Re: Philosophy/Design of SF War Games was Re: (DS): Systems per Class

Oerjan Ohlson said:
> <snip> I want DS and SG to actually be the SF games they claim
> >to be, not historical games in disguise :-/

GlenW said;
<snip> replace the things you don't like (the "1980's
Historical game") with elements that you do like [an undefined
something
that reflects  "...the SF games they claim  to be..."]

   SG and DS claim to be SF games, but you can't do with them things
that present-day troops can do (eg laser-designation for artillery /
missiles).  So while they are good *games*, they are not good as
*science fiction*.   That's a hazard of anyone's writing science
fiction, not just limited to GZG.  Ideally you would be able to use
the system to play Viet Nam scenarios and Iraq scenarios too, but if
you have grav tanks and helmet comms and plasma guns and such in the
rules, they ought not to feel like Merkava and hand signals and
bazookas.
    To fix that, something has to be changed, but it doesn't
necessarily need to be the basic mechanics--could be  "vehicle
movement factors" and "artillery accuracy" and such.  Or it might need
to be mechanics--for example, the range from d4 to d12 might not be
enough to cover the difference between the sights for a T72 and a Mk1
Bolo while still capturing the difference between the T72 and an
Abrams.
   Ideally, playing Nam - era  scenarios in SG / DS will feel the same
as they do now, but playing scenarios from a war in 2100 will feel
substantially different.  If not, why play a SF game in the first
place?

>  "What do you (plural) think a SF war game should be like?  What
elements
> are not in SG 2 and DS 2 that should be to reflect that view?"

Better comms.  Higher movement rates.  Cover less important; sensors,
countersensors, and point defenses more important.  Drones / RPVs.
Fast and deadly.