OLD GDW Adventures

[kaladorn]

It isn't a tangential rambling if it helps extend our factual knowledge of who wrote what. It isn't tangential if it helps the right people get due credit.

On another note, I posted my thoughts on the flexibility ratings....

Here are some thoughts on format identification:

Formats

Format Description

LBB LBB stands for "Little Black Book". The original CT books had this format and many of the suppliments of that period did as well. The look was distinctive enough that there is even a tool out there to generate 'LBB style' covers. The approximate dimensions of the LBB were a x b inches. The covers were black with either a single coloured line (for rule books and rules suppliments) or black with a single coloured line in the middle but the top and bottom of the covers had thick bands of the same colour. Examples of the 'book' and 'supplement' formats can be found here and here.

JTAS Same size as the LBB format, only with covers that were not black and did feature cover art. The classic example is the Journal of the Traveller's Aide Society, which usually featured some information about the main feature contents of an issue and a related cover artwork.

Stapled 8.5 x 11 This is a larger format with a glossy cover and features standard sized pages with a stapled binding.

Glued 8.5 x 11 This is a larger format with a glossy cover, featuring standard sized pages and a glued binding.

Hardcover Traveller hardcovers (rare) feature standard sized pages with a glued (and perhaps stitched) binding inside of a rigid cover, sometimes with minimalist art (such as a sunburst only) or sometimes with glossy cover art.

PDF An electronic document format being popularized now. Requires Adobe Acrobat Reader to read and print.

Am I missing any (I already see one - boxed set) others? Are these descriptions useful?

 

[kaladorn]

It isn't a tangential rambling if it helps extend our factual knowledge of who wrote what. It isn't tangential if it helps the right people get due credit.

On another note, I posted my thoughts on the flexibility ratings....

Here are some thoughts on format identification:

Formats

Format Description

LBB LBB stands for "Little Black Book". The original CT books had this format and many of the suppliments of that period did as well. The look was distinctive enough that there is even a tool out there to generate 'LBB style' covers. The approximate dimensions of the LBB were a x b inches. The covers were black with either a single coloured line (for rule books and rules suppliments) or black with a single coloured line in the middle but the top and bottom of the covers had thick bands of the same colour. Examples of the 'book' and 'supplement' formats can be found here and here.

JTAS Same size as the LBB format, only with covers that were not black and did feature cover art. The classic example is the Journal of the Traveller's Aide Society, which usually featured some information about the main feature contents of an issue and a related cover artwork.

Stapled 8.5 x 11 This is a larger format with a glossy cover and features standard sized pages with a stapled binding.

Glued 8.5 x 11 This is a larger format with a glossy cover, featuring standard sized pages and a glued binding.

Hardcover Traveller hardcovers (rare) feature standard sized pages with a glued (and perhaps stitched) binding inside of a rigid cover, sometimes with minimalist art (such as a sunburst only) or sometimes with glossy cover art.

PDF An electronic document format being popularized now. Requires Adobe Acrobat Reader to read and print.

Am I missing any (I already see one - boxed set) others? Are these descriptions useful?

 

[Cymew]

Larsen,

Thanks a lot for your summaries! I have a hard time seeing the potential of an adventure before having played it, so someone elses experience talking is worth a lot!

Would you care to elaborate on why TCS is so unbalanced? I thought it looked fairly good, but then again, I'm not sure I've understood all of the implications of HG2 yet.

 

[Cymew]

Larsen,

Thanks a lot for your summaries! I have a hard time seeing the potential of an adventure before having played it, so someone elses experience talking is worth a lot!

Would you care to elaborate on why TCS is so unbalanced? I thought it looked fairly good, but then again, I'm not sure I've understood all of the implications of HG2 yet.

 

[Whipsnade]

Cymew wrote:

"Would you care to elaborate on why TCS is so unbalanced? I thought it looked fairly good, but then again, I'm not sure I've understood all of the implications of HG2 yet."


Cymew,

The 'unbalanced' nature of TCS depends in part on how HG2 works so I'll tackle HG2 first. Remember, this is all "IMHO". I'm sure others will jump in with their opinions and that will be a good thing!

