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

john tailby wrote:

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "David Rodemaker" <dar@horusinc.com>
> Mechs, and everyone started with Green Pilots (and 1 Regular IIRC as a
> Company Commander). The advent of Los-tech really changed the game to
a
> degree but later the Clans basically killed it.
Yep big changes in technology makes it very hard for points value
system. 
Take the British matilda tank in WW2, in Early war it is a monster, only

able to be damaged by 88mm guns, by the end of the war most tank guns
can 
kill it and it's own gun is hopeless against almost all tanks. How do
you 
assign a points value to something that goes from superwapon to junk in
less

than 5 years? With the advent of the Clans it looks like present day
technology got dropped into ww2. How do you assign a points costs to M1
Abrams against German tiger tanks? Flames of War didn't try. They
divided
the game into early middle and late and can then control the points
costs
reasonably well.

Unfortunately, this is exactly the problem we will have with SG3 (much
as it
exists in DS2) - we have a huge range in potential "tech" levels.
Honestly,
I don't think it's that much of a "game engine" problem and more a
problem
of how to resolve it in a "campaign" sense.

-----------
> What this may force into being is more developed TOE's and ORBAT's for
the
> existing GZGverse powers because that's one of the few ways to create
this
> type of random scenario pack. That will determine what a company, 
> regiment, platoon, etc. will look like so that decent comparisons can
be 
> made.
>>If you were playing the game scale at a reinforced company level you
would

expect the formation to be chosen from a type of unit. E.g tank company,

mechanised infantry, infantry, reconnaissance, air -cav, power armour
etc. 
The primary units should come from the type of formation and then 
restrictions on the type of support elements. e.g. tanks can have 
attachments of mechanised infantry or self propelled artillery but not
leg 
infantry or towed guns.<<

This sounds workable from a very structured point of view, but what
seems to
appeal to people vis-à-vis the GZG system is it's very free-form
nature.
That said, I think you might have a decent suggestion here. Plus, this
doesn't really seem to capture the nature of asymmetrical warfare at
all,
nor does it seem address forces without a structured ORBAT.

----------
>>You could do up a compatibility matrix of what can go with what and
vary
it by the different "races" to reflect differences in doctrine /
availability. You could then assign rules about who gets to be the
attacker
in the scenario e.g. tanks attack  mechanised and both would attack
infantry. If both armies are the same type then dice off. This allows
the
player to have some certainty about what their force will get assigned.
Or you could assign an "aggression rating" to each type of formation and
or 
race to indicate how likely they are the ones to do the attacking. e.g.
in a

GZG universe maybe the Kravak are always attacking, or both sides could
roll

a dice and add their aggression rating to determine the attacker.<<

Ugh. This sounds far too complicated. While I like the mechanics to a
degree, I don't think it will fly in the over-arching GZG system. It
also
assumes a certain set of "races/nationalities" when Jon/GZG has
continued to
try and emphasize the generic capabilities of the game(s).

-----------
>>That way you don't get games that have infantry companies trying to
attack

positions defended by dug in tank companies.<<

No, but those produce some of the most memorable games. 

David Rodemaker

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