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

textfilter: chose text/plain from a multipart/alternative

do you have that adaptation somewhere?





Michael Brown

mwsaber6@msn.com



 
> Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2014 13:20:50 -0400
> From: indy.kochte@gmail.com
> To: gzg@firedrake.org
> Subject: Re: SG:AC discussions (was: Official - More re GZG news
update - NEW RELEASES!)
> 
> textfilter: chose text/plain from a multipart/alternative
> 
> On Thu, Sep 25, 2014 at 11:33 AM, Roger Bell_West
<roger@firedrake.org>
> wrote:
> 
> > On Thu, Sep 25, 2014 at 10:25:29AM -0500, Patrick Connaughton wrote:
> > >
> > >There have been comments above inconclusive games. These happen
> > >(sadly) all too often when you're using point based, matchup games.
> > >It becomes the challenge of the presenter to build a good scenario
> > >that provides victory conditions or success criteria that challenge
> > >the players to do more than body count.
> >
> > Yes, I think that some sort of objective, even if it's just "get
your
> > guys off the other edge of the map", almost always improves things.
> >
> 
> Ambush Alley had or used to have available a very short (4-page; 3 of
which
> were the rules, one was the rules cover :-D ) set of WWII 'patrol'
campaign
> rules which each side would roll secretly for their force's
game/scenario
> objective. A friend and I adopted it to do a short (9-game) TW
campaign a
> couple years ago, and it worked really well. One of the objectives was
to
> exit the other end of the table with half your force or more. There
were
> six objectives that you would roll for on each side, with each side
keeping
> their rolled objective a secret from the other. Made for some
interesting
> battles. (and a couple of potentially boring ones when both of our
> objectives were to withdraw; but that happened far less often than the
> other combination of objectives).
> 
> Mk
>