HG2 works like 'paper, rocks, & scissors'. For a given TL, there is no 'perfect' design or design philosophy. The more 'specialized' a design becomes, the more vulnerable it becomes to a purposely-built 'anti-design'. IIRC, there's a current thread about this over in The Fleet. At TL15, most folks build small, fast, agile, meson gun armed vessels but a heavily armored PAW-armed ship will handle the MG-armed ships rather well.

All that being said, once you reach certain TLs in HG2, certain weapons and basic ship designs fall in and out of favor. Prior to nuc dampers, volleys of nuc tipped missiles are the way to go and prior to the smaller, higher MW per dTon power plants at TL13+, fighters actually work if you have the pilots to burn.

Okay, so HG2 design and combat is 'paper, rocks, and scissors' with no SFB-style uberwidgets that rule combat once introduced. And the TL you're building at in HG2 drives your designs; just like in real life.

Now for TCS. In TCS, the amount of money you have to build with depends on your population, government code, and whether you're at peace or war. How fast you can build ships with that money and what types of ships you can build depends on population and the type of starport(s) you own. You can see that population figures prominently in TCS.

TCS has eight FTL powers. Six of them are at the same TL (12 - jump3) and UWP pop code (9 - billion). One is at a higher TL (13 - jump4) and a smaller pop code (8 - 100 million). The eighth power is at a lower TL (11 - jump2) and a higher pop code (A - 10s of billions).

This lo-TL, hi-pop power, Esperanza, has limited design choices forced upon her. However, the amount of ships she can build is staggering when compared to her immediate neighbors. Those neighbors are thus 'forced' to build a certain percentage of their navies using the 'anti-design' for Esperanza's fleet. That makes those fleets less capable; because they are more specialized, against fleets owned by powers that Esperanza is not close to.

The hi-TL, lo-pop power, New Home, forces a similar specialization vs. general utility problem on her neighbors too.

During the many times my gaming group played TCS in the early 80s, the Esperanzan 'infinite monkey missile boats' still eventually shredded their opposition. There were just too many of them and too many could be built too quickly. Esperanza could lose battle after battle, throwing away fleets, just as long as they inflicted some damage in return. Eventually, she would just wear her opponents out. It was pure material-attrition warfare; one of your tanks may be better than 5 of ours, but we always have 10 tanks on hand.

DGP's addition of PBG stats to the MT maps of the area made this population imbalance even worse. DGP added pop multipliers to each system with ill effect. Where six of the powers once all had 'one' billion in population, now one power had 1 billion, another had 5, another had 3, and so forth. Thanks to DGP, the 'Middle Six' were no longer balanced even among themselves. What's more, DGP's pop multiplier for Esperanza; a 'two' IIRC, made that power even more dangerous.

That's what I mean by saying, IMHO, TCS is unbalanced. I'm sure others here have their own opinions. YMM and most certainly should V.


Sincerely,
Larsen

 

[Whipsnade]

Cymew wrote:

"Would you care to elaborate on why TCS is so unbalanced? I thought it looked fairly good, but then again, I'm not sure I've understood all of the implications of HG2 yet."


Cymew,

The 'unbalanced' nature of TCS depends in part on how HG2 works so I'll tackle HG2 first. Remember, this is all "IMHO". I'm sure others will jump in with their opinions and that will be a good thing!

HG2 works like 'paper, rocks, & scissors'. For a given TL, there is no 'perfect' design or design philosophy. The more 'specialized' a design becomes, the more vulnerable it becomes to a purposely-built 'anti-design'. IIRC, there's a current thread about this over in The Fleet. At TL15, most folks build small, fast, agile, meson gun armed vessels but a heavily armored PAW-armed ship will handle the MG-armed ships rather well.

All that being said, once you reach certain TLs in HG2, certain weapons and basic ship designs fall in and out of favor. Prior to nuc dampers, volleys of nuc tipped missiles are the way to go and prior to the smaller, higher MW per dTon power plants at TL13+, fighters actually work if you have the pilots to burn.

Okay, so HG2 design and combat is 'paper, rocks, and scissors' with no SFB-style uberwidgets that rule combat once introduced. And the TL you're building at in HG2 drives your designs; just like in real life.

