Battletech and 3D ship images

1) It looks like the image I have is done by the 
fine Mr. Nathan Pettigrew. My compliments. 
(Though I now see quite a few others worthy of 
compliment.... I may have to ask some of these 
folks if I embed their work in some fiction - 
Someone should send Jon T these links when 
he's looking for artwork for FB3/FT3)

2) Battletech
My favorite memory (other than the figure 
destroying game between distributors and 
FASA themselves at GenCon 20) is of using a 
heavily armoured tank mounting an AutoCannon 
20 to make mech heads go "kablooie". I didn't 
really like Mechs either. And of the mechs I 
didn't like, LAMs ruled the day. 

3) Reading John's posts (Hey, engineer, I 
thought you and your bridge had shuffled off to 
the Middle East?), I see he thinks very much as 
I do. The interesting thing to me is not 
producing resources and managing an 
economy (as some people seem want to do in 
campaigns), nor in designing the best vehicle 
(as others seem to want to do in what I term 
test-bed games), but rather in taking a set of 
constraints (mission, resources, terrain, etc) 
and developing a force to operate in that 
terrain or in a particular mission profile. And 
then, of course, Murphy being the good friend 
that he is, throwing them into situations they 
aren't entirely perfectly suited for. This is just 
the kind of thing that can make for gripping and 
inventive play. 

I also try, as a gamemaster/referee, to 
encourage my players to think of the situation 
and act accordingly, even though, as a gamer, 
they may know something that their units 
probably do not (when I'm lazy enough not to 
do double blind). And if I'm doing something 
like a deliberate attack on a static defense, I 
allow both players a lot of lattitude in setup 
including asking for things I never thought of. 

One case was a game of Challenger 
microarmour, with Gulf War 1990's setting - 
Brits and US forces taking a seaside town. The 
Iraqi commander was waaaay outgunned, but 
he had his infantry (he had a fair pile) dig a 
*lot* of earth to setup fake minefields and to 
string wire around them and post warning 
signs. I hadn't considered that and had only 
issued him a small length of real minefields, 
which he wisely placed to the flanks. But his 
broad front, open to attack, was never tested 
due to the apparent minefields. That, and the 
cockiness and lack of mission focus of the Allied 
force spelled their doom (obsessing about one 
infantry platoon on a hill, they thought, and 
deploying a company of infantry and several 
platoons of armour to attack the hill, meanwhile 
stopping their attack dead.... and sending their 
apaches flying down main street.... only to eat a 
SAM or two....). 

The point being it seems to me the challenge 
that I enjoy from GZG games is not a number 
cruncher/bean counter/engineering one. It isn't 
"how can I build the best FT ship" (because 
really, I'm still constrained by the rules and so 
there won't be anything new... just a different 
assembly of parts moulded to attack 
weaknesses). Nor is the challenge who can win 
what equal odds battle. Those are so rare in 
the real world as to be phantasmal. 

No, the real challenge I see is in having a well 
crafted scenario where a force has a mission 
(on both sides) for which it may or may not be 
well suited and where you know something (but 
not everything) about your potential opposition 
(your intel knows their standard vehicle designs 
and formation sizes, though not exactly what 
might appear, etc) and where the challenge is 
in fulfilling your mission in the best and most 
effective manner. A game that perhaps leans 
closer to a simulation than "just a game". 

To bastardize Gandalf.... "It is not yours to 
decide your situation, but it is yours to decide 
what to do about/with your situation". Therein 
lies the meat. 

----------------------------------------------------
Mr. Thomas Barclay
Software Developer & Systems Analyst
thomas.barclay@stargrunt.ca
----------------------------------------------------