Re: Re: [GZG] John's Shipbuilding

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

========================================
Message Received: Jan 17 2006, 09:08 PM
From: damosan@comcast.net
To: gzg-l@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
Cc: 
Subject: Re: Re: [GZG] John's Shipbuilding

-------------- Original message ----------------------
From: Ian Downing 

> The RN ships had no chance of winning...

It depends on how you define "winning." Winning and losing are defined
by the mission (scenario) at hand and the backstory to date. Is winning
always about the total defeat of the enemy? Probably not.

John mentioned mission motivation which, I think, is a better way of
dealing with morale in a ship to ship game. We're not talking about
modeling the morale of Ship's Cook 4th Class Jones but the command
staff.

If the weaker force has a High mission motivation then I can see them
willing to take the hits. If, on the other hand, they have a low
motivation then they make take a few paint scratching hits and decide to
bail.

How popular would Admirals/Captains be today if they burned ships like
we FT players do?

--
Damo
I would say : scenario cards as per Jons suggestions with victory points
etc are the way to go. Tailor your ships to the expectations of the
scenarios (in other words if the scenarios reflect an anywhere
"realistic" set of military objectives). I really like this idea. I
think if the scenario is worded right it would cut down on
munchkinisation (if that's a word).  

War! What is it good for? Er.....gaming