Now for TCS. In TCS, the amount of money you have to build with depends on your population, government code, and whether you're at peace or war. How fast you can build ships with that money and what types of ships you can build depends on population and the type of starport(s) you own. You can see that population figures prominently in TCS.

TCS has eight FTL powers. Six of them are at the same TL (12 - jump3) and UWP pop code (9 - billion). One is at a higher TL (13 - jump4) and a smaller pop code (8 - 100 million). The eighth power is at a lower TL (11 - jump2) and a higher pop code (A - 10s of billions).

This lo-TL, hi-pop power, Esperanza, has limited design choices forced upon her. However, the amount of ships she can build is staggering when compared to her immediate neighbors. Those neighbors are thus 'forced' to build a certain percentage of their navies using the 'anti-design' for Esperanza's fleet. That makes those fleets less capable; because they are more specialized, against fleets owned by powers that Esperanza is not close to.

The hi-TL, lo-pop power, New Home, forces a similar specialization vs. general utility problem on her neighbors too.

During the many times my gaming group played TCS in the early 80s, the Esperanzan 'infinite monkey missile boats' still eventually shredded their opposition. There were just too many of them and too many could be built too quickly. Esperanza could lose battle after battle, throwing away fleets, just as long as they inflicted some damage in return. Eventually, she would just wear her opponents out. It was pure material-attrition warfare; one of your tanks may be better than 5 of ours, but we always have 10 tanks on hand.

DGP's addition of PBG stats to the MT maps of the area made this population imbalance even worse. DGP added pop multipliers to each system with ill effect. Where six of the powers once all had 'one' billion in population, now one power had 1 billion, another had 5, another had 3, and so forth. Thanks to DGP, the 'Middle Six' were no longer balanced even among themselves. What's more, DGP's pop multiplier for Esperanza; a 'two' IIRC, made that power even more dangerous.

That's what I mean by saying, IMHO, TCS is unbalanced. I'm sure others here have their own opinions. YMM and most certainly should V.


Sincerely,
Larsen

 

[kaladorn]

Seems to me it is 'unbalanced as an equal odds wargame' but 'balanced as a tactical and diplomatic game'. I mean that imbalances such as these will lead to players having to make diplomatic moves to compensate for the strength imbalances.

Also variant levels of population seem (at first blush) to make some sense to me from a 'non-strategic campaign' outlook - why six worlds would all have 1B pop is a good question.

So, although I defer entirely to your comment about unbalanced as it pertains to an equal odds wargame, I just actually find that the situation is *more* interesting, not less. It just requires a different (and diplomatic) approach.

 

[kaladorn]

Seems to me it is 'unbalanced as an equal odds wargame' but 'balanced as a tactical and diplomatic game'. I mean that imbalances such as these will lead to players having to make diplomatic moves to compensate for the strength imbalances.

Also variant levels of population seem (at first blush) to make some sense to me from a 'non-strategic campaign' outlook - why six worlds would all have 1B pop is a good question.

So, although I defer entirely to your comment about unbalanced as it pertains to an equal odds wargame, I just actually find that the situation is *more* interesting, not less. It just requires a different (and diplomatic) approach.

 

[Whipsnade]

kaladorn wrote:

"Seems to me it is 'unbalanced as an equal odds wargame' but 'balanced as a tactical and diplomatic game'. I mean that imbalances such as these will lead to players having to make diplomatic moves to compensate for the strength imbalances."


Tom,

A very good point, but (you knew there would be one!) 'unbalanced' combat strengths don't necessarily lead to diplomacy.

Look at AH's Diplomacy. Aside from Britain's extra fleet and Russia's extra army, all the powers there start with the same forces. They are forced to engage in diplomacy in order to accomplish anything.

In TCS, the diplomacy card is rarely in Esperanza's hand. No one will ally with her because they will be the (very) junior partner. The other powers can, and usually do, ally against her. Diplomacy is something Esperanza has inflicted upon her and not something she normally gets to use.

"Also variant levels of population seem (at first blush) to make some sense to me from a 'non-strategic campaign' outlook - why six worlds would all have 1B pop is a good question."

