Re: Our choice of factions and models for games

textfilter: chose text/plain from a multipart/alternative

Faction uniqueness is an extremely gamey device and really has no place
on any tabletop wargame.  (Spartan Games I am looking directly at you!).

As you stated much better than I, a new technology is going to get
spread around and is not going to remain solo to one nation once it's
value is proven.  (This still allows interesting battles to prove that
value.

Play what you want, but pushing for faction unique weapons means that it
is truly a game and is not useful for learning.

Bob Makowsky

________________________________
 From: Tom B <kaladorn@gmail.com>
To: gzg@firedrake.org 
Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2012 4:32 AM
Subject: Our choice of factions and models for games
 
textfilter: chose text/plain from a multipart/alternative

John L:

I don't disagree we have aesthetic sensibilities. For some people, the
counter is enough. For others, they don't like chits or dice or anything
'not part of the picture' on the game table. for others yet, it matters
that unit insignia and camouflage patterns and wear showing on the
vehicles
and mud and so on are all just so. The sensibility seems to be a very
personal thing.

Camouflage should (in the future) be fully adaptive and multi-spectral.
It
should fit the surroundings. So any particular 'paint job' on a mini
could
be construed to match some set of terrain (I expect most spaceships
silver
or black but I'm not sure which).

Ultimately, TO&E and expected use are tightly coupled. If a unit is
meant
for deep penetration, it will be very mobile (grav?) and have a mix more
armour heavy, for instance. The TO&E will follow from the doctrine for
that
unit. But another unit type for the same power may follow an entirely
different doctrine and TO&E. This is why I say the NAC and the ESU may
well
have about a 90% congruence in the broad catalog of vehicles and ships
and
combat systems. TO&Es will derive from expected mission realities with
the
occasional twist for politics or some other reason thrown in.

The faction that fields exclusively DFFG armed tanks when the other side
has HELs will often find itself picked to pieces. In these situations,
the
battles become paper, scissors, rock. If the DFFG side can force close
engagement (ambush), they win. If the HEL side can force longer
engagement,
they win. This is why any side will field a mix.

The idea that any combat system is going to remain proprietary from an
enemy for any length of time is an odd one. Spying, allies you've sold
it
to being porous, similar developments based on captured or damaged
versions, etc. will quickly move any technology out into the common
sphere.
At most, some system might give one side or the other a brief advantage.

But this is not usually what we build in SF games, because if each
faction
had similar types of units, what is there to make one play one over the
other?

In historical games, if the US and Japanese both show up to a naval
battle
with cruisers and destroyers, there will be differences, but there will
be
a majority of similarity. The reason to pick Japan or the US may be a
historical interest or it might not matter (random assignment).
Historicals
don't try to make a particular faction 'unique'.

I don't say it isn't 'right' to play your game any way you want (anybody
who games should do what makes them happy), but I just find it odd that
we
work on faction uniqueness quite so much in SF gaming.

At some point, I think it probably involves marketing.

T.