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

textfilter: chose text/plain from a multipart/alternative

Only if you're feeling up to it. Primarily interested in giving the
rules a
thorough reading.  :-)

Mk

On Thu, Sep 25, 2014 at 2:28 PM, MICHAEL BROWN <mwsaber6@msn.com> wrote:

> textfilter: chose text/plain from a multipart/alternative
>
> deal.  Counters too?
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Michael Brown
>
> mwsaber6@msn.com
>
>
>
>
> > Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2014 14:24:54 -0400
> > From: indy.kochte@gmail.com
> > To: gzg@firedrake.org
> > Subject: 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)
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>