RE: [Campaign] Criteria

One way is to start unbalanced.  One side has fewer resources but easily
defended systems, while the other side has many resources, a small fleet
and many vulnerable systems.  The smaller side will have to strike fast
to gain resources to hold off the growing power of the larger side. 
This could lead to decisive battles early and middle in the game and
then maybe one side or the other conceeding as the weight of systems,
resources and fleet favor one side or the other.

The problem with games that start out will all sides equal is that it's
too easy to hold the staus quo.  When there is already "movement" and
obvious vulnerability, its easier to keep the players moving.

--Binhan

> -----Original Message-----
> From: laserlight@quixnet.net [mailto:laserlight@quixnet.net]
> Sent: Tuesday, July 02, 2002 10:52 AM
> To: gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu
> Subject: [Campaign] Criteria
> 
> 
> Thinking about campaigns again.  What are the characteristics 
> of a good campaign game?
> a. simple (intended to generate battles rather than for its own sake)
> b. provision for quickly resolving "uninteresting" battles
> c. gives context to battles / provides reason for fighting 
> uneven battles
> d. unit histories add color
> e. provides inducement to fight (so both sides don't just sit 
> there and build)
> f. minimizes penalty for fighting (eg with cheap/free replacements)
> g. limits attempts to build an unstoppable horde (eg high 
> maintenance costs)
> h. minimal record keeping
> 
> Anything else?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> mail2web - Check your email from the web at
> http://mail2web.com/ .