Prev: Re: [GZG] Multi-level rules sought. Next: Re: [GZG] Multi-level rules sought.

Re: [GZG] Multi-level rules sought.

From: "Robert Mayberry" <robert.mayberry@g...>
Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2008 18:16:54 -0400
Subject: Re: [GZG] Multi-level rules sought.

I think the best way to handle it would be a critical incident kind of
approach. In other words (example)

Ryan is raiding Rob's research colony in a system to acquire some hot
new weapons technology. This constitutes an event in their ongoing
campaign. You then pick the game you want to play and decide how that
exemplifies the turning point in the event. The two of them could:

Play a FT game: Ryan inserts forces planetside. Rob tries to stop him.
If Ryan wins, we assume his forces land successfully and conduct the

Play a DS game: Ryan attacks the colony. Here we assume forces landed
successfully. If he can take the research complex and get infantry
there, we assume the rest goes according to plan.

Play a SG game: Rob makes a commando raid on Ryan's deployment area to
kill his technical intelligence team. If he succeeds, Ryan's whole
raid was for nought. If he fails, the raid is successful.

Either way, we use success in whatever game is played as a microcosm
for the battle as a whole. Either it's a critical turning point, or
it's simply considered typical of the success of the entire mission.

You end up playing the games you want to play-- which in a big group
where not everyone has an equal love of each system is important.
You're never FORCED to play a particular system. Even a deep space
encounter (which considering the relative velocities involved should
be vanishingly rare) could be modelled with SG as that boarding action
you were talking about that was the tipping point for a larger battle.

An integrated game like you're discussing could be really cool,
though. I simply haven't ever tried anything nearly that complicated.
I'll bet where it really shines is in a convention setting, where you
have multiple players on the same team.


On 4/30/08, Adrian1 <> wrote:
> I want to give priority to the Stargrunt end of the game.  If I have a
> company of experienced stargrunt troops that have a good bit of
history to
> them, I want them to be able to compete in the upper levels without
> entire existance relying on the roll of one die.
> At Dirtside level, the company could be tasked with taking or guarding
> village while the rest of the army fights all over the field.  When
> are dealt with normally, I would like to zoom in on my company to
> it, so to speak.
> At Full Thrust level, they could be tasked with a boarding action. 
> the fleets clash normally, you zoom in on the company action using
> plans, etc so they can take or lose the ship in a more personal level.
> I can see major problems with this idea since it would require you to
> the higher level game while you ran a skirmish level game, however I'm
> a GM could make something work.
> I don't have a problem with losing troops or PCs at skirmish level
> that is part of the game, howvever losing a full company to a single
> roll irritates me).  I would opt to convert a Dirtside armoured 
> to Stargrunt level and let my company get wiped out that way since at
> they have some chance.
> I know it makes for a complicated game but its not like I'm in a rush.
> J L Hilal wrote:
> --- Adrian1 <> wrote:

> What I'm looking for is someones attemp at comnbining the three levels
> GZG universe rules.

I would like to know what relationship there is between
> full Thrust,
Dirtside and Stargrunt units so I can engage in a
> "role-playing"
campaign where a company of stargrunt troops try not to get
> obliterated
by an unlucky die roll in Full Thrust.

While I could probably
> do it myself, I'd rather leave it to "the
committee" so there is some kind
> of average.

> The answer to that depends on exactly what you are asking. If you are
> asking
specifically for the GZG-universe, then that is already available in
> the
conversion rules in More Thrust. If, on the other hand, you are looking
> for
something more generic, either for your own setting or for something
> else like
B5, SW, ST(any), BSG, HH, or whatever, then you have to be aware
> that the GZG
setting (and conversion system) has really tiny space ships (1
> MASS = 100t).
Ground fores (and fighters) therefor take up a lot of MASS in
> the published
conversions. The GZG background is designed around really
> small ground forces
The sample Assault Transport in FB1 has a total of 32
> MASS for both troops and

For example, a modern US LHD or LPD
> amphib would be a TMF 350-400 FT ship based
on tonnage, and use 40 MASS just
> to barrack its 2000 marines, not including the
LCACs, AAVs, helicopters,
> Harriers, Ospreys, or ground vehicles like tanks and
LAVs. Similarly, a
> Nimitz-type supercarrier converts to TMF 900-1000.

For Sci-fi examples, the
> MT conversion is barracks for 50 troops = 1 MASS. The
B5 episode "Gropos"
> had 25,000 troops (500 MASS for barracks) plus vehicles,
VTOL gunships,
> assault shuttles, etc. on 1 Nova-class destroyer and 5
> transport

Conversion based on tonnage makes Kirk's Enterprise
> (movies) ~ TMF 2000, and
Enterprise-D ~ TMF 50,000

Conversion based on
> tonnage makes Honor Harrington LACs ~ TMF 400, DDs ~ TMF
800, and SDNs ~ TMF
> 80,000. Havenite Longstop-class fast assault transport ~
TMF 60,000.

> building (FB system) a Star Destroyer including the ground legion
> (10,000
troops, 20xAT-AT, 30xAT-ST), assault transports, assault shuttles,
> etc.

Obviously, these settings need a different conversion factor, perhaps
> 1 MASS =
1000t, 2000t, 5000t, or 10,000t, and then multiply the ground
> troops conversion
by a corresponding factor (x10, 20, 50 or 100). This will
> allow you to pack
more troops onto your
> transports.


> mailing
> list

> _______________________________________________
> Gzg-l mailing list

Robert Mayberry

Gzg-l mailing list

Prev: Re: [GZG] Multi-level rules sought. Next: Re: [GZG] Multi-level rules sought.