Re: [FT] Background vs Scenario Balance

David Rodemaker wrote:

> All of these are the way that you can go about balancing out scenario.
> However, most military planners tend to avoid "equal" conflicts if at
all
> possible. One side *should* have some sort of advantage, even if a
slim one,
> and it would probably be the attacker. If you are using straight
costing out
> of FT(MT, FB...) then the FTL vs non-FTL should probably balance out
ok if
> they both have equal points to spend.

The "equal fight" mentality stems largely, I think, from GW games, whose
players
are almost maniacally obsessed with it and whine about the lack of
equality
constantly.  I've played plenty of scenarios and the "line 'em up and
shoot it
out" variety of battles, but the fact is that whether or not you use
equal
points, one side or the other will have the advantage due to factors
that can't
be taken into account by points costs of ships.  In most scenarios, I'd
agree
that the attacker ought to have an advantage, but then again, some of
the best
scenarios I've played in have been of the "ambush" type where an
attacker
thought a defender was weaker than they really were.

> The other stuff is a bit more problematic, I would tend to just fudge
it
> until I got the "force-flavor" that I wanted. Either that or give the
weaker
> side some other advantage (the ability to bring their force in from
any
> mapside, or split their forces, or place their ships after all of
their
> opponents) or that took their streamlining or ortillery into effect.
(Some
> ground target that gives them an extra 5 victory points or something
if they
> destroy it...)

Personally, I wouldn't worry about fudging it.	After all, military
commanders
seldom have enough of what they want when fighting a battle,
particularly if
they're on the defensive.  To me, the idea of a bunch of ragtag
leftovers trying
to stop an enemy raid is a fun type of scenario to play (Or maybe
destroyers and
light carriers vs. battleships ala the Battle of Samar in WWII?  THAT
was a case
in which the defender was *horribly* outclassed, and suffered for it,
but still
managed to drive the attacker away.  In fact, I may get around to
writing a
scenario for that one some day).  If, however, you're playing
attacker/defender
with the defender being weaker, one way to "balance" things out is to
force the
attacker to behave along certain prescribed lines (i.e. "Admiral, you
must
destroy the orbital cargo facility and have only X number of turns to do
so
before the enemy reinforcements show up from the outer system", thus
forcing the
attacking commander to devote more of his weapons fire to destroying the
orbital
facilities rather than just munching the defenders and then hanging
around for a
few days bombarding it into rubble.  The point is, that it's not always
necessary to balance the scenario on the basis of forces on the table;
it's also
possible to balance it in terms of objectives as well.