Re: [GZG] Re: Points systems

On 1/9/06, Oerjan Ariander <oerjan.ariander@telia.com> wrote:

> of pocket greasing) to name just a few. As a result, the weapons and
> vehicles that give the most real-world bang per real-world buck for
nation
> A might not be cost-effective at all for nation B (if they're able to
> operate it at all)!

Was it you that brought up the example once of a third world nation
wanting tanks and after some study it was determined that the T-55 was
the closest thing to cost-effective for them because of the nature of
their probably opposition and the logistical problems associated with
maintaining anything more sophisticated?

> Unfortunately, the only way to reflect all these strategical and
> operational factors in Full Thrust *tactical* games and thus get the
> players to "voluntarily" design "realistic" weapons and vehicles is to
play
> a campaign with very detailed rules for the campaign economics... or,
like
> Hugh said, use army/fleet lists. 'Course, even with army lists you'll
still
> get players who only field SS divisions (because there were battles
with
> only SS divisions involved, so the lists have to allow for forces like
that
> too) :-(

Hmph.  German WWII players who play with the entire production run of
certain heavy tank models represented on the table at once. . .

Or German players who play a 1943 or later game with their
organization at more than 60% of book strength.  That's a no-go from a
realism standpoint too.  Americans you can run at 90%+.  Germans were
calling units "panzer divisions" that had a dozen tanks and two
battalions of "panzer grenadiers", and perhaps a few batteries of
artillery.  And that was in 1943 and early '44.  It goes downhill from
there.	The only time you'd see a full strength division was if a few
were pulled off the line and reconstituted to serve as the striking
force for an offensive.

It also depends on the difference between the best and the worst.  In
Full Thrust, where the difference between human-tech ships is all a
matter of taste and design choices, there may be relatively little
difference.

But in Real Life, the difference between an American Carrier Battle
Group and 90% of the world's navies is so vast that it wouldn't be
entertaining to game except as an academic exercise.  Schemes to
equalize the the tech gap generally make for bad games too (OK, roll a
d10.  On a 6+, the sailors out pulling watch wonder why that small
boat is getting a little too close.  On a 5 or less, it pulls up close
enough to explode.  Roll this handful of dice for damage).

> [The only other comment I had to Hugh's post was the same one John A.
> already made, so I don't have to :-) ]

Two compliments on one week.  Either you're getting soft in your old
age, or I'm getting better at this.

:)

John
--
"Thousands of Sarmatians, Thousands of Franks, we've slain them again
and again.  We're looking for thousands of Persians."
--Vita Aureliani

_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
http://lists.csua.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l