I think it was an attempt to make a 'Diplomacy'-like Traveller game with some space combat and tech progression wrinkles thrown in. You have six 'clones', plus one hi-tech/small and one lo-tech/huge wild cards; i.e. something akin to the 'Witches' in 'Diplomacy', Britain and Turkey.

Esperanza is so big that diplomacy is not an option. While 'tiny' New Home, despite her TL advantage, finds that diplomacy is her only option. So the lack of balance among the forces means that 2 of the eight positions or really out of the diplomatic play from the start.

"So, although I defer entirely to your comment about unbalanced as it pertains to an equal odds wargame, I just actually find that the situation is *more* interesting, not less. It just requires a different (and diplomatic) approach."

Oh, it *is* interesting! Unless you're Esperanza or New Home, with those powers you only have one course of action. For you, how the game is played is pretty much set.

While nifty and more realistic, DGP's population multipliers simply put more worlds into the 'No-Diplomacy' and 'Only-Diplomacy' groups, thus limiting play options even more. One world which originally had 'clones' for neighbors finds herself with neighbors 3 to 4 times her size with fleets to match. (She 'keeps' her old size of one billion, they get 3 or 4 billion.)

The 'bump' in nearly every system's population makes New Home even more irrelevent. The advantages of her single TL increase had been slight before, but now all her neighbors have populations in the 1<>9 billions, rather than just 1 billion, while she remains less than a billion. All New Home gets to do is sell herself.

To make matters worse, the increase in Esperanza's population makes her potentially unbeatable. She may have been the 800lb gorilla before, now she's a 1600lb gorilla and nearly outweighs the rest of the Cluster combined. If she had trouble making alliances before, she certainly has it now. I've reffed 4 post-DGP TCS games and in each the 'Middle Six' tried to stomp Esperanza first - no talking, no alliances, no nothing, try to take her down now and we'll (hopefully) deal with each other later.


Sincerely,
Larsen

 

[Whipsnade]

kaladorn wrote:

"Seems to me it is 'unbalanced as an equal odds wargame' but 'balanced as a tactical and diplomatic game'. I mean that imbalances such as these will lead to players having to make diplomatic moves to compensate for the strength imbalances."


Tom,

A very good point, but (you knew there would be one!) 'unbalanced' combat strengths don't necessarily lead to diplomacy.

Look at AH's Diplomacy. Aside from Britain's extra fleet and Russia's extra army, all the powers there start with the same forces. They are forced to engage in diplomacy in order to accomplish anything.

In TCS, the diplomacy card is rarely in Esperanza's hand. No one will ally with her because they will be the (very) junior partner. The other powers can, and usually do, ally against her. Diplomacy is something Esperanza has inflicted upon her and not something she normally gets to use.

"Also variant levels of population seem (at first blush) to make some sense to me from a 'non-strategic campaign' outlook - why six worlds would all have 1B pop is a good question."

I think it was an attempt to make a 'Diplomacy'-like Traveller game with some space combat and tech progression wrinkles thrown in. You have six 'clones', plus one hi-tech/small and one lo-tech/huge wild cards; i.e. something akin to the 'Witches' in 'Diplomacy', Britain and Turkey.

Esperanza is so big that diplomacy is not an option. While 'tiny' New Home, despite her TL advantage, finds that diplomacy is her only option. So the lack of balance among the forces means that 2 of the eight positions or really out of the diplomatic play from the start.

"So, although I defer entirely to your comment about unbalanced as it pertains to an equal odds wargame, I just actually find that the situation is *more* interesting, not less. It just requires a different (and diplomatic) approach."

Oh, it *is* interesting! Unless you're Esperanza or New Home, with those powers you only have one course of action. For you, how the game is played is pretty much set.

While nifty and more realistic, DGP's population multipliers simply put more worlds into the 'No-Diplomacy' and 'Only-Diplomacy' groups, thus limiting play options even more. One world which originally had 'clones' for neighbors finds herself with neighbors 3 to 4 times her size with fleets to match. (She 'keeps' her old size of one billion, they get 3 or 4 billion.)

The 'bump' in nearly every system's population makes New Home even more irrelevent. The advantages of her single TL increase had been slight before, but now all her neighbors have populations in the 1<>9 billions, rather than just 1 billion, while she remains less than a billion. All New Home gets to do is sell herself.

