RE: RE: FT Scenarios (was: Re: [GZG] Re: Points systems)

I just sent the document to Brian Burger.  I'll forward to anyone else
that
wants it.

Mike

-----Original Message-----
From: gzg-l-bounces@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
[mailto:gzg-l-bounces@lists.csua.berkeley.edu] On Behalf Of Ground Zero
Games
Sent: Thursday, January 12, 2006 3:42 AM
To: gzg-l@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: RE: FT Scenarios (was: Re: [GZG] Re: Points systems)

>These ideas for scenarios sound like a series of good ideas.
>
>Step one could be pick type of mission either an assault (attacker/
defender)
>If its an assault determine the mission type and then who is the 
>attacker / defender and the basic point value.
>If its an encounter both player draw mission objectives.
>
>The optionally draw sub plots.
>Things like "Crown Prince visit", Traitor on board, hated enemy vessel.
>
>rather than cards these could be tables and dice rolls since it 
>seems preferable to have both players know what each other is trying 
>to do.

Though dice tables would work, I do still like the card system; OK, 
you have to make the cards up, even if you're downloading them as 
pdfs (or we have to devote several pages top printing them in the 
book) - but using the cards maintains the secrecy element, and also 
means that the player keeps the card with him to refer to until the 
end of the game, at which point he can show it to the opponent to 
verify the victory conditions. I don't think it is necessary that 
each side knows the other's objective, in fact quite the opposite - 
they may be able to infer some info from the size of forces deployed, 
but not much more until the battle develops and they see what the 
other side is doing.

>
>Also you might want players to be allowed to specify some strategy 
>options for their fleet.
>
>I don't think its suggested in the rules how ships are to be 
>deployed on the table and their initial velocity if any. Also are 
>all encounters assumed to be sublight or if one side is attempting 
>to drop in directly from hyperspace what are the deployment 
>guidelines for these kind of missions.

So should the mission cards carry deployment guides as well, or is 
that too restricting? Should that be left up to the player (apart 
from any scenario-specific stuff such as deployment of convoys, fixed 
installations etc)?
I would think that (for example) you could have some of the offensive 
mission cards specifying a direct-from-jump deployment, some a 
sublight approach, and some where it is left up to the player.....

>
>If people are interested I'll post how our group is doing its missions.

I'd be very interested in seeing it, John.

If anyone else would like to make suggestions for either mission 
outlines or the "subplot" cards, fire away! All good ideas may be 
used in print at some time in the future!  :-)

To get you going, here's a couple of ideas for the subplot cards:

............................

VIP IN CREW:
One of your mid-sized ships (your choice, but cannot be the smallest 
or largest class you field in this battle) has among its crew a young 
member of the Royal Family or a favoured Minister's son/daughter; 
this ship MUST be deployed on the table and cannot exit the table 
unless crippled, or the entire fleet withdraws. If this ship is 
destroyed, YOU LOSE regardless of other mission objectives.
..............................

TRAITOR ON BOARD:
At the start of the game you must choose (and secretly note down) one 
of your OPPONENT'S ships - that ship is carrying a 
traitor/saboteur/agent working for your side. On your turn at any 
point in the game, you may announce that the traitor is being 
activated. Inform your opponent which ship is affected, and show then 
the note you made as proof. Nominate ONE system on the affected ship, 
and roll a D6 - on a 1-2 the traitor is caught before any damage 
occurs, on a 3-5 he manages to successfully sabotage the nominated 
system, which is out of action for the rest of the game and may NOT 
be repaired by DC rolls. On a roll of 6, the sabotage succeeds AND 
the saboteur remains undetected - he may be used again on the next 
turn, in the same ship but on a different system, but his success 
number rises by 1 (ie: he is caught on a 1-3). As long as he keeps 
rolling 6s, the saboteur remains free and may continue to attack one 
system per turn, each time he does so the chance of capture increases 
by 1.

..............................

Over to you....  ;-)

Jon (GZG)

