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

["john tailby" <John_Tailby@xxxxxxxxxx>]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "David Rodemaker" <dar@xxxxxxxxxxxx>

> Jon (GZG) wrote...
> Back in the day (before there was fire practically), I played with a group
> that did this for a Battletech campaign. Everyone built a company of 
> mechs,
> then we had a random scenario list that we rolled on. The scenario would
> determine what force could be used and what the victory conditions would 
> be
> for that player.
This idea is quite commonly used, Flames of war and 40K do similar things. 
It is good at preventing armies from becoming engineered to just play one 
mission.
However it can lead to all armies having a sameness feel to them. In your 
example everyone would have ended up with mech companies with a scout lance 
a medium/heavy lance and a heavy/ fire support lance. You would be less 
likely to see armies that represent specialist units like Hansens 
Roughriders or Eridani light horse.

In a GZG universe I imagine a formation like Atkinson's Arrows would not be 
very willing to take on a city assault scenario where their tanks and long 
range firepower are nullified by the terrain. I am not saying that they 
can't do it but that it's not what they would necessarily want to do. Same 
thing if you chose to design a light stealth infantry force. The last thing 
they want is to be given an assignment to hold trenches.

Scenarios need to have the capability to be achieved in different ways so 
that different armies can be selected . 


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