To make matters worse, the increase in Esperanza's population makes her potentially unbeatable. She may have been the 800lb gorilla before, now she's a 1600lb gorilla and nearly outweighs the rest of the Cluster combined. If she had trouble making alliances before, she certainly has it now. I've reffed 4 post-DGP TCS games and in each the 'Middle Six' tried to stomp Esperanza first - no talking, no alliances, no nothing, try to take her down now and we'll (hopefully) deal with each other later.


Sincerely,
Larsen

 

[kaladorn]

Tom,

A very good point, but (you knew there would be one!)

Mais, certainement, mon ami Larsen!

'unbalanced' combat strengths don't necessarily lead to diplomacy.

Look at AH's Diplomacy. Aside from Britain's extra fleet and Russia's extra army, all the powers there start with the same forces. They are forced to engage in diplomacy in order to accomplish anything.

Yes and no. As someone who has played several cuthroat games of Dip, and done (I thought) marvelously well at seeing off some opposition who should have seen me off, I'll say that's an incomplete comparison. Forces are the same, but liabilities are not. England has an island. Turkey has a map corner, as to a lesser extent does Russian. Austro-Hungary has enemies on ALL SIDES. The equal forces do not equate to a balanced starting position.

In TCS, the diplomacy card is rarely in Esperanza's hand. No one will ally with her because they will be the (very) junior partner. The other powers can, and usually do, ally against her. Diplomacy is something Esperanza has inflicted upon her and not something she normally gets to use.

In the real world, many people would cut a deal with the big power. Why? Better to be second fiddle on the winning side than dead. And you do have a credible threat because no matter how big Esperanza is, you can still cost her a lot. A lot that she could be spending elsehwere.

Esperanza is so big that diplomacy is not an option. While 'tiny' New Home, despite her TL advantage, finds that diplomacy is her only option. So the lack of balance among the forces means that 2 of the eight positions or really out of the diplomatic play from the start.

I took a joint first in Diplomacy (we agreed to a draw) when it was most likely I could have taken (if I'd been feckless) first - playing against very dangerous players - when I was AustroHungary, who often gets killed in the early or mid game.

The small guy often has many levers to pull (though he has to pull hard). The Big Guy often has a far worse problem, I will concede.

Oh, it *is* interesting! Unless you're Esperanza or New Home, with those powers you only have one course of action. For you, how the game is played is pretty much set.

Yes, but the real world is like that too. The countries are not balanced. The trick (like duplicate bridge) isn't so much getting the best hand (although that can be okay) as it is in how you play the hand you are dealt...

Any game that isn't artifically constructed will tend towards some imbalance. Also, any well-written game will provide mechanisms to offset such imbalances, but balancing everyone is the cheapest and cheesiest way to do this IMO.

On a more philosophical level, any two times I play a game with set inputs, I expect to have a reasonable chance of similar outcomes. So if I play with the same pop/tech distribution each time, I'd expect some issues with similar results.

OTOH, I'd agree one TL isn't a huge advantage... two TL might be good enough. Or not...

While nifty and more realistic, DGP's population multipliers simply put more worlds into the 'No-Diplomacy' and 'Only-Diplomacy' groups, thus limiting play options even more. One world which originally had 'clones' for neighbors finds herself with neighbors 3 to 4 times her size with fleets to match. (She 'keeps' her old size of one billion, they get 3 or 4 billion.)

I guess it is the simulationist in me that doesn't find this disturbing, despite its effects. I'm always fond of just rolling a character and playing it, warts and all. I'm not a 'crafter' who builds his characters.... they're borne into the world with their assets, and I just try to see it they make the best use of them.

The 'bump' in nearly every system's population makes New Home even more irrelevent. The advantages of her single TL increase had been slight before, but now all her neighbors have populations in the 1<>9 billions, rather than just 1 billion, while she remains less than a billion. All New Home gets to do is sell herself.

To make matters worse, the increase in Esperanza's population makes her potentially unbeatable. She may have been the 800lb gorilla before, now she's a 1600lb gorilla and nearly outweighs the rest of the Cluster combined. If she had trouble making alliances before, she certainly has it now. I've reffed 4 post-DGP TCS games and in each the 'Middle Six' tried to stomp Esperanza first - no talking, no alliances, no nothing, try to take her down now and we'll (hopefully) deal with each other later.

