Re: [GZG] Interesting mercenary idea

_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu
http://vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lI
also found no rudeness, nor offensiveness in John's response.  He was
giving some additional insight as to how reality is often far, far away
from
what we like/see in gaming environments.  It's very easy for us to
expect
our troops to act in certain expected ways on our gaming tables.  How
many
*war games* really deal with corruption and complete ineptitude by
commanders and politicians?

That said, I have been (slowly, oh sooooo slowly) working up forces for
a DS
campaign that I'd like to play with my local group. The base premise is
to
have each player have control of a mercenary company of their choosing.
The
mercenaries are hired on short term contracts in a war being fought
between
two of my political units.

The Order is a right wing religous faction that broke off of the NSL. 
You
could compare them to cold war russians (with religious zealousness), GW
Imperial Guard, or (since we brought up the Dorsai) the Friendlies. 
They
use almost "modern" equipment, but realy have to rely on numbers to be
effective. I use mostly GZG Future Wars tracked and wheeled vehicles for
these guys.

The New Republic of America (NRA) is a spliter from the NAC who
re-founded
an America. They are higher tech than the Order, but not quite at grav
tank
levels. I use mostly Ral Partha OGRE minis (and yes, they do field OGREs
in
addition to crunchies).

The Order buys mercs to offset their lacking tech base.  The NRA buys
mercs
to offset their lack in numbers.

Now, the thing that I hadn't really thought about until this thread
started
was how to model some of the political limitations.

First, we have a huge potential for corruption.  Mercs might not get
paid on
time, might get substandard supplies, or might be given missions that
are
more about propaganda or personal motivation on the part of the
contracter
than they are about winning anything.

Second, we have issues of ROE.	Most games don't bother with ROE at all.
I'd
love to hear thoughts on how to write such for games.  I can think of a
few
things, like "your units may not fire unless fired upon" and "oh, TBW,
you
can't fire at any structure that might house civilians".

So, for gaming purposes, given a political and economic model that
allows
for slammers-like merc companies, what do folks think about ways to
build in
corruption, incompetence (other than letting me play the commander!),
and
restrictive ROEs?

:)

John the Other than Atkinson John

On Thu, Dec 11, 2008 at 10:00 AM, John Atkinson
<johnmatkinson@gmail.com>wrote:

> On Thu, Dec 11, 2008 at 6:57 AM,  <paul@otd.com> wrote:
> >> Well, it's modern day reality.
> >
> > Cloaking flames and prejudicial beliefs in the name of 'reality'
doesn't
> > cut it, either, really. Flames are flames. Not every peacekeeper is
> > corrupt, and saying that is only going to start long, pointless
> arguments.
>
> Didn't say every peacekeeper was corrupt.  Read for comprehension, not
> with your emotions.
>
> Said the ones who weren't corrupt and criminal were still hobbled by
> stupid ROEs.	Srebrenica, anyone?
>
> John
> --
> "Thousands of Sarmatians, Thousands of Franks, we've slain them again
> and again.  We're looking for thousands of Persians."
> --Vita Aureliani
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gzg-l mailing list
> Gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu
> http://vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l
>