>
>John
>
>>>  >
>>>Hi
>>>
>>>Are people really going to want to play games where they are
outpointed
5:1?
>>
>>
>>If their victory conditions (mission objectives) are approximately 
>>5 times as easy to achieve, I don't see a problem!  ;-)
>>
>>As someone else commented last night, it would make folks bring 
>>more balanced fleet compositions to pick-up games, because they 
>>don't know if they will suddenly find they have to fight a 
>>(limited-objective) engagement with only their little ships...... 
>>if they've brought a munchkinised fleet, then they may get lucky 
>>with the mission draw but will more likely get screwed.
>>
>>Obviously, this isn't a system that will suit everyone - 
>>specifically, those who love their munchkinised fleets will hate it 
>>- but as the recent discussions of vector movement have shown, wee 
>>REALLY can't please all the people all the time!
>>
>>>
>>>The Battlefleet gothic system have mission generators to define 
>>>the type of mission and then players agree a points value. (so 
>>>that people can use all of their ships if they want to).
>>>
>>>Also the mission system has subplots that include things like 
>>>rescue the spy on one ship in the enemies fleet, gain a bonus for 
>>>killing a particular ship etc.
>>>
>>>You could do this as an open mission or a secret mission with cards.
>>
>>
>>Yes, I thought more on this last night, and considered the idea of 
>>two card decks - one for the main mission objective, and then a set 
>>of "special" cards that each player draws one from - these would 
>>carry the special, odd or funny stuff like the "Crown 
>>Prince/Princess" subplot; a lot would actually be blank, some would 
>>make things more difficult for the player and some would give him 
>>some sort of small advantage.
>>
>>>
>>>Some scenarios will nominate one player as the attacker and the 
>>>defender say in an assault on an installation. So you need to look 
>>>at how that might get factored in.
>>
>>
>>Split the mission cards into Offensive and Defensive missions? 
>>Players can pick (either by free choice or in some random 
>>determination) to play an Offence/Defence game or both Offensive 
>>(an interception/meeting engagement).
>>
>>Jon (GZG)
>>
>>>
>>>John
>>>
>>>>  From: Ground Zero Games <jon@gzg.com>
>>>>  >Gee, didn't I put that out there @ 10 (OMIGAWD) years ago?  I 
>>>>still have the
>>>>  >word doc, though the website is long gone.
>>>>  >
>>>>  >Mike Brown
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>  Quite likely, Mike, since the Seastrike version was from about 30
>>>>  years ago (mid 70s)... the idea has been around a long time.  ;-)
>>>>
>>>>  It's always been a favourite of mine, I've just never (yet) got
round
>>>>  to actually using it in a published product!
>>>>
>>>>  If you've still got the file, care to repost it?
>>>>
>>>>  Jon (GZG)
>>>>
>>>>  >
>>>>  >-----Original Message-----
>>>>  >From: gzg-l-bounces+mwsaber6=msn.com@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
>>>>  >[mailto:gzg-l-bounces+mwsaber6=msn.com@lists.csua.berkeley.edu] 
>>>>On Behalf Of
>>>>  >Ground Zero Games
>>>>  >Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2006 5:19 PM
>>>>  >To: gzg-l@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
>>>>  >Subject: FT Scenarios (was: Re: [GZG] Re: Points systems)
>>>>  >
>>>>  >Just chipping in on the whole scenario/victory conditions issue,
I
>>>>  >have always felt that one of the best systems (and a possible one
to
>>>>  >use "officially" for Ft in the future) is the randomly-drawn
scenario
>>>>  >card set-up, used to such good effect way back in "Seastrike" and
>>>>  >much copied since (notably in Brilliant Lances etc): each player
>>>>  >draws a card giving them a mission objective, a force level
budget,
>>>>  >victory conditions and any special conditions attached.	The
player
>>>>  >does not know what card his opponent has drawn.
>>>>  >
>>>>  >To use this sort of idea for FT, we could require each player to
>>>>  >bring along X CPV of ships of his choice; the force level given
by
>>>>  >the objective card then specifies how much (as a %) of this force
he
>>>>  >can actually put on the table for the game - so 50% means not
more
>>>>  >than 50% of the total fleet CPV, IN FULL SHIPS of course (so if
he's
>>>>  >put 60% of his points into one uber-dreadnought, he's stuffed -
it's
>>>>  >been recalled by Fleet Command, and he can only field the
remaining
>>>  > >40% of smaller stuff!).
>>>>  >We might have cards ranging from "Major fleet attack - destroy or
>>>>  >drive off 50% of enemy ships, forces available 100%", right down
to
>>>>  >"you have minimal forces available for a limited strike,
objective is
>>>>  >to destroy or cripple any ONE enemy ship of MASS 50 or greater
(or
>>>>  >his largest ship if all below 50 mass), forces available 20%",
plus a
>>>>  >lot of others in between.....
>>>>  >Then, if you want to introduce odd variables like the "Crown
Prince
>>>>  >is a junior officer on a CL, if you lose the ship he is on you
lose
>>>>  >the battle", as a supplementary condition on a scenario card,
then
>>>>  >that's fine - but you'll also have a main objective to fulfil,
and
>>>>  >your opponent will have his own objective - if, in trying to
complete
>>>>  >his own mission, he happens to destroy that CL, that's the way it
>>>>  >goes. Of course, if you keep that one CL hanging back out of
harm's
>>>>  >way, the opponent may well get suspicious and send a fast
squadron
>>>>  >round your flank to pick it off.....  ;-)
>>>>  >
>>>>  >Jon (GZG)
>>>>  >_______________________________________________
>>>>  >Gzg-l mailing list
>>>>  >Gzg-l@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
>>>>  >http://lists.csua.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l
>>>>  >_______________________________________________
>>>>  >Gzg-l mailing list
>>>>  >Gzg-l@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
>>>>  >http://lists.csua.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l
>>>>
>>>>  _______________________________________________
>>>>  Gzg-l mailing list
>>>>  Gzg-l@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
>>>>  http://lists.csua.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l
>>>>
>>>
>>>_______________________________________________
>>>Gzg-l mailing list
>>>Gzg-l@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
>>>http://lists.csua.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>Gzg-l mailing list
>>Gzg-l@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
>>http://lists.csua.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l
>>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Gzg-l mailing list
>Gzg-l@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
>http://lists.csua.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l

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