Prev: New mini's for SG2 Next: Re: Gunboats in FT...

Re: Unfair Kamikazes?

From: Christopher Pratt <valen10@f...>
Date: Mon, 24 Nov 1997 08:36:45 -0500
Subject: Re: Unfair Kamikazes?

Brian Bell wrote:

> >I personally think that the games we play are primarilly for 1) fun
> then
> >2) to win. When people seem to be so obsessed with 2) the game just
> >to become pointless.  I think that the influence of the Evil Empire
> company
> >has had a lot to do with this. I know that I much prefer to play fun
> >then really really really competitive games. When it comes down to
> they
> >are just games.
> Amen!
> >.... however if we are
> >running a campaign people are rather loathe to ram ships, better to
> >and fight another day.
> You might want to set a rule to the effect that for either side to
> victory, the fleet that destroys the enemy or forces him to flee, must
> 25% of his ships (points and number) survive or it is considered a
> 25% is rather a bloodthursty number. And ultimatly unsustainable. But
> to measure.
> What are acceptable losses?
> Brian Bell

  we use a similar house rule in DS2/SG2, we create an acceptable
casuatly rate for a
given scenero.	In a border raid scenero we played a couple of weeks
ago, the casuatly
rate was 50%, the first one to hit this was forced to conced victory
because holding this
one border post was not worth that sorta casuatilites...
an SG2 game we played involved a commando raid aginst a terrosist group
with a doomsday
weapon...obvisouly this was an at all cost target with 100%
casuatilities excepptabe by
both sides  (BTW, the terrosist player asked if he could set off the
bomb during the game)

chris pratt

Prev: New mini's for SG2 Next: Re: Gunboats in FT...