you have a battle with a lot of
players, it can bog down as everything funnels through the one data entry
person. Still to give you an idea, in carnage and Glory, two or
four of us will fight a medium sized battle, representing about 20-25
manuever units per side (bns, squadrons, regts, batteries). The turns are
supposed to represent 15 minutes and it takes a bout 15 minutes realtime to
complete a turn with this sized battle. SO sort of real time.
[quoted original message omitted]
> I guess I'm the only one here that plays ASL.... <g>
Not the only one. But it has been a long time since I've played. One of the
refreshing things about FT is that fact that I never have to consult the rule
book or a table when playing. You can't say that
for ASL. I would always have to dig into that 200+ page looseleaf
rulebook to find the case and rule that I was looking for. Too much tedium.
Bottom line. I have far too little time to play games than when I was
younger and without the 'middle-age' responsibilties. I prefer to
keep the games simple, but the tactics and strategies complex.
> Tom Sullivan [mailto:starkfist@hotmail.com] wrote:
> >As a friend of mine once put it: "When I am gaming, I want to be
Yes I agree completly. In my mind the rules exits as a mechanism by which the
game is presented much like the board and pieces do. I don't want to play so
that I try to be able to use rule 100.10.9.a.x which allows me to blow away
half of the opponents units. Rather, I'd like to think in terms of "can I get
my men across that open space so that they flank his units on the left?" IMHO
good rules lead one to not think about the rules but about the situation on
the table. As you can probably guess, I don't play Star Fleet Battles for this
reason.
It is not just an issue of avoiding complexity. Rather it is a question of
where the complexity lies. I rather have simple rules and complex decisions to
make during the game.
Of course, there are a few games where the whole point is the the rules of the
game, Mao is one such card game. But these are whole different kettle of
fish.a
> Owen Glover <oglover@mov.vic.gov.au> wrote:
> Mind you some really simple board games can really start the
Then there is my favourite game GO. The rules are very simple, yet the
tactical and strategic situations are very complex.
I think we're preaching to the choir here. Maybe if we take this thread to
rec.games.board or the cosim mailing we'd get a real arguments going.
:-)
Enjoy,
Maybe it's just me and that I am getting old (I think the Wombles post did it)
or perhaps it's just bad experiences from my GW (shh don't tell any one) days
but I really don't like rolling lots of dice. Having said that I do like FT
(love it in fact) but it does slow down with a big battle when it comes to
shooting, threshold and damage repair rolls. The FMA system is quick, simple
and by opposed rolls keeps both players doing something which the little power
munchkins in our club need to keep them occupied if we are ever to drag them
away from GW and the endless fights they have over the rules. It has been the
experience of my club over the last 30 years (some of us are that old, not me
but some) that you need to turn the little power GW munchkins into respectable
gamers to keep your club alive. Stargrunt, Dirtside and Full Thrust are great
for this (though sadly they will never make ancients gamers, sigh). As for
damage chits with an index card cheat sheet reminding which ones are valid the
system works quite well. As for losing them Jon has given a break down of the
counter sheets in the front of each book so you can make your own sets as
needed. The only thing he has not done (and he might correct this in future
editions) is to give a break down of the actual values of the chits. Well make
up your own, as the values are only going to be an issue when both players use
their own chits and I am yet to see that happen. Two players one set of chits.
Anyway its 4 in the morning and time for sleep.
Tony "you are only as old as the person you feel". twilko@ozemail.com.au
> At 11:51 31/07/98 -0500, you wrote:
> You wrote:
> Heh! I'm sure we're all in agreeance that rules should be the
> and painful arguments between those so inclined (I'd rather just
I simply play with adults who can have a reasoned discussion for a few
minutes, then agree on which modification or houserule most closely resembles
what we'd expect from our experiences and reading. Then we get on with the
game. I refuse to game with disagreeable people. My feeling is that I deal
with assholes at work, why should I do so in my free time? That's why I no
longer play WWII games. If it's not fun for all involved, screw it. And
arguing over rules vis playing the game isn't fun for me.
Tom spake thusly upon matters weighty:
> It is not just an issue of avoiding complexity. Rather it is a
Won't disagree with you. Just find that simple rules often lead to simple
decisions (one tactic permitted by rules is far superior to others, hence only
the unwise do other things). Oft times simple rules can lead to not being able
to do a thing because the rules don't allow it.
> Of course, there are a few games where the whole point is the the
ARGH! MAO! HATED FOE... I SLAY THEE NOW....
> Then there is my favourite game GO. The rules are very simple,
Of course, this isn't a simulation of anything nor is it expected to even
vaguely conform to human capability or behaviour so the comparison (although
valid) has weak points.
> I think we're preaching to the choir here. Maybe if we take this
Heh! I'm sure we're all in agreeance that rules should be the province of
lawyers, and gaming the province of gamers. I'd guess that we'd mostly all
'rule as needed' where the rules don't fit. Most of us might try to get what
we think of as the right flavour. I like
add-on rules that cover situations I might face but don't come into
play a lot so they aren't an encumberance (SFB could have learned a thing or
two from FT here). But at least if one has a short guideline, then one can use
that without too much thought. But I am in total agreement that complex and
unwieldy rules make for complex and painful arguments between those so
inclined (I'd rather just clear the room with a cannister of CS myself). The
only difference between us on the list is the exact level of complexity or
time we can or enjoy devoting to our game. And that is the great thing! The
game accomodates all of our tastes without breaking badly. That says a lot.
(Yes Jon T, you don't need evangelists here....)
:) Tom.