Prev: Re: Random thoughts on campaigning Next: [OT] Irregular 6mm Infantry

Re: Random thoughts on campaigning

From: GBailey@a...
Date: Mon, 15 May 2000 16:45:43 EDT
Subject: Re: Random thoughts on campaigning

>From: Mikko Kurki-Suonio <>
>Subject: Random thoughts on campaigning

some more thoughts on my main passion..
(strategic gaming.  It would be secondary if I could roll
something besides a "1" in the "dating game")  (GRIN)

>Who are you playing?  Are you the Space Tyrant, only limited
>by laws of nature?  Or are just one of the admirals, the GM
>or the system taking the role of your superiors?
>Personally, I don't much care for the former, but if it
>floats your boat, go ahead.  You need to model economy,
>politics, shipbuilding etc.  A LOT of paperwork.

I prefer the former (don't call me Tyrant, I prefer Supreme
Benevolence), but I don't mind the latter. 5th Frontier War
by GDW is a good example of the latter and a game system that
would nice to expand into multiple players.  I'd keep it two
sided but 2-3 major powers on each side with their own minor
objectives.  One problem with a large scope, star-empire
running campaign is the difference in peace and war.  Besides
the economy shifting with possible repercussions, during
peacetime the fleet just sits around except for the
occasional showing of the flag and you can expand the time
scale by doing 1 year "turns", and during wartime you want to
go to weekly or daily (ugh!)  "turns".	You can do this, but
when war comes how do you decide the fleets should be
positioned?  At naval bases only except for a scattering of
small ships?  What about the war declaring force?  On the
border?  Should the defender have a chance of a warning?
Then there's "border squabbles", which is probably not
possible without a GM.	Any open aggression will be seen as
an act of war.

>The latter is a simpler choice (and avoids the strange
>role-hopping from Fuhrer to grunt and back).  There should
>be an abstract system to represent
>- applying for reinforcements (what you get should be at
>  least semi-random)
>- resupply
>- damaged ships might be recalled for repairs. *You'd*
>  perhaps rather work them to death, but *they upstairs*
>  see the bigger picture and don't quite agree
>- UNdamaged ships might be recalled (gamewise, this is a
>  balancing method)
>- you might be replaced (losing the game) if you blatantly
>  disobey orders and/or perform sub-par. Or the entire campaign
>  might be abandoned if it's proving too costly.
>The last may seem harsh, but properly used it's a great
>balancing tool.  It can be used to stop suicide tactics,
>constantly running away, ignoring mission objectives etc.
>etc.  AND it can be used to end the campaign when the result
>is inevitable but playing it out would be boring.

*sigh*	I would love a game crossing 5th Frontier War and
Imperium.  In Imperium there are tables that the Imperial
player, as an Imperial governor, has to worry about that has
possible Imperial interventions calling for some of the ships
under his control.


Prev: Re: Random thoughts on campaigning Next: [OT] Irregular 6mm Infantry