Well, I'll concede the extra pop getting a bump is nasty.

OTOH, the game doesn't include a lot of real world offsets to these kind of issues. There are a lot of ways smaller nations can offset the power of larger ones through diplomacy, covert action, spin management, etc.

Anyway, I'll take as valid your criticisms of TCS + DGP as a balanced and interesting wargame. I think run with more Role Playing aspects (more freedom to do things TCS rules don't directly cover), then the smaller powers would have far more interesting choices.

Anyway, any feedback on my categorization efforts?

 

[kaladorn]

Tom,

A very good point, but (you knew there would be one!)

Mais, certainement, mon ami Larsen!

'unbalanced' combat strengths don't necessarily lead to diplomacy.

Look at AH's Diplomacy. Aside from Britain's extra fleet and Russia's extra army, all the powers there start with the same forces. They are forced to engage in diplomacy in order to accomplish anything.

Yes and no. As someone who has played several cuthroat games of Dip, and done (I thought) marvelously well at seeing off some opposition who should have seen me off, I'll say that's an incomplete comparison. Forces are the same, but liabilities are not. England has an island. Turkey has a map corner, as to a lesser extent does Russian. Austro-Hungary has enemies on ALL SIDES. The equal forces do not equate to a balanced starting position.

In TCS, the diplomacy card is rarely in Esperanza's hand. No one will ally with her because they will be the (very) junior partner. The other powers can, and usually do, ally against her. Diplomacy is something Esperanza has inflicted upon her and not something she normally gets to use.

In the real world, many people would cut a deal with the big power. Why? Better to be second fiddle on the winning side than dead. And you do have a credible threat because no matter how big Esperanza is, you can still cost her a lot. A lot that she could be spending elsehwere.

Esperanza is so big that diplomacy is not an option. While 'tiny' New Home, despite her TL advantage, finds that diplomacy is her only option. So the lack of balance among the forces means that 2 of the eight positions or really out of the diplomatic play from the start.

I took a joint first in Diplomacy (we agreed to a draw) when it was most likely I could have taken (if I'd been feckless) first - playing against very dangerous players - when I was AustroHungary, who often gets killed in the early or mid game.

The small guy often has many levers to pull (though he has to pull hard). The Big Guy often has a far worse problem, I will concede.

Oh, it *is* interesting! Unless you're Esperanza or New Home, with those powers you only have one course of action. For you, how the game is played is pretty much set.

Yes, but the real world is like that too. The countries are not balanced. The trick (like duplicate bridge) isn't so much getting the best hand (although that can be okay) as it is in how you play the hand you are dealt...

Any game that isn't artifically constructed will tend towards some imbalance. Also, any well-written game will provide mechanisms to offset such imbalances, but balancing everyone is the cheapest and cheesiest way to do this IMO.

On a more philosophical level, any two times I play a game with set inputs, I expect to have a reasonable chance of similar outcomes. So if I play with the same pop/tech distribution each time, I'd expect some issues with similar results.

OTOH, I'd agree one TL isn't a huge advantage... two TL might be good enough. Or not...

While nifty and more realistic, DGP's population multipliers simply put more worlds into the 'No-Diplomacy' and 'Only-Diplomacy' groups, thus limiting play options even more. One world which originally had 'clones' for neighbors finds herself with neighbors 3 to 4 times her size with fleets to match. (She 'keeps' her old size of one billion, they get 3 or 4 billion.)

I guess it is the simulationist in me that doesn't find this disturbing, despite its effects. I'm always fond of just rolling a character and playing it, warts and all. I'm not a 'crafter' who builds his characters.... they're borne into the world with their assets, and I just try to see it they make the best use of them.

The 'bump' in nearly every system's population makes New Home even more irrelevent. The advantages of her single TL increase had been slight before, but now all her neighbors have populations in the 1<>9 billions, rather than just 1 billion, while she remains less than a billion. All New Home gets to do is sell herself.

