Prev: Re: [GZG] Re: Points systems Next: RE: [GZG] Re: Points systems

[GZG] Re: FT Scenarios

From: Ken Bywaters <argentnova@y...>
Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2006 22:33:59 +0000 (GMT)
Subject: [GZG] Re: FT Scenarios

_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
http://lists.csua.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lI'm mainly a
Stargrunt/Dirtside player.  Although I rate FT as the strongest space
combat product out there, I was put off by several extreme munchkin
encounters abusing the ship design rules quite early on.  However, I've
also played a lot of naval wargaming, and most space systems draw from
wet navy influences.
   
  In my experience wet navy battles without some kind of scenario,
campaign or relevance very easily become an utterly unrealistic
slugfest.  Warships that have taken three years to construct and are
virtually irreplacable in real life terms can be thrown away in
ludicrous death or glory "tactics".  I'm sure that someone can think of
some exceptions (The death ride of the Yamato being one, for example!),
but the majority of naval battles are fought for a reason, and the
reasons and the consequences of losses need to be brought into the game
to give it context and realism.  I feel that FT and most other space
combat rules can be prone to similar effects.  Stand alone battles can
become inherently unrealistic without some relevance and perspective.
   
  Virtually all the Stargrunt games I've played have been scenario
based, and often used inventive and creative situations - such as a
three way between two rival ethnic factions, and a peacekeeping force
attempting to stop the confrontation without being too violent about it
(there was an embedded news team with them!).  Despite often being
unbalanced in terms of force composition, for our group such scenario
based games have always been extremely satisfying for all who played in
them.  I see the lack of a points system in Stargrunt to be a great
strength
   
  With Dirtside, for the most part we simply ignored the points system,
and played scenario based games there also.  My design philosophy as far
as I can tell may be similar to John A's - I tend to go for maximum crew
protection, best vehicle survivability, and for effective combined arms
integration (much as US/UK/Israel seems to do).  It's worked fine -
though when we've played games on points the munchkin-type players have
sometimes deployed swarms of small tankettes with close range fusion
weapons  or insanely large-composition missile platoons in an attempt to
overwhelm the more realistically designed forces.  The rational as to
what the crews thought of making suicidal charges in expendable
deathtraps and why and under what circumstances they were doing this was
never explained!  Again, the best games for our group have always been
scenario based rather than points based.
   
  My own response to the suggestion of FT mission/scenario cards is to
feel really inspired by them!  If something was going to get me to pick
up FT again and unpack my fleets from storage, this would be the
approach.  I've never liked the points value approach.	I've never heard
of any real life conflict that remotely resembled this - "Hey Saddam,
we're coming into Iraq with a 15,000 point mech army.  How many points
have you got?	Only 3,000?  OK, we'll leave the M1s, most of our arty
and the air assets out of it then..."  No way!	 As John Atkinson
pointed out a few weeks back, down at the sharp end, the military are
NOT looking for a balanced, interesting conflict!  It's their butts
hanging in the wind, and the object is to finish the other guys with the
minimum of risk.  By definition the whole points value system and points
balanced games are therefore fairly unrealistic as simulations.
   
  The use of mission/scenario cards would be a great counter for this. 
I'd like to see a mixture, some with deployment instructions and
situations, and others that are more freeform.	There should be
situations where a faction is forced to assault (or reinforce) out of
jumpspace, others where the setup may be defined in advance e.g. "you
are refuelling from a gas giant when pickets report the surprise
approach of an assault force in an areas supposed to be free of
hostiles".  Doing the best you can with the situation as given can be
part of the fun. Real life is like that - the British cruisers going up
against the Graf Spee, or the defence of HMS Glorious were unbalanced,
but that's how they happened.
   
  I see some potential for taking the mission/scenario cards a stage
further.  Possibly even providing a different foundation for tournament
games without the need for a points-based approach.  The inclusion of an
option for an "Admiral's Game" series could provide the basis for an
abstract campaign (I'm sure this has been done before with several
previous systems).  You choose your forces at the beginning of the
campaign, and play through a series of scenarios.  Some cards could
detail whether surviving ships can be used in the immediately following
encounter, or whether they must remain in transit until later etc. 
Perhaps some simple repair rules also?	Mutiple scenario cards could be
drawn and forces assigned to several missions before playing them out on
the table, representing the actual conflicting demands and priorities
upon a fleet.  The Admiral's Game idea would make hanging on in an
unfavourable battle less attractive, and there would be more incentive
to want to !
 preserve
 ships into the next stage.
   
  A few of the special effect cards should reflect unexpected fortunes
or misfortunes!  E.g. the availability of an extra battlecruiser, which
has unexpectedly been repaired and made spaceworthy faster than
estimated (Was it USS Yorktown at Midway that was repaired in 24
hours?).  The unavailability of that fleet carrier which just collided
with some space debris or lost a primary power coupling and cannot sail
until repaired (think Prince of Wales and the Repulse; no carrier
available to escort due to an earlier collision).  
   
  Granted the system won't suit everyone, and we could all come up with
tables or cards on our own anyway, but I for one would love to see it in
print (or download) as part of the FT universe.
   
  Couple of suggestions for situation cards:
   
  1.  One of the ships in your merchant convey is secretly a Q ship (or
Q carrier).
  2.  Nominate one opponent's ship to suffer potential accident, perhaps
on main drive.	Make a threshhold check.
  3.  Both players complete initial deployments.  One player gets
surprise reinforcements out of jumpspace later in game.
   
  Anyway, hope there was something in this that was worth uncloaking
for! 


		
---------------------------------
Yahoo! Messenger  NEW - crystal clear PC to PC calling worldwide with
voicemail 

Prev: Re: [GZG] Re: Points systems Next: RE: [GZG] Re: Points systems