While thrashing the game around for the second time (my and my mate have spent
more time on DSII as we had more figures prepared), we noticed a few things.
1. Once we realised that there is no multible dice on armour, weapons et al,
the game is very smooth. The thing that slows things down is determining
damage, but again this is reasoable.
2. Different weapons have different abilities between DSII and SGII.
RFAC-2 kicks ass in SGII! I have almost abandoned them in DSII as they
are like popguns, but in SGII our APC's where very vicous. The only tank in
the game was a light GEV tank killer that was taken out by a RFAC-2 in
the first turn!
3. Ranges for vehicals are almost meaningless. Whiel my friend argues that all
the weapons are too short in SGII, I feel that any target bigger than size 2
makes ranges almost obsolete (again my Tank killer was taken out at reasonably
long range IMHO)
4. POINT SYSTEMS! This is needed for competive play. I tabled 1 squad (8 men)
of NAC trrops, 2 squads (4 men) Power Armour, 1 tank killer (size
2)
1 command vehical (size 2)1 Inf walker (size 1) 2 grav APC and 1 Attack Grav
vehical. The Enemy was 4 sqauds (6 men) (1 support squad with 2 size 1 mobile
weapons), 4APC's, 1 missile APC. I honestly thought he would win, and since I
set the senerio that my squad was a recon force against a recon in force, I
gave him a round head start till I brought in th power armour (by grav). It
ended up a draw with myself as a partial winner as I manage to halt his
company.
5. Weapons: The use of Heavy weapons as man portable weapons is not clearly
defined, and makes things like close assults against them hard to interprate
(We desided that since I did not reach him in the firt combat move, his free
shot allowed it to be used, but it got confused in the actual close combat).
6. Power armour rules!
7. GMS Missiles against infantry is a good thing, better than heavy weapons,
especially if you have multable launchers
IMHO the concerns about points systems should not be that great. Unless one is
involved in a tournament then the game should run along scenario lines devised
by a third party.
In reality any contact/firefight will never be "balanced". At the level
of SGII (Company/Squadron) the forces involved would never give a
definite outcome if facing off on equal sizes ie Coy vs Coy. Most likely
outcome is going to be both sides withdraw or a Pyhrric victory.
For an assault situation most modern armies operate on odds of (MINIMUM) 3 to
1. And if you are facing a dug in well sited defensive position you better
hope for plenty of armour or engineer and arty as well!!
For that matter about AFVs; I really think that SGII is not designed as a tank
vs tank game. MICVs and infantry with the occasional tank thrown in to give
the grunt a bad hair day!?
> ----------
> On Mon, 26 May 1997, Darryl Adams wrote:
> 2. Different weapons have different abilities between DSII and SGII.
That's because you typically send things of different scales against
RFAC-2's in DSII and SGII. A Medium Tank with decent armour shrugs
off a RFAC/2 like rainwater, but in SGII, you seldom go against Med
Tanks, you go against lightly armoured shells. Add that to the slight boost
they give infantry (because its the focus of the game) and you
have RFAC/2s being a tad more lethal.
> 3. Ranges for vehicals are almost meaningless. Whiel my friend argues
Ayup; the ranges for infantry are /effective/ ranges, not complete
ranges for the weapon. If you can see it, and its not dispersed, you can
probably hit it. But can you hit it hard enough, with enough firepower, to do
meaningful damage?
> 4. POINT SYSTEMS! This is needed for competive play. I tabled 1 squad
BZZT, thank you for playing. A point system wouldn't have helped you
form a more reasonable force balance. I don't know /what/ made you
think that your friend would win, I'm impressed he made a partial draw of it.
Of course, he should have had clearer mission objectives; if a recon in force
had hit a recon unit that big (in SGII, more than a
couple of vehicles is /big/), they would have withdrawn shooting, and
fast.
> 5. Weapons : The use of Heavy weapons as man portable weapons is not
Heavy Weapons cannot be used in close assault, as I recall. Side-arms
and rifles, but not heavy support weapons.
> 6. Power armour rules!
You have them; what more do you want?
