Re: Ground Zero Games Convention/Interesting game construct

>> If it's a case of "if you win the FT battle you're facing Wave 1; if
you
>> lose, call it Wave 2", then the situation *on the table* has not
really
>> been changed by the FT battle...
>
>>It hasn't affected the *battle* you will fight but it certainly has
>affected the forces available for the fight...which in turn may affect
the
>outcome of game 2.
>
>If you make it affect the forces, then you have to alter the victory
>conditions, which in turn calls for a lot of playtesting.

You could do it the other way around too.

A couple of years ago, TomB planned a large set of linked scenarios (not
at
a con - this was for a group of about 6 or 7 of us getting together on
our
own).  The idea was that a Stargrunt II scenario would be played first,
followed by the FT battle.

The Stargrunt scenario was an attack on a defended position: the
"planetary
defense network headquarters".	Addressing Carlos' (very relevant)
point,
the game was in no way balanced.  The defenders had a reinforced platoon
(appx 3 regular troop squads, a command squad, an attached PA squad, a
couple of size-1 combat walkers and a couple of light jeeps with MG). 
The
attacking force was a mechanized company (with 8+ heavy APCs with fusion
cannon, something like 3 or 4 platoons of infantry, etc etc). 
Completely
"unbalanced", but the defenders' mission condition was only to delay the
assault on the HQ for as long as possible.  TomB set it up so that the
longer the defenders held out and prevented the HQ from being overrun,
the
more benefits their side in the FT battle would have (as the planetary
defense HQ was able to get their defenses organized, ships off the
ground,
etc etc).  In the end, the defenses held for a *lot* longer than anyone
expected, though the outcome was inevitable and they were finally
overrun.
I think maybe one of the squads escaped, but it was a clear victory (for
the defenders, based on their mission conditions).

Unfortunately, it took so long to play that we never got around to the
FT
game, but still, the idea was very interesting.

I've run numerous scenarios at demo games at cons around town set up
with
UNbalanced games - that's one of the strengths of Stargrunt; the LACK of
a
forced balance system.	It does, however, require more effort on the
part
of the GM (or the players collectively if no GM) to come up with
scenarios
that are interesting and worth playing even though you might know ahead
of
time that one force will "lose" in the wargamers' conventional sense. 
It
is tough sometimes to get players to see that they can "win" a battle
though their forces might be wiped out.  As Carlos mentioned, the
tendancy
toward "game balance" is pervasive through the industry, and players are
used to thinking in those terms.

-Adrian

***************************************

Adrian Johnson
adrian@stargrunt.ca
http://www.stargrunt.ca

***************************************