Re: [GZG] Re: Points systems

On 1/11/06, Roger Books <roger.books@gmail.com> wrote:
> I thought that was the essence of the modern military.  ROE where what
> appear as the best three solutions to the soldiers on the ground are
not
> allowed.

Not so.

ROE determines limits on use of force.	The mission is, if anything,
more explicitly laid out to the tactical decision makers because of
the restrictions of ROE.

Rules to limit my actions in a game are part of the game.  Rules
making it impossible to make logical decisions what so ever?  That is
not and should not be part of anyone's game.

Don't get me wrong:  The idea of VPs is fine.  If I say that we are on
a "shoot down Admiral Yamamoto" mission, and that is the sole
determinant of the success or failure of the mission, then the Betty
bomber containing the Admiral has all the VPs, and the fighters
escorting it have none.  Their existence is utterly peripheral to the
mission except in as much as they must be shot down to allow the
Americans a clear shot at the converted bomber.

But the American P-38s have the idea that they are looking for a fleet
admiral transported in a passenger aircraft, possibly a converted
bomber.  They know he left this island at this time, and is expected
at that island at that time, thus they must be in a particular general
area at a particular time.  They aren't just told "Go fly around the
Pacific Ocean, and we'll tell you if you succeeded in meeting the
Admiral's goals for the mission when you land".

John
--
"Thousands of Sarmatians, Thousands of Franks, we've slain them again
and again.  We're looking for thousands of Persians."
--Vita Aureliani

_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
http://lists.csua.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l