> 7. GMS Missiles against infantry is a good thing, better than heavy
As the rulebook says, GMS can't lock onto dispersed targets... like squads of
men.
> On Mon, 26 May 1997, Glover, Owen wrote:
> IMHO the concerns about points systems should not be that great.
Unless
> one is involved in a tournament then the game should run along
I just wonder where do you get this third party and how does he know what
figures you can field?
> In reality any contact/firefight will never be "balanced". At the
Having a points system in no way means you must have equal forces.
> For an assault situation most modern armies operate on odds of
And without points, how do you judge the relative strengths? A single
Predator(tm) will beat three average grunts (Arnie isn't an average grunt)
every time, to give an extreme example.
Do you run the scenario through a computer simulation? Do you playtest it a
few hundred times? OR do you just use the ancient art of guesstimation?
Now this is more like it. Responses in order:
> ----------
> 1. I just wonder where do you get this third party and how
The rules make continual reference to a Referee/Umpire; this
would appear to be a type of game that uses the structured use of a mediator
> 2. Having a points system in no way means you must have equal
Relative strengths are apportioned on the basis of "Operational" groupings eg
a Recon team (one squad) is bumped by an enemy Fighting Patrol ( one Platoon),
as well as experience of the relative
firepower/combat effectiveness of the nations military forces.
> Do you run the scenario through a computer simulation?
Actually it is the Ancient Art of the Military Appreciation and Assessment.
IMHO this set of rules is very good at approximating the art of Infantry Minor
Tactics. Unfortunately, to misquote...."No Plan of Battle ever survives
contact with the enemy"
> On Mon, 26 May 1997, Glover, Owen wrote:
> The rules make continual reference to a Referee/Umpire; this
But where do you get the third party? Do you rotate shifts?
"Sorry Bob, you can't play tonight. You must design a scenario and referee for
Al and Charlie. Oh, and Charlie just finished painting his power armor squad,
so include that in the scenario. I've no idea what figures Al has. You have 30
minutes."
Is it the duty of the club president?
"Hi Dave, you've just been elected president. You can't play for a year,
you must referee and design scenarios for everyone else. And next year we'll
just elect you again."
Do you trust commercial scenario packs?
"Hi Eric. I just bought the Xyzzy Battlepack. Care to help me buy and paint
3000 Xenovian Bug Marines so we can play it? Everyone's pitching in to hire
the author as a referee."
Or maybe the tooth fairy does it?
> Relative strengths are apportioned on the basis of "Operational"
So it's a point system by another name with an attached fuzziness factor.
> Actually it is the Ancient Art of the Military Appreciation and
Call it whatever you like, I'll call it guesstimation, because that's what it
is. With enough experience you can make pretty good guesses, but games are a
rapidly changing environment with a multitude of choice combinations and it is
not bound by natural laws. In my opinion, most casual players never reach the
level of proficiency to make consistent and accurate guesstimates of all
possible force combinations.
> IMHO this set of rules is very good at approximating the art of
I agree, but what does that have to do with the issue at hand?
> On Mon, 26 May 1997, Glover, Owen wrote:
> The rules make continual reference to a Referee/Umpire; this
To make a historical point:
... just like the wargames of old, eh? Real war games, not board wargames.
> Relative strengths are apportioned on the basis of "Operational"
Nota bene that the last is better handled by experience and rules of thumb
than any points system. Unless you're going to drop in points handling for the
fact the terrain's primarily all swamp and you're using slow wheeled vehicles
which find it all but impassible, despite their firepower, or the fact you're
playing a defensive scenario with fast GEVs (despite the fact speed only kills
on the offense), and thus turn the game into Accounting 101 instead of 'let's
blow stuff up,' then the points system will be forever flawed.
> Actually it is the Ancient Art of the Military Appreciation and
Which, incidently, is great fun to /develop/ and comes together pretty
quickly after only a few games of either DSII or SGII.
> IMHO this set of rules is very good at approximating the art of
Those irritating shells flying around see to that.:)
> On Mon, 26 May 1997, Mikko Kurki-Suonio wrote:
> But where do you get the third party? Do you rotate shifts?
