Prev: Re: [GZG] New game mechanics (was: Re: Name for Rules) Next: [GZG] Platoon Level Survey

Re: [GZG] Point Systems

From: "John Atkinson" <johnmatkinson@g...>
Date: Sat, 4 Nov 2006 08:34:43 +0300
Subject: Re: [GZG] Point Systems

On 11/4/06, McCarthy, Tom (xwave) <Tom.McCarthy@xwave.com> wrote:
> > If you find that you're
> > actually in a fair fight, it means that both you and the enemy have
> > screwed up at the strategic level.
>
> I've played in several games run by a GM who believes that all even
> engagements are examples of intelligence failures by both sides. 
Since
> he strives to give the players an even fight, he habitually lies to or
> hamstrings both sides.  I frequently leave the table wondering "How
the
> heck was I supposed to plan something when I was flying in blind to
the
> true situation?"  Both sides leave the game feeling they were doomed
to
> failure, or that player strategy played no role in the game.
>
> Sometimes secrecy, surprises and intelligence failures make the game
far
> less fun.

It's also bleedin' unrealistic, at least in the extremes that most GMs
of this school want to take it to.

If you have no usable information, then the best response when you
discover that fact is to withdraw your forces from the table, and go
out for a beer.

Eventually he'll get the point.

Even if it isn't a fair fight, setting realistic goals and providing
the players with the information needed to achieve those goals is a
requirement for an enjoyable scenario.	Full stop, no quibbling.

Example:

If you put a recon troop up against an armored battalion, and tell the
recon troop that he's facing another recon troop with the mission to
engage them and force them out of the valley, then you are a retard
who needs to be slapped.

If you put a recon troop up against an armored battalion, provide the
recon troop with adequate artillery support, and tell him that his
objective is to slow the armored battalion down and identify the main
body's axis of advance, then you are putting together a reasonable
scenario which may not be "balanced" but which has achievable mission
objectives.

BUT: If you put a recon troop up against an armored battalion that he
thinks is a recon troop, then when he finds out otherwise, reports it
up higher, and gets told his new objective is to get the hell off the
board with 75% of his vehicles moving under their own power, and
here's an artillery battery or two for support, then it's a short
scenario but a fair one.

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

Prev: Re: [GZG] New game mechanics (was: Re: Name for Rules) Next: [GZG] Platoon Level Survey