Re: SG:AC discussions (was: Official - More re GZG news update - NEW RELEASES!)

>On Thu, Sep 25, 2014 at 12:17:02AM +0100, Ground Zero Games wrote:
>>Agreed, there are a number of elements that TW has that we really
>>ought to include in SG:AC - not surprisingly, given the two rulesets
>>(TW and SGII) were written almost twenty years apart.... ;-)
>
>I'm not much of a ground-based wargamer, but I've recently been
>playing a bit of Chain of Command, and the emphasis that it puts on
>giving the right orders at the right time is very welcome: it's the
>closest I've come to the ideal of making the decisions that the bloke
>on the ground has to make.
>
>(On the other hand it's underspecified and sometimes simplistic when
>it comes to the actual shooty stuff.)

Interesting - I have a copy of CoC, but haven't done more than glance 
through it so far; I'll give it a better look when I get the chance.

>
>>Agreed, the pre-game concept is something I've always liked too - it
>>needs careful design to avoid it "spoiling" the main game completely
>>(eg: by changing the situation so much that one side is too
>>disadvantaged to have any chance of winning) BUT this can be balanced
>>by altering the victory conditions in response to the pre-game events
>>- in effect, it is the pre-game that actually determines the scenario
>>that will be played in the game itself. For example, if the pre-game
>>reduces the effectiveness of one player's force significantly, then
>>what might have been a simple meeting engagement actually becomes a
>>"hold this position for x turns" defence game.....
>
>A slight side note:
>
>I'm always wary of the "two equal forces line up and blast away at
>each other" school of gaming (which I met first in Battletech, but
>it's not unique to that game). It just doesn't seem to happen that
>often in the real world; a smart commander knows that he has to save
>his forces for the _next_ battle, and if he realises that the enemy's
>force is as tough as his he may well be looking for a chance to fade
>away (and so will the enemy). I'm much more interested in asymmetrical
>games: a big force attacks a smaller force with a good defensive
>position, a scout unit tries to gather information and then escape,
>that sort of thing.

We're on the same page there!  :-)

>
>>Interesting, and yes, I can understand the reasoning behind this;
>>that is how most soldiers survive to reach Veteran status after
>>all....
>>It CAN be handled by a combination of motivation and confidence
>>levels along with the troop quality stats, but this merits much more
>>discussion!
>
>As a role-player, I'm willing to compromise: the on-scene commander
>(my avatar on the battlefield) should do just what I tell him to do,
>but the blokes he's commanding should be at liberty to say "could I
>have that in writing, sir?" (and similar phrases that should chill the
>heart of any competent officer).

Yes, I think that's exactly the sort of feel that we should be aiming 
for.  The kind of player who wants 100% perfect control over every 
figure in his army is most probably already lost to us anyway, and I 
don't see much point in compromising the game just to suit that type 
of player.

Perhaps the most important thing as a first step is to actually 
define the target players for the game - if anyone wants to chime in 
with some thoughts on that, feel free!

>
>>Yes, in principle I agree; the problem is coming up with one that is
>>simple and quick without allowing too much mini-maxing.....
>>Whatever we do, SOMEONE will instantly over-analyze it and then
>>gleefully inform the entire internet that it is "broken", thus
>>proving how much smarter they are than the people who put a lot of
>>effort into designing it....	;-)
>
>While it may smack a bit of the GW approach, I think that having
>standard organisations can go a long way to covering up the cracks in
>a point system. If your NAC Marine company is a standard roster plus a
>bit of optional support, you won't get the problem of someone taking
>lots of a single unit type (which is very often where a point system
>breaks down).

Yes, I agree - the problem comes when we're trying to write a generic 
ruleset with an optional background, rather than one where the 
official background is almost "compulsory" - as you say, we can give 
a TO&E for an NAC Company, but then Joe Q. Munchkin turns up at game 
night with his homebrewed "King Thrognord of Flibble's Royal Guard 
Company" which, of course, has every trooper in heavy power armour 
with a fusion gun.... and then everything goes to Hell in the 
proverbial handbasket....

There are possible ways round this problem, and I'd love to discuss it
further.

Jon (GZG)

>
>Roger