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

Simple use double the amount of dice that you would roll for combat 
resolution. And then divide the total number of dice rolled by 2, using
only 
the highest dice as hit's, then do the same for wounding, just a
thought. 
But may make it very evil empireish.

james

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Tom B" <kaladorn@gmail.com>
To: <gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu>
Sent: Monday, May 05, 2008 3:02 AM
Subject: 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 

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