Re: Re: [GZG] John's Shipbuilding

[david garnham <garnhamghast@xxxxxxxxxx>]

========================================
Message Received: Jan 17 2006, 09:08 PM
From: damosan@xxxxxxxxxxx
To: gzg-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc:
Subject: Re: Re: [GZG] John's Shipbuilding

-------------- Original message ----------------------
From: Ian Downing

> The RN ships had no chance of winning...

It depends on how you define "winning." Winning and losing are defined by the mission (scenario) at hand and the backstory to date. Is winning always about the total defeat of the enemy? Probably not.

John mentioned mission motivation which, I think, is a better way of dealing with morale in a ship to ship game. We're not talking about modeling the morale of Ship's Cook 4th Class Jones but the command staff.

If the weaker force has a High mission motivation then I can see them willing to take the hits. If, on the other hand, they have a low motivation then they make take a few paint scratching hits and decide to bail.

How popular would Admirals/Captains be today if they burned ships like we FT players do?

--
Damo
I would say : scenario cards as per Jons suggestions with victory points etc are the way to go. Tailor your ships to the expectations of the scenarios (in other words if the scenarios reflect an anywhere "realistic" set of military objectives). I really like this idea. I think if the scenario is worded right it would cut down on munchkinisation (if that's a word).  

War! What is it good for? Er.....gaming
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.csua.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l