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

textfilter: chose text/plain from a multipart/alternative

Mike, trade you a scanned copy of Seastrike for the Dead Man's Land pdf
:-)

Mk

On Thu, Sep 25, 2014 at 2:00 PM, MICHAEL BROWN <mwsaber6@msn.com> wrote:

> textfilter: chose text/plain from a multipart/alternative
>
> "This system has been "borrowed" many times over the years, most
> notably by Brilliant Lances (the Traveller starship game), because it
> works! I certainly borrowed some of the Seastrike system icon ideas
> for FT, as many of you may have noted long ago, but I've not actually
> applied the objective card system to a game - though it would lend
> itself very well to FT games, and I'm sure it could be made to work
> for ground based games too."
>
> Gee, I wonder where I got the idea for the mission cards I did so many
> moons ago...
> (Having BOTH SeaStrike and Brilliant Lances)
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Michael Brown
>
> mwsaber6@msn.com
>
>
>
>
> > Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2014 18:49:04 +0100
> > To: gzg@firedrake.org
> > From: jon@gzg.com
> > Subject: Re: SG:AC discussions (was: Official - More re GZG news
update
> - NEW RELEASES!)
> >
> > >textfilter: chose text/plain from a multipart/alternative
> > >
> > >On Thu, Sep 25, 2014 at 11:33 AM, Roger Bell_West
<roger@firedrake.org>
> > >wrote:
> > >
> > >>	On Thu, Sep 25, 2014 at 10:25:29AM -0500, Patrick Connaughton
wrote:
> > >>	>
> > >>	>There have been comments above inconclusive games. These happen
> > >>	>(sadly) all too often when you're using point based, matchup
games.
> > >>	>It becomes the challenge of the presenter to build a good
scenario
> > >>	>that provides victory conditions or success criteria that
challenge
> > >>	>the players to do more than body count.
> > >>
> > >>	Yes, I think that some sort of objective, even if it's just "get
your
> > >>	guys off the other edge of the map", almost always improves
things.
> > >>
> > >
> > >Ambush Alley had or used to have available a very short (4-page; 3
of
> which
> > >were the rules, one was the rules cover :-D ) set of WWII 'patrol'
> campaign
> > >rules which each side would roll secretly for their force's
> game/scenario
> > >objective. A friend and I adopted it to do a short (9-game) TW
campaign
> a
> > >couple years ago, and it worked really well. One of the objectives
was
> to
> > >exit the other end of the table with half your force or more. There
were
> > >six objectives that you would roll for on each side, with each side
> keeping
> > >their rolled objective a secret from the other. Made for some
> interesting
> > >battles. (and a couple of potentially boring ones when both of our
> > >objectives were to withdraw; but that happened far less often than
the
> > >other combination of objectives).
> > >
> > >Mk
> >
> >
> > That is similar in some ways to the classic "Seastrike" random
> > objective method - each player draws an unmarked envelope from a
> > stack of a dozen or so, and a card in the envelope tells them (a)
the
> > budget for their force, (b) any specific restrictions on their force
> > composition and (c) the objective they must try to achieve, with an
> > alternative secondary objective (which is usually, but not always,
to
> > prevent the enemy from achieving their own objective) that the
player
> > may fall back on if the main objective becomes impossible.
> >
> > Having drawn and read your objective card, you then "buy" your
ships,
> > aircraft, land bases etc from the pool of counters (each has a price
> > in millions of pounds/dollars) up to the allowed budget on the card,
> > and then the game deployment starts.
> >
> > The objectives range from a relatively small budget and a mission to
> > render just one enemy surface vessel inoperative (to "make a point"
> > to a  sabre-rattling enemy), to a huge budget that allows you to buy
> > almost your entire counter mix but with a mission requiring you to
> > completely neutralise all enemy forces.
> >
> > As Indy mentions, it is possible to get some odd matchups - though
> > having the blind envelope draw rather than a die roll does mean that
> > both sides will never get the same objective. The classic very short
> > game is a small-budget objective to simply destroy the enemy's
> > (land-based) command post - unless the enemy has heavily invested in
> > SAM sites, then you just spend almost all your budget on strike
> > aircraft and wallop the hell out of him in the first turn....
> >
> > This system has been "borrowed" many times over the years, most
> > notably by Brilliant Lances (the Traveller starship game), because
it
> > works! I certainly borrowed some of the Seastrike system icon ideas
> > for FT, as many of you may have noted long ago, but I've not
actually
> > applied the objective card system to a game - though it would lend
> > itself very well to FT games, and I'm sure it could be made to work
> > for ground based games too.
> >
> > [I've kind of assumed that most here know what Seastrike is - for
> > those that don't, it's a hybrid board/tabletop game of mid-to-late
> > 20th Century (post-WW2) naval combat between two smallish states set
> > in an island archipelago, with surface units varying from missile
> > boats through frigates and destroyers up to a single cruiser (rather
> > vulnerable and seldom used, in my experience!) available to each
> > fleet, plus strike and interceptor aircraft and land bases such as
> > SAM and radar sites to place on the islands. Play occurs on a
> > tabletop rather than a board, with card islands placed at random as
> > "terrain". All combat is very simply driven by a clever special card
> > deck.]
> >
> > Jon (GZG)
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>