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

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

From: MICHAEL BROWN <mwsaber6@m...>
Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2014 12:28:58 -0600
Subject: RE: SG:AC discussions (was: Official - More re GZG news update - NEW RELEASES!)

textfilter: chose text/plain from a multipart/alternative

deal.  Counters too?





Michael Brown

mwsaber6@msn.com



 
> Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2014 14:24:54 -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
> 
> Mike, trade you a scanned copy of Seastrike for the Dead Man's Land
pdf
> :-)
> 
> Mk
> 
> On Thu, Sep 25, 2014 at 2:00 PM, MICHAEL BROWN <mwsaber6@msn.com>
wrote:
> 
> > textfilter: chose text/plain from a multipart/alternative
> >
> > "This system has been "borrowed" many times over the years, most
> > notably by Brilliant Lances (the Traveller starship game), because
it
> > works! I certainly borrowed some of the Seastrike system icon ideas
> > for FT, as many of you may have noted long ago, but I've not
actually
> > applied the objective card system to a game - though it would lend
> > itself very well to FT games, and I'm sure it could be made to work
> > for ground based games too."
> >
> > Gee, I wonder where I got the idea for the mission cards I did so
many
> > moons ago...
> > (Having BOTH SeaStrike and Brilliant Lances)
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Michael Brown
> >
> > mwsaber6@msn.com
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2014 18:49:04 +0100
> > > To: gzg@firedrake.org
> > > From: jon@gzg.com
> > > 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
> > >
> > >
> > > That is similar in some ways to the classic "Seastrike" random
> > > objective method - each player draws an unmarked envelope from a
> > > stack of a dozen or so, and a card in the envelope tells them (a)
the
> > > budget for their force, (b) any specific restrictions on their
force
> > > composition and (c) the objective they must try to achieve, with
an
> > > alternative secondary objective (which is usually, but not always,
to
> > > prevent the enemy from achieving their own objective) that the
player
> > > may fall back on if the main objective becomes impossible.
> > >
> > > Having drawn and read your objective card, you then "buy" your
ships,
> > > aircraft, land bases etc from the pool of counters (each has a
price
> > > in millions of pounds/dollars) up to the allowed budget on the
card,
> > > and then the game deployment starts.
> > >
> > > The objectives range from a relatively small budget and a mission
to
> > > render just one enemy surface vessel inoperative (to "make a
point"
> > > to a  sabre-rattling enemy), to a huge budget that allows you to
buy
> > > almost your entire counter mix but with a mission requiring you to
> > > completely neutralise all enemy forces.
> > >
> > > As Indy mentions, it is possible to get some odd matchups - though
> > > having the blind envelope draw rather than a die roll does mean
that
> > > both sides will never get the same objective. The classic very
short
> > > game is a small-budget objective to simply destroy the enemy's
> > > (land-based) command post - unless the enemy has heavily invested
in
> > > SAM sites, then you just spend almost all your budget on strike
> > > aircraft and wallop the hell out of him in the first turn....
> > >
> > > This system has been "borrowed" many times over the years, most
> > > notably by Brilliant Lances (the Traveller starship game), because
it
> > > works! I certainly borrowed some of the Seastrike system icon
ideas
> > > for FT, as many of you may have noted long ago, but I've not
actually
> > > applied the objective card system to a game - though it would lend
> > > itself very well to FT games, and I'm sure it could be made to
work
> > > for ground based games too.
> > >
> > > [I've kind of assumed that most here know what Seastrike is - for
> > > those that don't, it's a hybrid board/tabletop game of mid-to-late
> > > 20th Century (post-WW2) naval combat between two smallish states
set
> > > in an island archipelago, with surface units varying from missile
> > > boats through frigates and destroyers up to a single cruiser
(rather
> > > vulnerable and seldom used, in my experience!) available to each
> > > fleet, plus strike and interceptor aircraft and land bases such as
> > > SAM and radar sites to place on the islands. Play occurs on a
> > > tabletop rather than a board, with card islands placed at random
as
> > > "terrain". All combat is very simply driven by a clever special
card
> > > deck.]
> > >
> > > Jon (GZG)
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> 


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