I think the only way to prevent wargamers from conducting all out attacks to
win scenarios are campeigns. If you know that you have to maintain a fleet in
force to prevent an opponent from sacking your home world, you are not going
to risk near destruction of your fleet to completely destoy your opponent's.
The other option in a scenario is to create gradience of victories such as
draw, minor victory, major victory etc. Ensure these conditions support the
surrounding story of the scenario. Phil P.
> Phillip E. Pournelle writes:
@:)
@:) I think the only way to prevent wargamers from conducting all out @:)
attacks to win scenarios are campeigns.
It's not the only way but it's one of the easiest.
@:) The other option in a scenario is to create gradience of victories @:)
such as draw, minor victory, major victory etc. Ensure these @:) conditions
support the surrounding story of the scenario.
Yeah, this really helps a lot. You also need a way to get off the board (fixed
maps are nonsensical but promote tactical withdrawals), preferably without
killing yourself which is always a problem with
FT-style FTL drives. One good trick that's worked quite well in
recent games I've played is calling the game when one player can no longer
win. This not only saves a lot of wasteful killing but it allows the
combatants to fit another game into their schedule!
I do think the idea of crippled ships fits into this question as well. Assume
a player gets more "victory points" for killing a ship than for crippling it,
and assume more than one enemy ship. Once the player has crippled one ship, he
has to make the choice between
killing it and crippling the second ship - and possibly getting too
shot up in the process to continue the fight. Are two cripples, or one and a
half, worth it or should you go for the kill, take the
damage from the still-operational enemy and run for it once the other
guy is dead? These kinds of issues help keep players thinking about their
ships and staying alive.
> I think the only way to prevent wargamers from conducting all out
Levels of victory is one method. I also like the fleet morale rules that will
end a scenario. I did make a modification to the fleet morale rules, since
they are mased on MASS and not on point value. It is more reasonable to assume
if a fleet would lose 50% of its point value, it would breakoff the combat.
If you have a situation where two heavy cruisers are escorting two large
tankers or merchants, under the MASS rules, the fleet would disengage if the
tankers or merchants were destroyed.
Then again... I'd want to run away too if the enemy just destroyed the
Emperor's harem on board the merchant liners. and I wouldn't head back to my
own base!
> On Thu, 3 Apr 1997, Phillip E. Pournelle wrote:
> I think the only way to prevent wargamers from conducting all out
I don't quite agree. If you discount minor matters like human life, the value
of trained, experienced crews etc. suicide attacks are a viable tactic for
whoever holds the material advantage.
Ofcourse it's usually not worth it to fight losing battles to the end, but if
you can force even or nearly so trades, a war of attrition becomes a very good
proposition.
This is espcially troublesome in campaigns where starting forces are roughly
equal. If I force even trades in a massive fleet showdown and lose all my
ships, so does the enemy. There won't BE an enemy ship left to raid my
defenseless home planet. Whoever holds the production edge has the benefit
now.
And if you can't force even trades, you're losing anyway...
IMHO, badly damaged ships in FT execute suicide maneuvers because the player
knows they're going to be finished off anyway. It should be made advantageous
to the *winning* player to let them go and not risk further
damage to himself.