From: DirtSider@a...
Date: Thu, 29 May 1997 22:39:18 -0400
Subject: Star Grunts Point System -- the Reason Why -- Retort
In a message dated 97-05-29 04:26:18 EDT, you write: << You are playing the wrong game! If you want to try a campaign with an entire planet or nation, you should move up to Dirtside!! >> The background for my campaign is a mercenary universe a la Falkenberg's Legion, Hammer's Slammers, et al. Different missions require different forces -- sometimes fleet actions, sometimes mechanized forces, sometimes commando raids. So the points I was making was that I needed some way to integrate the equipping of a mercenary force down to the level of specialist commandos (using Star Grunt). No, even I'm not dumb enough to try to do a major war campaign at the platoon level! <<The only reason we would strive to make a balanced game is so it will be FUN to play!!!! Both sides having a chance to pull off victory!!>> That's exactly what the campaign is about -- having a chance to pull of a victory! So, in the scenario writing, we "bid" for "jobs", trying to do the job with the least amount of force. Scenarios are written so that each side has a reasonably equal chance at pulling off a victory, even though that may mean entirely different things to opposing players. In fact, it is possible for both players to pull off a victory in the same game, simply because the objectives were different. This is exactly what balancing scenarios and forces is all about. But, again, I reiterate, I need some way to build the pool of forces from which players "bid their contracts". I suppose I could do it based on "if you have the model you can bring it to the fight", but then I'd win by sheer force of numbers! <<The point is, as a force commander, you are given a job to do. Your enemy is given the job of stopping you from completing your objectives. That is the basis for all scenarios.>> Sorry, that's just plain wrong. It CAN be true, but not always. Prime example, at middle echelon, the US Army is terrain-oriented. Battalion commands plan missions to take and secure key terrain to support the higher HQ's mission. The Russian doctrine is totally different. They are objective-oriented. They'll happily bypass key terrain, ignoring any enemy on it, in order to get to their objective. In the meantime, the US forces are wondering why they're not being attacked (just suppressed). I used to see that puzzlement all the time when I worked for the Army Command and General Staff College running battle simulations. <<Need inspiration? Grab any war history book>> Not to be belligerent, but I got my start in historical gaming, and I probably have more years of experience writing balanced, fun scenarios that you do. And when I say balanced, I don't mean equal points -- I mean equal advantages, be it terrain, weather, technology, tactics, command and control, training, or whatever. The point was, and still is, having some thread of continuity between games; otherwise there is a great propensity for the GW mentality of bringing killer forces to battle. When a loss in a particular game can have a (albeit minor) effect on future games (because the dead vehicle may not have been recovered), I end up seeing real tactics working the way they should. Don't mistake me -- I love Dirt Side, and Star Grunt is nearly as much fun for me. I lavish as much preparation as possible on every scenario for each. But I still want a framework to facilitate handling the continuity thread.