Re: (TFT) TFT Wargame 4

[pvk@oz.net]

Lots to chew on at once. Too much for the time I have at the moment. So,
random notes:

* "Moral" is a different word from "morale" - you mean "morale".

* You seem to be laying out a system of nearly total war, rather than a
combat system for handling large engagements. You start systemitizing
organizations, politics, etc., which will be different in different
settings, and you're doing it from a modern perspective, while I think the
TFT norm will be medievalish - i.e. sub-Roman in most ways.
  In other words, I think maybe you might want to think about things from
a modern perspective briefly, but then step back and generalize the
non-combat elements so GM's can apply their campaigns (which you won't
be able to anticipate) to a generic scale, rather than a specific one.
I.e., don't end up with something where you list things like "Gentlemen
Officer" at -1 to leadership, but have a scale of best to worst, with
general adjectives and perhaps historical examples.

* "Ambushes cause the highest % of enemy casualties so this should not be
ignored." No to be ignored but what does the premise come from? I don't
think it's at all true of most ancient/medieval warfare, which tended to
be more about amassing a large force for a decisive battle - there would
be some recon engagements around it, of course, but the main death tended
to be done during a head-on engagement (and, usually after one side
broke).

>   One problem with this idea is that the other
> player can look over your stack and learn a lot
> about its special skills.  Far easier than would
> be realistic.  If we put the special squads off
> map and record which company they are in, this
> adds busy work.  (However if they leave their
> company, then having a squad counter is a
> convenience.

* Wargames often have rules that opponent players are usually not allowed
to examine enemy stacks unless/until they need to do so because they are
engaged. Another option is to have counters with labels that refer to
notes (like TFT counters just have a symbol), decoy and/or deception
counters that may mean nothing, and GM's.

> --> Gentleman Officer (poor)

* Hmm?

...
> - Cavalry Scouting.  This is key and not easy to
> represent.  Cavalry's most important job was to
> act as the eyes of the army.  However in a top
> down map of the battle, the players can see
> everything.

Depends on the game rules, and whether there is a GM or not. A non-GM
example might be a system where both armies, scouts, civilians, decoys,
and general fog-of-war counters are on the map, and indistinguishable
without successful recon (including not just making contact, but then
making it back to HQ with the report). The system chosen depends on what
you want the game to be about, and how much you want it to be about recon,
logistics and large-scale strategy. Some GM's may want to play out an
entire war as a wargame, while others may just want a combat system to
handle a rare large-scale battle.

> - Observation: this design seems to be going
> to a low counter density (good) but has many
> specialty counters to show game state and
> specialty squads (bad).

How about a model like a TFT battle? Single counters for each maneuvering
group, with little or no info on the counter itself, and then records for
each unit, but then a low counter density compared to a wargame.

> - Men need 3 kg of food &  10 kg of water per day.

That's a LOT! In what conditions? Does that include modern bathing/latrine
standards (i.e. cooking, bathing and toilet water - not just drinking)?

PvK
=====
Post to the entire list by writing to tft@brainiac.com.
Unsubscribe by mailing to majordomo@brainiac.com with the message body
"unsubscribe tft"