Re: [GZG] campaigning

_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@mail.csua.berkeley.edu
http://mail.csua.berkeley.edu:8080/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lI think you
also need to include desing and procurement phases. That seems to take
longer than building things.

Looking a building an aircraft carrier it's taking the Brits several
years to build one. The ANZAC frigates have thaken something like 7
years to get any ships and then they had design flaws.

It might be possible to speed up the process by taking civilian designs
and then modifying them especially for things like fleet auxilaries.

Once the designs are finalised and the shipyards are up to speed
construction time might come down a lot. In WW2 America built a lot of
ships and produced something like 10 Essex class carriers a year and
countless smaller ships. So there are arguments for all sorts of
different numbers about manufacturing times.

Education times could be really variable depending on the technology you
allow. If you use 20th century techniques then it takes a long time to
make an effective specialist and it's worse for a fighter pilot. If you
imagine future education techniques including things like memory
implanting, then it could be an overnight process to transfer the
memories of veterans into the mind of new recruits.

I think it comes down to whether you want people to be able to build new
ships within the scale of the campaign. I the campaign is short duration
(say a 7 days war) then it might not be possible to replace any kinds of
ordnance within the scale of the campaign.

If you want people to be able to replenish losses and make economic
might part of the campaign then you go for a scenario where
manufacturing yards can output ships in a couple of weeks and crew can
emerge from the training centres with all the skills an experience they
need in a matter of hours. 

In our campaigns, most of them didn't last more than 10 turns, because
someone was a winner and with a turn per 2 weeks that means a campaign
lasts about 3 months so they don't go on for ever.

________________________________
From: Tom B <kaladorn@gmail.com>
To: gzg-l@mail.csua.berkeley.edu
Sent: Sat, 26 June, 2010 8:33:09 PM
Subject: [GZG] campaigning

In 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.