Re: Scenario idea - new

"Bell, Brian K" wrote:

> Of course if you ran the SG game first, the exact turn would be
determined
> when the shields go down (if they go down). Divide the turn number by
3.
> This is the FT turn when the shields go down.

    This just doesn't seem like a satisfying way to handle the combined
game
concept.  You get into the situation where the players will know if the
shield
is going to come down or not, and when it it will occur.  No doubt you
need to
run the SG game first, to establish a "winner" on the ground.  But this
doesn't
need to provide the actual turn when the shield goes down.  It could
merely
supply the modifier to die roll that will secretly determine when the
shields
will go down.  That way, no matter what the result of the SG game, you
still
have a chance to have a good FT game.
    Here's how I'd handle the combined game.  I'd run the SG game and
note the
turn when the shield generator was disabled.  I'd also score victory
points as I
would in any other SG game.  I'd set up the scenario so that, with good
tactics,
you could disable the shields on turn 6.  Figuring that, I'd subtract 6
from the
number of turns it actually took the ground forces to disbale the shield
generator to create value X.  I would allow X to be less than 1 or
greater than
7.  Then I'd roll 1d6 and add X to determine the round in which the
shields come
down in the FT game.  That way, you're guaranteed to have a game where
the
shields come down and the FT attackers can win, even if the SG attackers
failed.

    Based on playtests of the scenario, you could modify the "average"
number
which you subtract from the total number of turns it takes the SG
attackers to
get the shield generator.  However, this method as written will provide
a good
spread for the shields to drop: anywhere from turn 2 to turn 13.  If
playtests
of the FT game show that it would take to long to run 14 turns, you
might have
the shields drop no later than turn 10, for example.
    At any rate, I think the keys to making this combined scenario work
are to
allow a win, or a lose, no matter what happens in the other game; and to
playtest the scenario to make sure you have reasonable expectations on
achieving
goals and time limits.

-Mike

--
Michael Sarno

http://vietnam.isonfire.com
Check out the Charlie Company Discussion Group:
Info, resources, and links for RAFM's miniatures
skirmish wargame of infantry combat in Vietnam 1965-1972

"Tradition refuses to submit to the small and
 arrogant oligarchy of those who merely happen
 to be walking about."
 -G.K. Chesterton