And why not? That's what we do for RPGing, running Troupe-style;
someone'll have an idea for a fun scenario or two or even a whole arc to run,
they'll design it, lay it out, and others'll play if they're interested. How
do characters really differ from combat units in this context?
> "Sorry Bob, you can't play tonight. You must design a scenario
"You know what Charlie plays with, he's adding a power armour squad. You might
want to decide if he can use it tonight or maybe build a scenario just around
them. Look over Al's TO&E and figure stats while they talk paint; here they
are. I remember lasst session you were talking about running a breakthrough
scenario, tonight might be a good time to run it, because it looks like Al's
forces are pretty numerous."
> Or maybe the tooth fairy does it?
You act as if this is a situation some of us in the gaming community haven't
been dealing with for twenty years, now.
> So it's a point system by another name with an attached fuzziness
Er, no, its a relative judgement of force composition and how likely they are
to bring X firepower to bring on Y. You can't tell this from any points'
system I've ever seen, not consistantly. This is not to say that all point
systems suck, but it does say that I don't think there's any need for them to
be universal.
> Call it whatever you like, I'll call it guesstimation, because that's
> and accurate guesstimates of all possible force combinations.
Given your second sentence, you shoot your own requirement for a
static point system right in the gool old big toe. Bravo, well-done.
I'm going to disagree strongly with your last point, however. I find that most
casual players can tell within just a few games whether a given force on force
will be fun to play, whether they win or lose. Note that 'fun to play' is my
and my group's measure of success.
> At 10:43 AM 5/26/97 +0300, you wrote:
Oh come on. It doesn't take too many brains to look at opposing forces, the
scenario and the setup and design a balanced game. I've done it many times and
I've played as well. I can balance a game 100 times better than any points
system. I KNOW the capabilities of the application of one force against
another. A points system can't adjust for these scenario. "Hmmmm lets see,
this powered armour is worth 100 points, but I'm deploying it hidden and
versus lightly armed NAC troops, therefore its now worth 200 points. If it had
been against that light tank, they would only be 75 pts. Oh and I have to add
50 points for giving them and extra SAW. Oh yea, they have an EW element..that
make them even more dangerous...better up the points again. Of course..the NAC
have air support, so I better lower the powered armor points by a quarter,
they're less effective now..." A point system can't adjust for the situation
or the forces they are deployed against. On the other hand, I can. Point
systems are worthless. If you want to play a tournament, have everyone play
the same scenario with the same forces, from both sides. Then you can find out
who has the superior skill or luck, and go from there. Allowing players to
show up with an arbitrary number of points, and deploy against whatever anyone
else brings, has to be the most unbalanced play ever. Sounds like that horrid
skirmish game from Gouge Workstore. We all know how balanced their points
system is...works good too! <sarcasm for those that didn't catch it:) >
> On Mon, 26 May 1997, Glover, Owen wrote:
> IMHO the concerns about points systems should not be that great.
Unless
> one is involved in a tournament then the game should run along
1. The game is being run as a demo at SAGA 97.
2. We had no idea of relative power of units (we are familiar with vehicals,
but agin the different scales supprised us in certian ways)
3. Technolagy is hard to guage (while Mick had numerical supiority, I had the
tech supiority).
4. Mick was also lucky as my gunship aborted in turn 2 due to air defence (It
was also a green unit, it survivability was questionable)
All this cries out for points. Sure I have no problems allowing scenerios to
define force deployments, but until we have a better undertanding of what
effect any given unit can have in battle, a point system would be nice.
> In reality any contact/firefight will never be "balanced". At the
Fine in theory, but for a demo game, and aiming at people jerked of GW, a
point system will allow them to slide into the system better.
> For an assault situation most modern armies operate on odds of
1 heavy tank on either side would have one the day (if it did not get blown
away with a lucky shot).
> [quoted text omitted]
> On Mon, 26 May 1997, Alex Williams wrote:
> BZZT, thank you for playing. A point system wouldn't have helped you
It was a throw together game, with models we had available. I honestly thought
numerical suriority in people and vehicals would rule the day. Technolagy and
leadership had a big impact, but it was a close assult of power armour against
a support platoon that defined the engaagement.
