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

Re: [GZG] Multi-level rules sought.

From: emu2020@c...
Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2008 22:36:26 +0000
Subject: Re: [GZG] Multi-level rules sought.

_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu
http://vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lRob
, 

I really like this approach and think you are spot-on on all the points
made. Treating each "even" as a highlight to the overall conflict is
great. 

-Eli

-------------- Original message -------------- 
From: "Robert Mayberry" <robert.mayberry@gmail.com> 

> 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 
> raid. 
> 
> 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. 
> 
> Rob 
> 
> 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
their 
> > entire existance relying on the roll of one die. 
> > 
> > At Dirtside level, the company could be tasked with taking or
guarding a 
> > village while the rest of the army fights all over the field. When
others 
> > are dealt with normally, I would like to zoom in on my company to
Stargrunt 
> > it, so to speak. 
> > 
> > At Full Thrust level, they could be tasked with a boarding action.
While 
> > the fleets clash normally, you zoom in on the company action using
deck 
> > 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 stop 
> > the higher level game while you ran a skirmish level game, however
I'm sure 
> > a GM could make something work. 
> > 
> > I don't have a problem with losing troops or PCs at skirmish level
since 
> > that is part of the game, howvever losing a full company to a single
die 
> > roll irritates me). I would opt to convert a Dirtside armoured
battalion 
> > to Stargrunt level and let my company get wiped out that way since
at least 
> > 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 
> of 
> > 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 
> vehicles. 
> 
> 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 
> ships. 
> 
> 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. 
> 
> Try 
> > 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. 
> 
> J 
> 
> _______________________________________________ 
> Gzg-l 
> > mailing 
> > list 
> Gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu 
> http://vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l 
> 
> 
> > 
> > 
> > _______________________________________________ 
> > Gzg-l mailing list 
> > Gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu 
> >
http://vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l 
> > 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Robert Mayberry 
> 
> _______________________________________________ 
> Gzg-l mailing list 
> Gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu 
> http://vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l 

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