[GZG] campaigning

_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@mail.csua.berkeley.edu
http://mail.csua.berkeley.edu:8080/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lIn the
GZGverse, how long do we think it takes to:

a) build
b) crew
c) shakedown

the following:

a) fighter squadron
b) small ship (CV - DD)
c) mid sized ship (HDD - CL)
d) large ship (CH - BB, CVS, CVL)
e) very large ship (BDN+, DN, CVA)

I'm assuming that building a BB is a big thing and takes time - filling
all
the slots, training the crew, shakedown voyage, etc.

If so, production is less of an issue in most campaign time scales than
'allocation' which is far more bureaucratic.

What would be interesting to build for the GZGverse is a ruleset for
managing the higher level of conflict which could be implemented as a
web
program, where various admirals could log in, check on their fleets,
give
orders, and battles people don't opt to resolve toe-to-toe (over a
table)
get resolved automagically.

Something like this, I'd build simple and automated. Simple, because I'd
have no interest in convincing people the computer game was better than
the
tabletop game. Automated so as to allow some options that would be
prohibitive when run manually and to remove the tedium of paperwork and
administration.

The only battles you want to fight in a campaign tend to be the 'turning
point' battles. Those are usually closely matched engagements (due to
strategic legerdemain about what will show up where). One sided battles
are
generally a waste of effort to setup.

One of the interesting ways to limit fleet sizes would be to assign
small
fleet pools, a limited replacement rate (from central allocations to the
frontier or something of the sort), and to limit the number of CPV an
admiral can command and control (or NPV). Also limiting the number of
crew
units available would serve to limit certain designs. Imposing a higher
logistical cost on attritional units and ammo consumers might also be
tempting from a campaign perspective.

Keep logistics invisible. Assume a freighter net proportionate to fleet
strength. Assume a message delivery network similarly. You could even
stagger battle reports to the Admirals.

The point would be to create small to medium sized engagements that
would,
at enough points, create the sorts of battles that are fun to play on
the
table.

You can, of course, do this all without a computer... but why? Even a
good
Excel sheet could a fair portion of the tasks. A real application could
do
far more.

It's tempting to think about. It's probably also a bunch of work. If
you've
got a bunch of keen folk around and a campaign looks about to spring
into
being, then its probably a good idea. I've seen too many Pen and Paper
campaigns collapse under the weight of their own administration.

But most of us are lucky to get to play the game a few times a year and
usually with whatever scenario the host wants to run or we wish to run
if we
host. Not a lot of room for campaigns.

Now mind you, a bunch of us have done linked SG and FMA scenarios at
ECC.
One interesting idea for a Convention-long game might be a mini-campaign
for
FT run over the weekend, where each battle's result feeds into the
overall
result and maybe the next battle's setup. I've done this several times
at
non-ECC conventions (single group, 6-8 players). It works pretty well.
(I
did it for SG and DS)

It does require some dedication from the players and the GM though. The
GM
is probably doing nothing else at the Con but running this event. The
players may vary from slot to slot. What would	interesting is to have
the
outgoing commander for each side be forced to write a status report for
their successor. Or, like some years ago in the Weight of Command, have
a
commander in another room entirely, simply getting reports as they were
provided from the tabletop(s).

It can be fun, but you need people who can gaurantee attendance far
enough
in advance for GMing to plan something like that. It's definitely not
run of
the mill. The first version of this I ran had the ESU invading the NAC
colony of New Providence (a colony of US NE Coasters, Basque, and a few
other groups that had strong ties to the sea). That great game saw the
ESU
broken, despite smashing the PDC and crushing through the light orbital
picket. The assault on the starport was a bloody mess for the ESU.
Somewhere
along the line, the immortal General Sarno was heard to quip to the ESU
Commander: "Get your A$$ back to Eurasia!" (think Battle of the
Bulge....)

Anyway, I'm rambling. Campaigning has lots of flavours that can be fun.
Some
start out fun and end up crushing administratively. Whatever you do, try
to
avoid that. Nothing like stifling people under a campaign
ruleset/paperwork
requirement that kills their interest.

T.