[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: (TFT) TFT Wargame 4 --> Rick talks about PvK's comments
On Wed, 2006-04-19 at 15:15, firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
> * "Moral" is a different word from "morale" - you mean "morale".
Thanks, you are right. Spelling is not my
> * 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.
I was going thru some books that I bought from
James Dunnigan and made notes as I came across
things of interest. I don't expect that all of
that stuff would be used. Also I am aware that
military 'truths' from the last century may not
apply to TFT combat.
> * "Ambushes cause the highest % of enemy casualties so this should not be
> ignored." No to be ignored but what does the premise come from?
Statistics from modern warfare.
> 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
I agree. With out the firepower that units
with light machine guns possess, getting first
shot is not a vital. However I do think that
there should be some sort of significant bonus
> * 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.
Yes, however if all counters have to have a
look up every time you want to use one, then
that is a major pain in the butt.
> > --> Gentleman Officer (poor)
> * Hmm?
Mr. Dunnigan was referring to the British system
of "I paid for this regiment so I get to command
it." He said that this was mitigated somewhat by
the British having a tradition of really excellent
> > - Cavalry Scouting. ...
> 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.
I would like this game to be playable with two
players with out a GM. Having a GM and a double
blind system is wonderful if you can manage it.
I agree it would be better to have the cavalry
carry the scouting report back before the player
can use it but I can't see that happening with
out a human or CPU referee.
> 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.
Trade offs again. Having all the info off counter
is more flexible but more of a pain. My feeling is
to have the units upside down showing only the basic
unit ("Thar's a bucketload of axer guys ov'r thar...")
When the unit is closely observed or fights it turns
right side up showing more info. However even then
the specialty squads that give the unit extra powers
are not revealed until they are used. This should
allow a fair bit of fog of war with out too much
recording of off board info.
> > - 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)?
I believe that this is the food and water for a
USA soldier in a hot climate (Vietnam). It does
include cooking / bathing water I would think.
What would better values for ancient forces?
A thousand thanks for your feedback PvK!!!
Warm regards, Rick.
Post to the entire list by writing to email@example.com.
Unsubscribe by mailing to firstname.lastname@example.org with the message body