RE: [FT] Background vs Scenario Balance

Echoing some other comments.

The sides do not have to be balanced in points or even capibilities, but
each side does have to have a reasonable chance to achieve the goals of
the
scenario.

You can do this with a victory point multiplier, giving one side more VP
per
damage than the other. 

Often more fun are the "Desperate Gamble" type of scenarios where one
player
is outnumbered/outgunned but one side has to do something unrelated to
winning the battle (Get the courier through; Scan a sector and report to
HQ;
Drop supplies to forces on the planet; etc.)

And the only way to "balance" a scenario for VP is to test, test, test
and
test again.

One of the difficulties in FT, when trying to do this, is the lack of
terrain. It is hard to block a pass, or hide forces in the woods, or
force
them march down the valley. A planet or asteroids can add a lot to a
scenario.

And as a last comment, some of the most fun games that I have played are
where the players ignore the set goals and do something off the wall. An
example is the FT Cheese game the Mike Sarno ran at GZGECC III. Everyone
was
supposed to try to take over the space station while preventing each
other
from doing the same. However, one or more players decided to try to
destroy
the station instead. It was a very fun game.

-----
Brian Bell
-----

> -----Original Message-----
> From: KH.Ranitzsch@t-online.de [SMTP:KH.Ranitzsch@t-online.de]
> Sent: Friday, June 15, 2001 1:49 AM
> To:	gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu
> Subject:	Re: [FT] Background vs Scenario Balance 
> 
[snip]

> How do you cost ships that have a design feature that is irrelevant to
the
> scenario in question ?
> 
[snip]

> Do you just add a fudge factor for the weaker side ?
> Re-calculate the ships as if they didn't have the feature ?
> What else ?
> 
> Greetings