Re: Star Grunts Point System -- the Reason Why -- Retort

At 10:39 PM 5/29/97 -0400, you wrote:
>In a message dated 97-05-29 04:26:18 EDT, you write:
>
><<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.
>

We are not talking about real life here General.  We are talking about
designing a scenario for a squad level game. I could really care less
about
what is happening at the higher echelon and I doubt most grunts on the
field
do either. I also doubt that a scenario in Stargrunt, where one force
holds
a hill and the other simply marches past to meet up with another force
off
board, would be much fun.  I was simply providing a simple rule to
follow
for designing a balanced scenario.  Modern military doctrine has little
to
do with this, of course unless you want to write an entire military
doctrine
for your fictional forces.  In which case I applaud your effort.  You
are,
of course, correct about the objectivity of different forces, but these
guys
were just wanting some guidelines in designing some scenarios.

><<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.

Belligerence not taken.  I've been into historical gaming for over ten
years.	I've got a Masters in History, one field of specialty is
Military
History and I've played Advanced Squad Leader for over eight years.  I
may
have not been in the military, and lets face it, the military certainly
doesn't always make a person a great tactician, but I've played enough
unbalanced ASL scenarios to realize what is needed to make a good one. 
Its
kind of arrogant to assume you could write a more "fun" scenario than I,
when you know little about me.	I suppose you missed my thread about
adjusting the leader loss roll in order to lower overall leader quality
as
linked scenarios form a campaign. Not to mention the loss in manpower
and
equipment.  If you've ever played the old Squad Leader, you might
remember
the playing card scenario generator that was provided...that's what a
points
system would do.  I think the biggest problem with players in this game
is
the inability to "choose" what they can take in a fight.  Some of the
guys I
play with, are (shudder) "GW powergamers". They did not like SGII,
mainly
because I choose the forces for them and told them to do the best they
could
do. By the way smarty pants, how many points are an Abrams M1A2 tank, a
U.S.
paratrooper, a Russian conscript and an German Leopard I?   I'm sure the
army assigned points values to these items so they could devise a plan
against them! ;-) Hehehe.

>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.
>
>
Continuity is just a line of ideas in the mind of the designer. He must
be
prepared to take the unit in question to the next scenario or end the
campaign for that unit.  You can always start over...unlike a real war.

Jerry McVicker	

"Don't worry soldier, weapons will be available in a moment."

Blackwind and Raddix Gaming
http://www.imagixx.net/~bnrgames
bnrgames@imagixx.net