RE: Blue Sky Thinking (was: Re: [GZG] re: Wanted)

If I was interested in 15mm I would want to play a game at that level. 
That would be my "tactical" game - used for things like boarding
actions, 
raids on towns, etc.  I would still use DS (3) for larger engagements - 
I have to face facts - I like building battalions of tiny little tanks!.

The nice thing about this, as outlined below, is that I could play
EITHER 
game with my 6mm minis, as built/based.  I have my vehicles (not
mounted) 
as individual figures, and per the DS concept, have my infantry mounted
in 
fire teams or weapon teams (2-4 men per base, single bases with LMGs, 
mortars and such).

I stronly support this. :)

John

John K. Lerchey
Assistant Director for Incident Response
Information Security Office
Carnegie Mellon University

On Thu, 2 Nov 2006, Ground Zero Games wrote:

>> That's not the point. It's not simply a matter of basing - I want a
game
>> where the basic element is a team, not an individual figure.
>
>
> The direction in which I'm thinking is:
>
> Each stand of 2-4 figures represents a fireteam of infantry or a
specialist 
> team (support weapon, observer, whatever).  Vehicles based as singles.

> Activations given to platoon-sized units (as in DSII), typically 6-9
infantry 
> bases or 3-4 vehicles. Infantry small-arms fire (including
small-calibre 
> support fire)  resolved on a group basis, ie: one platoon vs.another
with 
> hits distributed among the target stands. Vehicle and other heavy
weapons 
> fire individually. Typical "player force" for a small-to-medium game
with 
> average tech levels would be reinforced company combat group, say a
2-3 
> platoons of infantry, one or two platoons of AFVs plus HQ and attached

> sections of supporting elements.
>
> Is this the sort of level that most folks (assuming an interest in
15mm at 
> all) are interested in?
>
> Jon (GZG)
>
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
http://lists.csua.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l