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

Glenn Wilson wrote:

>I think I see.  Or perhaps not.
>
>You want  to 'Stepford Wives' the game.  Not just fix the flaws in the 
>current game (simple plastic surgery - like removing the weapons per
class 
>rule) but take the mechanics that are deemed best in the FMA system(s)
- 
>one argue that the differences between SG 2 and DS 2 are at best
divergent 
>- and 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..."]
>
>And that's a valid view but it's not DS 3

Yes, it *is* DS3. It won't be DS*2*, of course - but it will be
*DirtSide*, 
just like Full Thrust with all the Fleet Book modifications is still
*Full 
Thrust* even though it is no longer FT*2*.

>Strangely, I think the best books/stories in SF dealing with war/battle

>are inspired by mankind's past military history.

Of course they are. Which is why DS2, based on books that were
essentially 
'Nam stories with some weapon and vehicle names changed, is a quite good

rules set for playing 'Nam battles and seems 'real' to all those who got

their main impression of warfare during the 'Nam period or the years 
immediately afterwards. But try using DS2 to represent, say, the battles
in 
John Ringo's books (can't remember the titles - the ones where Earth is 
invaded, anyway) and you run into problems rather quickly even though
they 
too are IIRC based quite heavily on 'Nam experiences. Or the various
BOLO 
battles, or any ground combat out of Weber's books, or Schlock
Mercenary, or...

>Why should we expect to know what future war will be like in 2100?

We don't - but we can be fairly certain that war in 2100 *won't* be like

war in 'Nam 1979 or the Fulda Gap 1985 (in a historic-fictional
non-nuclear 
WW3 that fortunately never happened).

>...the better question might be "What do you (plural) think a SF war
game 
>should be like?"

For starters, allow the lowest-tech units in the game to at least get
close 
to doing what today's real-world soldiers and military hardware can
already 
do (particularly in terms of speed, accuracy etc.) - DS2's lowest tech
tier 
is after all supposed to represent stuff not very far *in advance* of
what 
we have today.

Then add further capabilities to that. Mere weapons power and armour 
ratings aren't very interesting (advances in the one area will most
likely 
be countered by advanced in the other before very long anyway); more 
important is the sensor/counter-sensor game allowing the players to
detect 
(or execute) hidden movements, disrupt each others' communications and
so 
on. Effective area-defence systems similar to the Slammers' "Calliope" 
(though maybe not quite as long-ranged), able to destroy bombs, missiles

and artillery shells in the air before they can do any damage
(prototypes 
of such systems were successfully tested last year, but so far they're
far 
from being small and robust enough to be mobile) - imagine what such a 
system in the wrong army could do to today's US military doctrine! Grav 
vehicles - yes, they're very "high SF", but they're also a stock feature
in 
many SF backgrounds... so let us make them behave like they do in those
SF 
books, instead of like some amphibious WW2 vehicles...

Create a dual unit design system which separates the points cost (which 
measures the unit's combat value in terms of the rules, and which does
not 
depend on what background you play in) from the design rules determining

what vehicles are physically possible to create in your chosen
background 
(which *will* vary from background to background, and which can easily
vary 
even between different powers within a single background). This would be
a 
very powerful tool for allowing players to customize the game to match 
their view of what future combat should be like.

With luck, we might even be able to push DS3 into covering warfare in
the 
2020s... *before* we've already seen what warfare in the 2020s is
actually 
like :-/

I think Doug put it pretty well:

"Anyway, for GZG gropos, and I count SG and DS both in this case, you
want 
something recognizable as warfare as we know it, with a strong illusion
of 
future. Sometimes, you just have to toss current capabilities and
potential 
aside as 'victim to unforseen advances'."

I don't think you can toss either current capabilities or potential 
near-future advances - because
nothing destroys the illusion of future more effectively than a TV clip 
showing such more-advanced-than-the-SF-rules-allow capabilities used in 
real-world combat.

"So, I'd say the REAL goal is to make the games adaptable to anyone's 
comfort level. Just don't expect Evil Empire(tm)-style point systems."

Bingo. Ideally the game should *allow* 'Nam-era battles for those who
are 
comfortable with viewing the future like a slightly re-named 'Nam... but
it 
shouldn't be *restricted* to 'Nam-era battles like it is now :-/

Later,

Oerjan
oerjan.ohlson@telia.com

"Life is like a sewer.
  What you get out of it, depends on what you put into it."
-Hen3ry