Re: Ground Zero Games Convention/Interesting game construct

I think it's having a good game (obviously).

In our weight of command event for the Special forces snatch, the SF
uits had sufficent forces of quality and firepower to accomplish the
mission, porvided they went about their business in an orderly and
proffesional manner and followed the ROE, having a mission that didn't
set up the SF guys for success up front would not have been a Special
Forces mission as they wouldn't have been fool enough to undertake the
mission unless they thought they could do it without getting anyone of
their own guys killed.

It almost seemed  like things on the SF board were quiet, they went
about their mission, and none of the SF guys were klled or wounded
(one was stunned), though there were a few police casualties. The
planning and comms they put into the thing ahead of time, compared
with the knowledge and skill of the players and commander (Phil!),
sprinkled with a little luck, allowed them to accomplish their mission
in a business-like fashion which to an outsider might have seemed
boring or unbalanced. But with all the complexity and action that was
going on, I doubt anyone over there was bored, or thought the mission
easy, and they sure laid waste to a lot of enemies. And the lack of
casualties on the SF side was particularly satisfing.

Had they accomplished the mission but lost a few of their own killed,
well I suppose that might have been good for the UN politicians, but a
disaster of the SF unit involved. Victory conditions are all what one
makes of them.

Los

Reminds me of the scene from Hamburger Hill after the squad's first
contact.

Newbie: "Hey Sarge we did good today, flanking the enemy and taking
them out like that! Huh?"

Grizzled Vet Sgt: "The only thing that happened today was that we lost a
man..."

On Wed, 02 Mar 2005 19:33:56 +0000, damosan@comcast.net
<damosan@comcast.net> wrote:
> >
> > If you make it affect the forces, then you have to alter the victory
> > conditions, which in turn calls for a lot of playtesting.
> >
> 
> Alter the victory conditions?  I don't see that applying to every
scenario in the book.  I can see altering victory conditions for certain
types of games.  Say a rearguard action where holding the enemy for one
more turn is important.
> 
> But for certain classical military actions I don't see any point in
altering victory conditions.  Very few engagements started with equal
forces so I see no reason to enforce that on the table either through
force composition or artificial victory conditions.
> 
> What's more important at a Con (especially at ECC)?  Having equal
forces or fighting a good game?
> 
> --
> Damo
> 
>