Re: Philosophy/Design of SF War Games was Re: (DS): Systems per Class

On 24 Jul 2004 at 20:28, Glenn M Wilson <warbeads@juno.com> wrote:

>  "What do you (plural) think a SF war game should be like?  What
elements
> are not in SG 2 and DS 2 that should be to reflect that view?"  

I'm primarily an SG2 player (or was, as I've mostly been working in 
historicals lately), and have limited experience with DS2.

For me, a futuristic game not based on a cinematic background should _at

least_ handle what modern combat handles. The exception to this is a
game 
sufficiently far in the future that it just doesn't work as a good 
simulation of modern reality.

I've compiled a list of things I'd like to see fixed in SG2, but I'm
sure 
few here want to see that list. In broad terms, though, I'd like to see 
support weapons, vehicles, and artillery be at least as effective as
they 
are today. Take artillery, for example. SG2's artillery model is circa 
1970. Modern mortar rounds don't deviate as wildly as they do in SG2,
let 
alone precision munitions.

I know some folk will argue that if you make artillery more accurate
they 
will dominate the table top. To offset this you have to take into
account 
the "whole picture". I have a few notes on a ArDE system: Artillery 
Defense Environment. This would work at an abstract level like the Air 
Defense Environment, and would simulate other assets shooting down 
incoming rounds, counter-battery fire messing up incoming attacks, etc. 
You need this sort of thing if your artillery isn't going to dominate
the 
game.

The proper "checks and balances" need to be included. You can't just fix

vehicles in SG2 without fixing anti-vehicle missiles, and then also 
fixing anti-missile rules. You can make vehicles more effective without 
them taking over the game completely. To do that you have to make anti-
vehicle weapons more realistic and useful (dropping the requirement of 
firing missiles with a separate action from the rest of the troops
firing 
is a start). You may have to add reactive and ablative armour to
vehicles 
in compensation, but since they exist in DS2 as well you should anyway.

I did some work on fixing SG2's vehicles (I've mostly abandoned this,
and 
no, I haven't typed up my notes in any form to hand over to someone
else, 
which some folks have asked for). What I did notice was that once you 
began fixing vehicles there comes a point where you need to fix 
artillery. There is not one single thing that can be fixed in SG2, but a

myriad of interconnecting things. Funny, this interconnection is exactly

what we see in modern combined arms combat.

I agree with what you say about the futuristic battlefield looking 
nothing like it does today. SG2 suffers from the "commander in the 
corner" syndrome, where a command unit is best hiding off in a corner 
somewhere, safe to do transfer actions. I've seen people suggest that 
this is realistic, because futuristic communications, battle networks, 
and enhanced imaging will make this feasible. This may be possible, but
I 
argue that if this were the case then combat should evolve into
something 
else entirely. If the futuristic battlefield is as transparent as some 
suggest, then why have the command unit on the battlefield at all? Why 
not eliminate individual platoons and have squads directed from afar by 
the army's equivalent of an AWACs for ground engagements? Why risk the 
command elements at all (or why even _have_ command elements)? 

My point is that you might PSB the "commander in the corner" syndrome, 
but you run the risk that your PSB leads to a "better solution" than the

one on the board. You end up with something that doesn't look much like 
modern combat but isn't thought through enough for futuristic combat.
If, 
however, you eliminate the "commander in the corner" syndrome (just as 
example) and allow something that mimics today, people will tend to
fault 
you less for it. In other words, don't do half the job. Either allow it 
to mimic modern combat to a certain extent, or take it far off the scale

and make it far more futuristic.

Note that if you do make the game sufficiently futuristic you loose the 
generic nature of it. This is another argument for grounding it in the 
"hear and now", as near future combat is as valid a genre for a generic 
game as is Star Wars, Star Trek, or the Tuffleyverse.

Personally, I really, really wish that there _was_ a game that looked
far 
enough into the future that combat didn't resemble modern combat at all.

Unfortunately there isn't. Almost every sci-fi game out there is a 
variant on one of the GW games, or it is based on some media source. SG2

has flaws (some of them, IMHO, fairly serious) but it's about the best 
thing out there, and one of the very few generic games in existence.

---

Allan Goodall	    http://www.hyperbear.com
agoodall@att.net   agoodall@hyperbear.com

"I'm ashamed of you, dodging that way. They couldn't hit an elephant
at this distance." - final words of Major General John Sedgwick,
   Battle of Spotsylvania, May 8, 1864