> > 5. Weapons : The use of Heavy weapons as man portable weapons is not
What about the free attack?
"Oh sorry old chap, you can not use that RFAC/1 on a tripod. Not
sporting you know"
Bzzt. Realism check.
> > 7. GMS Missiles against infantry is a good thing, better than heavy
What about geographic locations. The rules we saw stated that they could be
used, and are treated as normal combat, with impact the same as an art strike.
> [quoted text omitted]
> Darryl Adams wrote:
Then you should have playtested it at least a half-dozen times, points
or no points.
> 2. We had no idea of relative power of units (we are familiar with
See #1.
> 3. Technolagy is hard to guage (while Mick had numerical supiority, I
Yes it is without having done the playtesting. Points are no measure of that,
either.
> 4. Mick was also lucky as my gunship aborted in turn 2 due to air
A point system doesn't address the above, either. Your Green gunship doesn't
make it through air defense the first time out, and aborts, being effectively
useless. How many points is it worth? Your Green gunship makes it through the
air defenses and through a series of lucky rolls, takes out a couple of his
critical units at just the right time. Now how much is it worth?
> All this cries out for points. Sure I have no problems allowing
A point system won't do anything to address the problems you mention
above. Rough point system: ARMOUR + total weapon SIZE. This will give
you a very general feel for the power of a unit, but its not going to really
help you figure out the things mentioned above.
> Fine in theory, but for a demo game , and aiming at people jerked of
Then you should have playtested the scenario /before/ the con, with
half-a-dozen folks to see if it shakes out. A Con is /not/ the time to
experiment, and most especially not with newbies.
> Darryl Adams wrote:
Well then, you learned something, didn't you? Further, you had an enjoyably
balanced game that you just happened to win. Hmmmmm,
interesting, complaining about things /working/.
> What about the free attack?
Bzzzzt, realism check. You want to fire an RFAC/1, essentially a
honking-big autocannon, into the mass of your troops fighting hand to
hand (or at least /very/ short range), intermingled with your own squad?
Helllooooo. This is a Bad Idea(tm).
The free attack vs the incoming CAers is not /yet/ a CA, so I have no
problem with it.
> What about geographic locations. The rules we saw stated that they
Eh, no, I don't seem to recall the use of GMS vs arbitrary ground locations;
buildings, bunkers, things with signatures, yes, but not arbitrary ground
locations and expecting to do as much damage as an
/arty/ barrage. Methinks you saw House Rules.
> On Mon, 26 May 1997, Alexander Williams wrote:
> Darryl Adams wrote:
Which we plan to do. We still have time to do it properly, but due to work
constraints, my time has been limited.
Lets get one thing clear here. I dont have to run this. I want to promote the
game, as it is the best futuristic small combat system I have seen.
I posted the origional post for feedback, which I am thankfull of recieving,
and for other ideas. When Mikko (?sp) posted his origional thread about
points, I did not enter the debate because I felt that a) lack of experince
and b) agreement on the point that scenerios should guide the army list.
Now that we had a serious game with all elements in it, we are still impressed
by the game.
Given that the demo game is a free form format (we supply the table, rules and
figures if needed, and the players supply the time and fun) we did not feel we
had to be SGII propeller heads.
But given that Australia is heavily dominated by GW, and that many people are
disenchanted with the Model of the Week and excessive price rises, we NEED to
cater for those who are use to points (GW players plus Modern and WWII).
While it is all well and good to say that you must structure the game for the
scenrio, in the stituation we finds ourselves in, we feel that a point system
will serve us well.
> > 3. Technolagy is hard to guage (while Mick had numerical supiority,
We know the technolagy. Bith players have played enouth DSII to know the
impact of lasers and plasma and grav. Sice the scaling is different you have
"twists" that you do not expect.
> > 4. Mick was also lucky as my gunship aborted in turn 2 due to air
If it got to the field, it would have been worth the points. I aborted because
I dare not risk losing it. I valued the asset, so in a way, i gave it a point
value (I can risk the APC, but not the Gunship)
> > All this cries out for points. Sure I have no problems allowing
We are "PROMOTING" the game. We are encouraging people to bring whatever
minitures they have to try the system out with. We want people who are willing
to play the game so we can have people to play against.
