Re: [GZG] Re: Points systems

On 1/10/06, Beth.Fulton@csiro.au <Beth.Fulton@csiro.au> wrote:

> Not trying to be perverse, but that's not universally held opinion.
> Scenario generation is critical but we've had some enjoyable games
with
> quite large tech differences. Its not everyone's cup of tea
admittedly,
> but I for one enjoy playing very low tech forces just to see how well
I
> would do (i.e. don't expect to win but how far can smarts get me).
> However I must admit that on a more regular basis uneven tech games
> would tend to be between highest and next step (or only a few steps)
> down. That's when you get to see what fun a Sandy Woodward or
> Commonwealth subs playing propeller tag can lead to ;)

Most tech-imbalanced or scenarios have to involve the technical
advantages being nullified by blindingly stupid decisions at all
levels from the grand stategic to the guys on the ground.  Which tends
to make me feel like I've been set up for failure.

Isandalwala would have been quite different if Chelmsford had set up a
wagon laager and defended it closely, with massed volleys and with
troops detailed to keep a steady flow of ammo to the firing line. 
Doing a simillar scenario where the commander of the British forces
has the freedom to make camp in a tactically sound manner would result
in a meatgrinder for the Zulus and the destruction of the majority of
the impis involved.  Artificially forcing the British commander to
make the same stupid initial mistakes would just frustrate me and to
me, remove most of the fun of the game.

Same thing with Little Big Horn--there were a number of things that
could have been done to salvage the fight had someone's stupid little
ego not been invested in doing things his way.	Step One is don't
split your force three ways when you're already outnumbered.  Step Two
is listen to your tac intel, those scouts are paid in cash for a
reason.  Step Three is, once you see the entire population of the
American Great Plains coming after you, withdraw to a defensible
position and and send messengers to General Crook screaming for help
like a little girl.

Then again, I'm not in this for the thrill of defeat or to get an
"interesting" game.  I take it all as a problem-solving exercise and
if I have three alternate solutions that the guy running the game
doesn't allow because it would 'take the fun out of the game' for the
other player, then that defeats the purpose.

Your comparison to propellor tag with Aussie diesels is hardly an
example of a large technology gap.  As I understand it, the key factor
in sub warfare is sensor quality and crew quality.  While an Aussie
diesel may not have all the latest land-attack cruise missles and
round-the-world-submerged capability, they do have quality crews and I
doubt that anyone is skimping on the sonar suites.  At the granularity
of Full Thrust or even Dirtside, it would be utterly
indistinguishable.  We aren't exactally playing Harpoon.

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