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

I can do a lot better than that to 'feel old.' ;->=

The_Beast (Who can't use the same signature twice...)

-----Original Message-----
From: MICHAEL BROWN [mailto:mwsaber6@msn.com] 
Sent: Thursday, September 25, 2014 2:41 PM
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

Want to feel old?  Those were done in the 90's

My boys are picking up FT Fever, I'm about ready to introduce them to
the mission cards



Michael Brown

mwsaber6@msn.com



 
> From: devans@nebraska.edu
> To: gzg@firedrake.org
> Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2014 19:30:56 +0000
> Subject: RE: SG:AC discussions (was: Official - More re GZG news 
> update - NEW RELEASES!)
> 
> A bit of search through TMP and LAF will show I've bragged you up more
than once, and mentioned on the FT Yahoo! group, as well.
> 
> Doug
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: MICHAEL BROWN [mailto:mwsaber6@msn.com]
> Sent: Thursday, September 25, 2014 1:00 PM
> 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
> 
> "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)
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
>					  
> 
> 
>