RE: [GZG] DSIII q

Grant,
	I don't think the problem is the rule set per se, but the
tactics that most players employ.  Most will follow the general theory
of having a "main" body where most of the action occurs and then
maintain a "reserve" set.  Usually players who sit around are either by
choice or by team decision part of that "reserve" i.e. your units are
guarding the flank (but no opposing forces attack the flank so your
units don't see any action).

Scenario design helps alleviate this.  First, each player should be
given sufficient forces that they can hold back a reserve if they
choose. This usually means 3 or more units per player. 

Second, the terrain should be roughly equivalent across the battlefield,
natural channels formed by hills, forests or rivers cause players to
either avoid movement through them or to sit back and try to reduce the
opposition through long-range fire.  By allowing all the players on a
side to have roughly the same terrain coverage in their sector, there is
less incentive to crowd into "favorable" terrain or wait and fight a war
of attrition.

Third, manage the time and set time limits - many players wait and wait
and wait looking for a small advantage in position and such.  Also the
first 3-4 turns are just spent jockeying for position with very little
firing and for some people in set positions, very little action. You can
pre-empt this by simply allowing people to either set-up closer or
utilize a "rapid move" system where after each side sets up, they can
alternate sides and re-arrange the placement of their units that are not
in line of sight with the opponent to another location that is not in
line of sight (each unit may only be shifted once).  Also set a time or
turn limit on games to encourage people to move.

Alternatively, I have shifted most of my games to Players vs. NPC's in a
campaign background.  In those games I have 3-4 players on the same side
fighting against hordes of NPC opponents.  This means every player
fights a lot as I can balance the scenario to the number of players by
simply allocating an number of NPC units per player.  Also, I have new
players play the role of the NPC's as this allows them to learn the
rules without worrying too much about losing their troops.  Either or
both sides can achieve "victory" as I set varying objectives for each
player and team. Examples -  the player's side objective  may be to take
Hill 641, while the NPC objective may be to inflict 30% losses on the
players, while player A has an additional objective of clearing mines,
while player B must set up the communication post. Or the NPC's are a
forlorn hope and need to hold a pass for 8 or more turns while the
players objective is to just get through the pass with individual
players earning points for who gets through first.

--Binhan

-----Original Message-----
From: gzg-l-bounces+lin=rxkinetix.com@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
[mailto:gzg-l-bounces+lin=rxkinetix.com@lists.csua.berkeley.edu] On
Behalf Of Grant A. Ladue
Sent: Monday, March 06, 2006 11:32 AM
To: gzg-l@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: [GZG] DSIII q

  Let me rephrase it then.  For me, a "convention" game implies at least
2
players to a side and usually has more.  Quite frequently, more than 1
of these
players will be new to the game.  Almost all of our local games fall
into this
type of category whether they are played at a convention or not.  As
such, I 
would prefer to see the rules be set up such that it minimizes the
chances that
one or more of these players spends most of the game doing nothing.  

  Now, that said, I've got no problem with the rules being configured
the way
they currently are if that works well for smaller groups of players.  I
would
just like to see a "standarized" set of options that would allow groups
to run
it in a more "group friendly" way when appropriate.  I'm a big fan of
optional
rules that help to prevent a large accumulation of "house rules" to
achieve the
same effect.  Optional rules have the advantage of being accessible to
all and
allow for formal answers to questions that arise.  I find that
flexibility in
a ruleset is highly preferable.

  grant

> 
> Grant,
> 
> I think your ideas of how to make a convention game
> more interesting for all players are very good and
> quite valid in that setting.	
> 
> I don't think that the rules should be written to
> "keep folks happy at a convention".  I think that
> should be up to the GM and the scenario.  
> 
> I think the rules should simulate combat with weapons
> and equipment that are not available to us now but are
> possible to exist given the laws of physics.	There
> are situations in every battle where significant
> portions of the forces available were not active. This
> should be part of the game.  If the players do not use
> all the force available then that is a tactical
> mistake that should result in a loss.  If the rules do
> not allow forces to enter the battle but have a good
> reason for that (ie firefight ongoing is working
> inside the normal game timeline) that is fine by me.	
> 
> Bob Makowsky
> 
> - Note that I am a "simulationist", I would be happy
> if the game did not have any players at all (even at a
> con) if it resulted in the "most likely
> historical(future historical) outcome.  I play games
> to see what could have, should have, or would have
> happened.  Winning and losing matter not and I have as
> much fun watching what other players are contributing
> to the simulation as I do actually moving and firing
> myself.  
> 
> So given that, my comments are to maximize the
> simulation of the system (though I understand that if
> it is not a "fun" game then it will not sell and I
> will not have the opportunity to buy it).
> 
> 
> --- "Grant A. Ladue" <ladue@cse.buffalo.edu> wrote:
> 
> > > 
> > > On Fri, 3 Mar 2006, Grant A. Ladue wrote:
> 
> > 
> >    :-)  Yeah, I get that.  I'm just saying that in a
> > convention setting, that
> >  can be an extended period of time where everyone
> > else isn't doing anything.
> >  Minimizing that is a good thing.  I know that a lot
> > of it is that we're not
> >  yet really familiar with the new system and
> > therefore don't know how to use it
> >  to avoid this.  Still, my first look at it made me
> > feel like putting in a few
> >  things to help limit one or two firefights being
> > the *entire* game would be a
> >  good thing.  I'll happily concede the point if
> > repetitive play in a similiar
> >  setting shows that it doesn't come up often enough
> > to be a concern.  I'm 
> >  concerned though, because I've been to many a
> > convention and the only games
> >  I didn't enjoy were where the scenario setup or the
> > game rules left me unable
> >  to do *anything* for most of the game.  For DSIII
> > I'm a bit concerned that the
> >  "shaken" result which forces unit to go to cover
> > may often force one player's
> >  forces entirely to cover.	If a long firefight or
> > firefights occur after that,
> >  you may never reach the end of the turn that allows
> > those units to get back
> >  into action.  I'm thinking that some mechanism for
> > keeping things flowing to
> >  turn end points is a good thing, especially in the
> > convention type games.
> > 
> >    Our game at ECC was ~ 3 to 3.5 hours of play, and
> > the entirety of the game
> >  was 3 firefights in the first turn.  We probably
> > had 2 more to go to the end
> >  of the turn (we had 2 more mbt units to ram home). 
> > I didn't get a close look
> >  at the other game, but I thought it was similiar. 
> > I like how DSIII plays, but
> >  I'm not sure that one turn convention games are a
> > good idea.
> > 
> >    I want to make sure that you understand that I'm
> > not being critical of the
> >  game system or how it's been developed.  I'm just
> > thinking out loud about 
> >  what might be a flow issue in the game.  I rather
> > enjoyed the faster movement
> >  speeds and the morale.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> >   grant
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Gzg-l mailing list
> Gzg-l@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
> http://lists.csua.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l
> 

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

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