Re: [MISC] [OT] Bring and Battle

Jeff wrote:

[snip]
>If this is how y'all think games should be organized, then why not cook
up
>a "standardized" method of generating a half dozen basic scenarios to
>facilitate pick-up games.
>
>In Charlie Company for example, they give the basic outline of squad,
>platoon and company level assets available "on paper" for both the US
Army
>and Marine Corps during each year of the Vietnam war and then
guidelines
>for rolling randomly to see what you really have in the field.  (Like
1D6+4
>men in a squad, 1d10 LAW rockets, 25% chance of a support weapon,
maximum
>of 1 per squad, whatever... something similar would be a good format
for an
>"GZG Official Background" SG reference ala the FT Fleetbook)  I'd take
it
>as a given that no force in the field will ever be at full "on paper"
>strength AND fully equipped AND have experienced troops...not for long
anyway.
>
>Then outline several basic scenarios; "Two patrols running into each
>other", "Sweeping a guerrilla-held village", "Raid on a supply dump",
etc.
>Outline the objectives and basic force level parameters like you did
above
>"Defender gets three understrength platoons, attacker gets a reinforced
>company."  Cook in some basic modifiers like "Low on supplies, -1 on
rolls
>for support weapons" or "Low tech defenders: +1d4 recruits with
rifles",
>"NSL gets 1d4 PA troops" or whatever.
>
>If you come up with enough scenarios, you could cobble together a
framework
>for a campaign; "Play 'Scenario 1' then either 'Scenario 2 or 4'
depending
>on the outcome.  Then play 'Scenario 5'; loser of 2 or 4 gets benefits
of
>'Raw Recruits' while winner gets 'Short on Supplies'".  And so on...
>
>Give folks a framework in which to play that allows them to get past
the
>force design, min-maxing, point-counting stage and pick up games
between
>strangers with minimum preparation will be not only possible, but
quick,
>easy and fun.
>
>And why can't they do it themselves, you may ask?  Because
unfortunately,
>if it's not written down in a rule book somewhere, then it is subject
to
>debate and gamers (being gamers) will spend more time arguing force
>composition and scenario parameters that playing the game.
>
>Jeff

This, in theory at least, sounds good. It would need a lot of very
careful
thought and planning to put into practice, because it wouldl have to be
generic enough to be useful with most forces that players will have
available, heowever that isn't to say it couldn't be done. The main
thing
that I've gathered from the recent discussion is not that we need a
points
systems for its own sake, but that what is needed is a way of at least
roughly balancing ad-hoc games; how many people would be happy with
achieving this in a non-points-based way, such as suggested here?

Jon (GZG)