Re: Ground Zero Games Convention/Interesting game construct

Adrian wrote:
> 
[...]
> 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.

A Dirtside game I've run now twice at ECC, Gramicci Pass, uses sealed
orders
for each side. Each side has a set of 9 'sealed orders', complete with
mission
objectives, forces available, support assets (or none), conditions for
with-
drawal, etc. In some cases the mission objectives are complimentary to
the
two sides (e.g., find/retrieve the downed VTOL pilot/spy somewhere on
the
board), but often times they are mutually exclusive (secondary
objectives
tended to be something like "eliminate any opposition you come across",
just
to give the players added reason for engagement, esp if their primary
objective was to, say, gather intel on a size class 4 or 5 vehicle and
skeedaddle with the info). This past year the attacking force's
objective
was to recon the Pass and find out why an earlier-sent recon unit failed
to report back (presumed to be wiped out by an unknown hostile enemy
force).
The defenders' primary objective was to keep hidden from the attackers 4
heavy howitzer emplacements. As long as they kept those hidden from the
attackers, even if they were wiped out, they would have met their
mission
objective. The attackers had no clue about looking for the arty
emplacements,
so wasn't bothering with that. It wasn't their objective. The defenders,
in
the end, decided they needed the assets of the artillery and revealed
them
by launching arty strikes on the attackers. This cost them their primary
objective, but they felt they were going to lose it, anyhow (their
defending
force was a little weaker than the attacking force). The attacking force
never found any remnants of the recon team (unbeknownst to the attacking
force, the recon team had gone in a different pass). so they were there
just to duke it out with the defenders. 

In any event, each set of sealed orders gives each side comparable, but
not necessarily *balanced*, forces. Sometimes one side will be stronger
than the other. Their support assets may or may not help out, or
whatever
their objective is may help out. I leave it up to the players to use
their
forces as best as they can, given the tactical situation they have been
presented with.

I'm still waiting for the defenders to draw sealed order #5. That will
be fun to play. *grin*

Mk