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

Some very useful input - many thanks! I pretty much agree with 
everything here, just a few specific comments that may promote 
further discussion....

>
>
>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.

Agreed, there are a number of elements that TW has that we really 
ought to include in SG:AC - not surprisingly, given the two rulesets 
(TW and SGII) were written almost twenty years apart.... ;-)

>
>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.  :)

Agreed, the pre-game concept is something I've always liked too - it 
needs careful design to avoid it "spoiling" the main game completely 
(eg: by changing the situation so much that one side is too 
disadvantaged to have any chance of winning) BUT this can be balanced 
by altering the victory conditions in response to the pre-game events 
- in effect, it is the pre-game that actually determines the scenario 
that will be played in the game itself. For example, if the pre-game 
reduces the effectiveness of one player's force significantly, then 
what might have been a simple meeting engagement actually becomes a 
"hold this position for x turns" defence game.....

>
>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.

Interesting, and yes, I can understand the reasoning behind this; 
that is how most soldiers survive to reach Veteran status after 
all....
It CAN be handled by a combination of motivation and confidence 
levels along with the troop quality stats, but this merits much more 
discussion!

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

Agreed, always a nice thing to have.

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

Yes, in principle I agree; the problem is coming up with one that is 
simple and quick without allowing too much mini-maxing.....
Whatever we do, SOMEONE will instantly over-analyze it and then 
gleefully inform the entire internet that it is "broken", thus 
proving how much smarter they are than the people who put a lot of 
effort into designing 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).

A very good principle to aim for - not always 100% possible, but a 
target to keep in mind throughout.

>
>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.

Yes, pretty much agree with all that!

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

Agreed, you should always be able to design 20th/21st Century "real 
world" equipment and units and have them feel right.

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

Agreed, maybe with a little bit of updating of the early part of the 
timeline to account for the fact that not all of what was written 
twenty-five years ago has (thank the Gods) come to pass - yet, 
anyway....  ;-)

Best,

Jon (GZG)