GZG List archives -- November 2006

Number 8 of 428 messages in this Archive
[Date Prev] Main Index [Date Next]
[Thread Prev] Thread Index [Thread Next]

RE: Blue Sky Thinking (was: Re: [GZG] re: Wanted)



It really comes down to span of control.  Most players can control about 12
"things" in a game.  At lower levels (individual figures) the span is
reduced to around 5 "things".  

So in a game where a single figure is a single man, a player should control
about a squad, where a base is a fire team, a player can control a couple of
platoons (a company).

I find the above to be true in all of the games/scenarios that I have
enjoyed.  I have played ACW games where 5 stands are a regiment and I
controlled a Corps.  I was exhausted at the end.

 
 
 
Michael Brown
mwsaber6@xxxxxxx
 

-----Original Message-----
From: gzg-l-bounces+mwsaber6=msn.com@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:gzg-l-bounces+mwsaber6=msn.com@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of
Ground Zero Games
Sent: Wednesday, November 01, 2006 4:15 AM
To: gzg-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Blue Sky Thinking (was: Re: [GZG] re: Wanted)

>>>There are two great games out there for playing company-level games:
>>>Dirtside and Striker.  They've already implemented the changes you
>>>describe.
>
>I've noticed, and fairly often heard comments from others that 
>agree, that SG2 as written is at an odd level. A single platoon is 
>too small for a good game--not enoughh maneuver units--but a company 
>is too big to handle. You're left with games that are "two platoons 
>vs a heavily-reinforced platoon" or some such. I think Stuart's 
>suggestion gets SG out of the "halfway between the two logical 
>command levels" quandry. As such, this is not about "what's the best 
>company level game", it's about "tweaks to StarGrunt".
>_______________________________________________
>Gzg-l mailing list
>Gzg-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>http://lists.csua.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l


OK, let's get some opinions from the good people out there in
gzg-list-land....

This is completely hypothetical at this stage, but what would folks' 
reactions be to the following ideas, at some point in the future when 
I actually have time to write some new rules (ha!):

1) A squad to platoon level game with individual figures, more like 
FMAS than SGII, for 25/28mm figs, typical force size 1 to 3 squads 
per side, plus maybe a vehicle or two.

PLUS....

2) Another system (let's call it SG3 for the sake of argument), aimed 
at Company-level games with 15mm figs (useable with 25mm, but with 
15mm as the "recommended" scale), with group-based figures (3-4 to a 
stand) and platoon-level activation for both infantry and vehicles.

Discuss......  ;-)

Jon (GZG)


_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.csua.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l

_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.csua.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l




  • Prev by Date: RE: Blue Sky Thinking (was: Re: [GZG] re: Wanted)
  • Next by Date: Re: Re: [GZG] RE: [FT] Unified Fighter Rules?   [sec=UNCLASSIFIED]

  • Previous by thread: RE: Blue Sky Thinking (was: Re: [GZG] re: Wanted)
  • Next by thread: RE: Blue Sky Thinking (was: Re: [GZG] re: Wanted)

  • Main Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Archive Index

    roger@nospam.firedrake.org
    Generated: Mon Dec 04 02:07:27 GMT 2006