Re: SG:AC discussions (was: Official - More re GZG news update - NEW RELEASES!)

textfilter: chose text/plain from a multipart/alternative

I think there are aspects of TW that are superior to SG2 - mostly the
soft
rules arranged around the core (which I don't really care for).  The
assumption of the data net overlaying the battle space is great - at
15mm
and 6mm you can def. have drones on the table as well as national assets
up
in orbit.  The relative tech levels work well.	The basic alien creation
system is neat.

Anywho...additional ideas/wants/nice to haves:

1) I really like the pre-game sequence in PBI and the old AK-47.  In
relation to the data net mentioned above a pre-game segment to determine
the health of that net would be neat e.g. invaders managed to nuke 75%
of
your net...so the effectiveness of off table comms and intel are borked.
That said 100% functional doesn't equate to 100% reliable.  :)

2) I would like to see a better psychology model in there.  Not
uber-realistic because that wouldn't be fun -- but if real wars were
fought
by wargamers we'd somehow manage 200% casualties and still win.  This
should probably be an optional rule because some folks hate to have
their
15mm minions not listen to them.  As an aside I read through a WW2 study
that implied that Green units typically did better on the battlefield
than
Vets -- mostly because Vets knew when to stop pushing while Greens
tended
to keep on going.  I wish I could remember the name of the report but it
implies the exact opposite of how most games work.

3) A simplistic campaign system with unit improvements over time.

4) A points system.  Yeah they suck...but they're a good way to get
close.
But please don't over analyze it.

5) The rules should form an onion -- the core should be a simple
mechanic
in which you overlay consistent bits of chrome.  You should be able to
remove layers without hurting the core.  I know Jon has experience with
this (ala the FMA system in general).

6) Support on- and off- table assets.  Telescoping time and distance
rubs
people the wrong way.  Maybe only one side can have their assets on the
table assuming that the scenario in question represents a fight where
the
aggressor  has already penetrated the front lines and the "defender" set
up
a quick line to protect their brigade/corp/whatever assets?  Probably
better as a specific scenario.

7) Unit and vehicle construction rules.  Should allow for near future
conventional stuff as well as far future alien weirdness.

8) A continuation of the SG2/FT/DS setting.  But not cooked into the
rules
proper.

On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 8:26 PM, Indy <indy.kochte@gmail.com> wrote:

> textfilter: chose text/plain from a multipart/alternative
>
> Sorry, Jon, I went on travel as the discussion got interesting.
>
> I'm on the opposite side of the table from Damo wrt TW and SG2. IMO TW
is
> where I think SG2 should have evolved to. Despite the somewhat
> non-intuitive reaction system, I think it flows better. <shrug>  BUT,
this
> is not about SG2, but SG:AC.
>
> I would like to see something between SG2 and DS2 come out. Right now
the
> closest thing I can think of that fits that might be Future War
Commander,
> but I caveat that I have not yet played that system so I don't know
(yet)
> if it's more DS2 for 15mm or closer to what SG:AC might or should be.
>
> Mk
>
>
>
> On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 2:51 PM, Ground Zero Games <jon@gzg.com>
wrote:
>
> > Just when this discussion was starting to get interesting and
useful,
> > it seems to have fizzled out.... anyone else got any opinions or
> > input they'd like to give?
> >
> > In anticipation,
> >
> > Jon (GZG)
> >
> >
> >
> > >textfilter: chose text/plain from a multipart/alternative
> > >
> > >On Sun, Sep 14, 2014 at 12:49 PM, Seamus <fomorianwolf@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > >
> > >>	textfilter: chose text/plain from a multipart/alternative
> > >>
> > >>	On Sun, Sep 14, 2014 at 12:29 PM, Samuel Penn
<sam@glendale.org.uk>
> > wrote:
> > >>	>
> > >>	> We've had battles (using 25mm) with 3-4 platoons a side,
including
> > >>	vehicle
> > >>	platoons. The only problem was that I seem to recall damage
> > >>	> against vehicles was very random - you could take one out in a
> single
> > >>	hit,
> > >>	or it could survive lots of hits unscathed.
> > >>
> > >>	Thanks for the input! The more feedback we get will help. :)
> > >>
> > >>	What do you think contributed to this problem? (Was it the
opposed
> > armor
> > >>	rolls, for example?)
> > >>
> > >>	It's been a while and my memory is a bit hazy, but IIRC with
about
> two
> > >>	opposed companies on the table, the game can get bogged down
> > >>	in opposed rolls; weapons-fire results and morale tests.
> > >>
> > >>	The alternate fire resolution method that I linked earlier helps
a
> bit,
> > >>	though I'm sure it's not everyone's preference.
> > >>
> > >>	Does anyone else have any experience or suggestions?
> > >>
> > >
> > >It's been too darn long since I last played a game of SGII.  :-/  
So I
> > >can't really give any contributing data points.
> > >
> > >I do hold, though, that a company-level game would be a nice one to
> have.
> > >I've been playing Tomorrow's War a fair bit in recent years, but
that's
> > >still platoon/squad level (I do like their vehicle combat rules,
though
> > >some of the guys who I play TW with don't; <shrug>)
> > >
> > >Mk
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>