Yes it would be nice to have a nice netted out scenerio, but without knowledge
of players and pefered units, it would be a waste of time.
> At 12:20 PM 5/27/97 +1000, you wrote:
> But given that Australia is heavily dominated by GW, and that many
I tend to agree with you. I don't much care for point systems. As a younger
player, I spent far too much time building point based armies only to find a
serious flaw in the points that threw me back to guesstimating, anyway. I
also dislike the cheesy min-maxing that occurs with points.
That being said, there is nothing easier to allow new players to play the game
than to give them a simple points system. It doesn't have to be elaborate,
just something to give them a rough idea of element strength. I agree with
Jon's sentiments for not including a point system. I also think that it is
good marketing to throw in a points system.
What I don't like is the tournament style game that seems to take over most GW
players. It becomes something akin to collectible card game deck design: set a
point total and then try to build the "best" army to that total for a simple
meeting engagement. Still, if that's the way you want to play the game, so be
it.
Maybe a hybrid system is the way to go. Mikko once reminded me of the WH40K
scenario design system in Rogue Trader. That might be the way to go. Come up
with a random scenario generator with different point totals per side based on
terrain given in the scenario. For example:
Scenario die roll 15 - 20 (on 1D100)
Rearguard Action. Attacker: 1000 points. Defender: 350 points. Defender sets
up first in a built up area of hard cover. Defender places 3 objective
markers. Attacker sets up first in his start area. Defender wins if he ends
the game holding two or more objectives. Attacker wins if he holds all
objectives. Any other result is a tie.
New players will probably try to min-max the points, but because the
points
are "asymetrical" the min-maxing won't have that much of an effect.
Experienced players will just create their own scenarios. This can be
understood even by GW players :-) and leads them, subtly, into designing
scenarios.
Personally, I think that it
Sorry for the incomplete post--My computer hiccupped.
As I was saying, I think that some sort of a point system makes
sense--after all, as has been pointed out innumerable times, no one HAS
to make use of it, and it can serve as a guideline for those not familiar with
the rules. I think that ultimately, with experience, a point system is
unneccessary, but under certain circumstances it can make things much easier
for the poor beleagured refs. So, how about this....
For each trooper, add up the various die types, of all sizes, shapes, and
colors, and use that as the point value of that figure. Your basic untrained
primitive warrior, for example would be Untrained=4 pts. Basic Battledress=4
pts. Improvised Firearm=.5 pts for FP, 4 pts for Impact. Normal Mobility=6
pts. Normal Sensors=6 pts. (Ye olde Mk I Eyeball) For a total of 24.5 points
per figure.
As opposed to a more advanced unit.... Regular=8 pts. Full Light Armor=8 pts.
Adv. Assault Rifle=2 pts for FP 10 pts. for Impact Normal Mobility=6 pts.
Enhanced Sensors=8 pts. For a total of 42 points per figure.
And lastly, Power Armor troopers.... Veteran=10 pts. Hvy. Power Armor=12 pts.
Adv. Assault Rifle w/GL=3 pts. for FP
10 pts. for Impact Fast Mobility=12 pts. Superior Sensors=10 pts. For a total
of 57 points per figure.
Now, personally, I would be tempted to at least double the value of Power
Armor, both Light and Heavy, to reflect the increased Close Combat
capabilities that it gives the wearer.
This obviously does not address vehicle points (DSII point values, maybe?), or
squad leaders, or Mission Motivation, but it does give a simple
basis with which to start. Feel free to shoot holes in this--I have no
doubt that this idea will look like swiss cheese in a day or two--but I
think that there is nothing wrong with desiring an optional point system. But
I could be wrong.
> On Tue, 27 May 1997, Darryl Adams wrote:
> Lets get one thing clear here. I dont have to run this. I want to
Is it more supportive of the game for you to go in, unresearched and
unprepared and have problems, or do the groundwork and planning
necessary to /really/ demonstrate how the system works?
> Given that the demo game is a free form format (we supply the table,
This seems like an Archetypical Bad Idea(tm), to me, if you'll letting the
players at a Con game bring any old figures (without limit?) that they want.
