Re: [GZG] Stargrunt suppression and enemies that won't??

From: Adrian1 <al.ll@tiscali.co.uk>
Subject: [GZG] Stargrunt  suppression and enemies that won't??

I'm sure this topic has been mentioned before but what can you do about
opponents that just don't suppress (eg. the aliens in the Aliens movie).

Even if you give green human troops a reason for not suppressing,
(combat drugs, etc), they become almost unbeatable.

So how do I increase kiiling power without turning SG2 into WH40K.

-----------------

Adrian, please be more clear for me on your question. The first
paragraph discusses units which are unlikely to show suppression
effects. This could include robots, aliens, etc.

The secon paragraph disucsses 'green human troops' who are given 'a
reason for not suppressing'? I'm not sure I understand what you are
saying there. And the sentence goes on to say 'they' (which properly
would refer back to the green human troops) become almost unbeatable.

It seems to me you are suggesting one (or a combination) of the
following:
a) enemies that do not take suppression are very tough to defeat and
become hard to stop
b) green troops cannot stop such enemies
c) even green enemies that are hard to stop if they do not take
suppression

Suppression generally limits mobility. It is a key limiter to the
actions of troops in Stargrunt. If you remove suppressability from a
unit, that is a sizable increment in capability.

So, how do you balance off such an increment of capability for a game
so that the force facing troops that are hard to suppress?

1) Suppression represents a self-preservational edge that gets people
down and out of the line of fire, at the cost of them being reluctant
to stick their heads back up. If you have troops that do not feel fear
or otherwise have similar behaviour that is self-preservative, then
you can justify removing suppressability from them. At the same time,
this means they are also likely not to duck when they should. It would
be quite justifiable to give enemies a greater degree of fire
effectiveness against such foes. This could be achieved several ways:
Downshift the range die by one range band (making the defensive die
smaller), Upshift the firepower or unit quality dice of the firing
unit for this purpose, change the hit resolution mechanics to allow
more hits to occur where suppression would normally occur (since
clearly you aren't ducking). I think the cleanest, but perhaps not
large enough, change is to downshift the range die. The largest, and
perhaps too potent, change would be to allow one dice beating the foe
in ranged combat to score a hit (where it would have scored
suppression, but they aren't ducking or moving evasively).

2) Another approach to balance is to grant the opposition, who
recognize this increased threat environment, a more upgunned TO&E.
Instead of one SAW, AGL, or marksman per squad, perhaps have two. Two
SAWS plus rifles often gives you enough dice to score hits. It would
represent the knowledge that the only way to stop these guys is a wall
of hot lead/coherent light/sun-hot plasma.

3) Yet another approach is to give the overwhelmed foes some powered
armour in place of conventional forces. Faster, fight better in close
assault, generally heavily armed. This would help balance off
scenarios.

4) Another approach would be profligate deployment of command
detonated mines if the foes is one like Aliens that has to close with
the enemy. Each squad could carry one or two of these and deploy them
for an action. Allow them to detonate them for an action or
automatically if close assaulted. You'll find a single CDM can wreck
an enemy squad (Stuart, Mark and Kieth could attest to the demolition
of one of their Kafer squads at the last ECC by one of these in just a
similar sort of situation).

5) If you want to keep the overwhelmed force's TO&E the same and it
happens that they are surprised or wouldn't know to up-arm (or
couldn't), then the only balancing tactic is force size reduction from
the now-unsupressable enemy force. Simply take away some units from
that enemy. This will allow the force that was overwhelmed by the same
sorts of numbers to concentrate more firepower on each stand of the
foe and thus score better chances of kills. This gives them a higher
chance of survival and thus means perhaps a more even game.

Those are some examples of the sorts of ways to redress this. How you
want to approach it requires some thought to the flavour you wish to
establish and the particulars of your scenarios. Sometimes you need to
make a change and playtest a scenario again to see if it was enough.
The key to balance is 'design, test, evaluate, small tweak, repeat
cycle'. Then you eventually get something akin to a fair balance.

Assuming, of course, you want scenarios both sides can win. The other
approach too this problem is just establish victory point structures
that don't require the overwhelmed defender to survive, just ensure
that the VPs of a typical sort of outcome would balance out evenly.
Maybe killing a defender is one VP and killing an unsuppressable foe
is 2 VPs just as one quick example (no idea if this is the right
ratio).

TomB

-- 
"Now, I go to spread happiness to the rest of the station. It is a
terrible responsibility but I have learned to live with it."
 Londo, A Voice in the Wilderness, Part I

"To argue with a person who has renounced the use of reason is like
administering medicine to the dead." -- Thomas Paine

 Thomas Paine

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