etotheipi | 31 Aug 2018 8:06 a.m. PST |
When you play a game with "rules of war" representing moral or treaty-defined conditions that constrain players options in battle are they "rules of the game" (i.e., this side cannot conduct offensive operations within 100m of the hospital) or "incentives" (if this side's player conducts prohibited operations they decrease force morale or take victory point penalties)? We're about half-and-half with both options. Sometimes you are just prohibited from doing off limits things by the game. Other times, it is a penalty. My favourite mechanism for this is "risk dice". When a player carries out a prohibited operation, they get assigned risk dice. At the end of the game, players roll their risk dice and subtract the results from their victory points. So a player can win the military victory for their side, but end up being convicted as a war criminal by their own side, losing the game. |
Aethelflaeda was framed | 31 Aug 2018 9:18 a.m. PST |
Sometimes I feel that risk dice like you describe, give too much legitimacy to the by any means necessary mind set. If a game is a struggle of values as well as force should we condone thus discarding of the values? |
Oberlindes Sol LIC | 31 Aug 2018 10:29 a.m. PST |
I like the risk dice option. As stated in my reply to one of your other topics with the same title, I write penalties for violating the rules of engagement into the victory conditions. |
pzivh43 | 31 Aug 2018 12:28 p.m. PST |
Risk dice is a neat idea. In the past, I've just worked it onto victory point penalties. |
rvandusen | 31 Aug 2018 3:32 p.m. PST |
In the Force on Force scenario book for Afghanistan, there are useful rules simulating strict ROE to prevent civilian casualties: Any time a Western unit attempts to fire on Afghan units that have not yet fired, the Coalition player has to roll to positively identify their target. If they fail they can't fire until fired upon. Any time the Coalition player uses air support or artillery strikes in an area with possible civilian collateral damage, 1 victory point is deducted Any civilian casualties caused by Coalition troops must be treated by medics, or lose victory points. There is also a rule to limit airstrikes after 2008 that gives a penalty to TAC attempts to call in the strikes. |
stephen m | 31 Aug 2018 5:56 p.m. PST |
There is a very cool mechanism in Hind & Seek for this. Various actions by either the Mujaheddin or Soviet player can have blowback at the end of a scenario. This affects your standing in campaign terms which translates into more or less forces for future scenarios. I am wording it poorly but the mechanism is very elegant, but of course is reflected by on going scenarios in theater. |
stephen m | 31 Aug 2018 6:01 p.m. PST |
Oberlindes What rules are you using for sci fi nowadays? I know you were interested in Striker in the past but can't remember what you said you prefer now. I did a thread about updating Striker a year or so ago but I am finding a lot of areas which are giving me dead ends thinking wise. At least if I want to keep much of the Traveller basis. There is a lot to love and I did reams of updates and additional rules (almost all covering areas not considered at the time) but reviewing where to go from here, all I can think of is using a lot as background or supplemental material for other games or systems. |
UshCha | 01 Sep 2018 12:05 a.m. PST |
The logic for a risk die seems flawed. If you have an idiot that takes the risk and fails you have just ruined a potential promising game and ruined an evenings play. If it was a minor infraction perhaps taking the risk would have been acceptable, but the cost was minimal to start with, so why bother wasting time on such things? |
etotheipi | 01 Sep 2018 4:43 a.m. PST |
If you have an idiot that takes the risk and fails you have just ruined a potential promising game and ruined an evenings play. If by idiot you mean great commander who is renown throughout history for their military victories, then realism says that should happen frequently. But you have no obligation to encourage this type of realism in your games. but the cost was minimal to start with, so why bother wasting time on such things? The cost described in the OP is orthogonal to the military objectives. So taking this type of risk has zero impact on the military outcome. So it doesn't affect the strategic, operational, or tactical outcome of the game. |
UshCha | 02 Sep 2018 11:57 p.m. PST |
So The general is free to "Commit the Atrocioty" with little impact. So why bother with it as a parameter, I want the minimal possible rules to get what is required? As you quote its orthoganal to the milaitary objective whicjh is the game. Im my opinion its not well thought out and has minimal impact on the game, to me just a waste of time both ways. |
etotheipi | 03 Sep 2018 5:22 a.m. PST |
So The general is free to "Commit the Atrocioty" with little impact. So why bother with it as a parameter, Losing the game is about as much impact as you can have in a game. I want the minimal possible rules to get what is required? Which leads the OP question. Do you put this type of realism in you games? If you don't want the playe3rs to face this set of challenges that real world commanders face, that doesn't mean the concept is not well though out, it just means you personally don't like it. |
Oberlindes Sol LIC | 03 Sep 2018 8:49 p.m. PST |
Stephen M wrote:
OberlindesWhat rules are you using for sci fi nowadays? I know you were interested in Striker in the past but can't remember what you said you prefer now. I did a thread about updating Striker a year or so ago but I am finding a lot of areas which are giving me dead ends thinking wise. At least if I want to keep much of the Traveller basis. There is a lot to love and I did reams of updates and additional rules (almost all covering areas not considered at the time) but reviewing where to go from here, all I can think of is using a lot as background or supplemental material for other games or systems. I am using Mongoose Traveller and Traveller SRD for situations involving a squad or so of PCs, and StarGrunt for larger actions, up to company level. I have played a lot of Striker at many tech levels and a few games of Striker II. My friends and I would usually play Striker with 1:285-ish models and 1:1000 ground scale, and we typically used company to battalion sized forces. It's been several years since I played Striker, though. |
stephen m | 06 Sep 2018 5:50 p.m. PST |
Traveller srd? Link please. I did a quick search and got conflicting results and a fishing web site. Thank you. |
Old Contemptibles | 07 Sep 2018 7:17 p.m. PST |
I think this is more a RPG/Fantasy/Sci-Fi thing. I have been playing historical miniatures since the 70s and have never had this come up in a game. |