If you provide the table and figures from the top, you can
prepare two or three different pre-planned scenarios before you hit
the Con, and show the really best side of the system.
Any time you volunteer to promote a game you don't want to embarass,
you're going to /have/ to be a propeller-head; there is simply no
quick and dirty way to do a good job of it unless you're willing to sink the
work in. You have to know everything, implicitly, or at least enough to convey
a sense of security to the newbies. You have to understand the spirit of the
game before even the rules. You have to be sure enough to be ready to say 'no'
when someone wants to break said rules. I say, 'if you're going to do
something, do it RIGHT.' For Con demos, that's even more true.
> But given that Australia is heavily dominated by GW, and that many
No, actually, you don't. Why not cater to the facets you clearly point out as
the problem and turn the lack of points into a bonus: there are no required
models, you can use MicroMachine Terror Troops, if that's what you like;
because there's no point system, no one's going to bring their Megamunch
Commando ($79.96 from GW, special order) to the table and expect to get to
play it just because the Orkshop says its only worth half a point. Focus on
the fact that it
puts control into the /player's/ hands, not some faceless organization
that doesn't know how they play, and you've eliminated the need to justify
having no points.
> While it is all well and good to say that you must structure the game
So throw something, anything, together but be sure to point out its not
official nor even necessary, and even give a short discussion about how to
design scenarios around mission objectives rather than
point costs. (I find the random 3x5 solution, with near-randomly
placed objective markers, and no exposure until mission completion, to
be /incredible/ fun, no matter the balance of forces.)
> We know the technolagy. Bith players have played enouth DSII to know
Then you don't /know/ the technology of SGII, you assumed you knew.
You were proven wrong in the details. This is why you don't find these things
out in a public game at a Con.
> If it got to the field, it would have been worth the points. I aborted
Then you don't need a points system; a valuation system is already in place,
as a result of your choices. My bringing a Gunship to the
table may be valuable to /me/ if moving it to the engagement area
causes my opponant to change his tactics enough to give me breathing room,
even if it never enters the board. A Gunship on the map may be worthless to me
if the terrain doesn't aid me in allowing me to dust an LZ. The value of the
Gunship (and, really, any element) is completely unrelated to any static point
value, and that's the point I'm trying to get across.
> We are "PROMOTING" the game. We are encouraging people to bring
This, again, sounds to me like a Classicly Bad Idea(tm). If you're going to
let people bring whatever figures they want, a point system isn't going to
help you, anyway. You're going to have to cons up stats on the spot for
various elements, in random numbers, for each participant. You'd be better off
simply eyeballing relative force
compositions and turning them loose; you'd be forced to /even if there
was a point system/.
> Yes it would be nice to have a nice netted out scenerio, but without
What you plan to do does not sound like a good way to promote SGII, despite
the fact it plays up one of its stronger facets (no required figures). Because
of the completely random nature of the forces you'll have to work with and the
fact that you are, self admittedly,
not SGII propellor-heads, its looking like a recipe for, if not
disaster, certainly a less enjoyable gaming experience than it might be.
A better structure might be two sessions with pre-planned scenarious
and set elements and a third 'bring your own platoon' game in which
you pit any platoon-sized force against any, without regard to point
value or 'balance' beyond a 'well, your force is primarily power armour while
his is all skinnies, why don't you start at morale SHAKEN?' or a larger number
of missions to accomplish for the more
powerful forces. A similar setup can be done doing an all GW-figure
SGII game, where people bring balanced forces of GW platoons, they're loosely
converted to SGII and then have at.
Allan Goodall <agoodall@sympatico.ca Said:
> Maybe a hybrid system is the way to go. Mikko once reminded me of the
Come up
> with a random scenario generator with different point totals per side
I'd forgoten about the "RT" scenerio generator. That is actually a good idea.
If we, the more expperiance gamers on the list made up some ideas like that,
it would be (pprobably) invaluable for the newcomers. Ideas folks?
I also have to agree with you about the CC games also. One reason I DON'T play
magic anymore. No fun any more.
Randy