To make matters worse, the increase in Esperanza's population makes her potentially unbeatable. She may have been the 800lb gorilla before, now she's a 1600lb gorilla and nearly outweighs the rest of the Cluster combined. If she had trouble making alliances before, she certainly has it now. I've reffed 4 post-DGP TCS games and in each the 'Middle Six' tried to stomp Esperanza first - no talking, no alliances, no nothing, try to take her down now and we'll (hopefully) deal with each other later.

Well, I'll concede the extra pop getting a bump is nasty.

OTOH, the game doesn't include a lot of real world offsets to these kind of issues. There are a lot of ways smaller nations can offset the power of larger ones through diplomacy, covert action, spin management, etc.

Anyway, I'll take as valid your criticisms of TCS + DGP as a balanced and interesting wargame. I think run with more Role Playing aspects (more freedom to do things TCS rules don't directly cover), then the smaller powers would have far more interesting choices.

Anyway, any feedback on my categorization efforts?

 

[alanb]

A possibility I've considered in TCS is to make Colchis an ally of New Home. While Colchisian(?) ships are TL 9 junk heaps, they add a little bit of extra mass that New Home needs.

I'm not quite sure what atrocities could result from fitting TL D computers to these clunkers...

Alan B

 

[alanb]

A possibility I've considered in TCS is to make Colchis an ally of New Home. While Colchisian(?) ships are TL 9 junk heaps, they add a little bit of extra mass that New Home needs.

I'm not quite sure what atrocities could result from fitting TL D computers to these clunkers...

Alan B

 

[Whipsnade]

kaladorn wrote:

"I guess it is the simulationist in me that doesn't find this disturbing, despite its effects. I'm always fond of just rolling a character and playing it, warts and all. I'm not a 'crafter' who builds his characters.... they're borne into the world with their assets, and I just try to see it they make the best use of them."


Tom,

Oh, yes, yes, yes! A thousand times yes! It's so much more fun that way! Sure, rolled chargens do give you charecters with odd skill sets for their supposed careers, but so does life.

"I'll take as valid your criticisms of TCS + DGP as a balanced and interesting wargame. I think run with more Role Playing aspects (more freedom to do things TCS rules don't directly cover), then the smaller powers would have far more interesting choices."

I should also point out that part of the reason TCS is 'unbalanced' is because of the bare bones nature of the wargame. All it really contains is a map, some tax rules, some construction rules, some refueling rules, and a few communication rules. Victory conditions are just as sparse; win and survive, lose and die. Period.

Now, if there had been been various victory conditions, a place for espionage, a place for 'forced' diplomacy, etc., etc., than the game would not be 'unbalanced' because there would be more ways to win.

A good GM could add all that stuff and most of it does make for excellent RPG scenarios. The longest Traveller campaign I ever ran was set in the Islands during a run up to a war, the PCs got involved in all sorts of stuff, and I'm definitely not a good GM!


Sincerely,
Larsen

 

[Whipsnade]

kaladorn wrote:

"I guess it is the simulationist in me that doesn't find this disturbing, despite its effects. I'm always fond of just rolling a character and playing it, warts and all. I'm not a 'crafter' who builds his characters.... they're borne into the world with their assets, and I just try to see it they make the best use of them."


Tom,

Oh, yes, yes, yes! A thousand times yes! It's so much more fun that way! Sure, rolled chargens do give you charecters with odd skill sets for their supposed careers, but so does life.

"I'll take as valid your criticisms of TCS + DGP as a balanced and interesting wargame. I think run with more Role Playing aspects (more freedom to do things TCS rules don't directly cover), then the smaller powers would have far more interesting choices."

I should also point out that part of the reason TCS is 'unbalanced' is because of the bare bones nature of the wargame. All it really contains is a map, some tax rules, some construction rules, some refueling rules, and a few communication rules. Victory conditions are just as sparse; win and survive, lose and die. Period.

Now, if there had been been various victory conditions, a place for espionage, a place for 'forced' diplomacy, etc., etc., than the game would not be 'unbalanced' because there would be more ways to win.

A good GM could add all that stuff and most of it does make for excellent RPG scenarios. The longest Traveller campaign I ever ran was set in the Islands during a run up to a war, the PCs got involved in all sorts of stuff, and I'm definitely not a good GM!


Sincerely,
Larsen

 

[Whipsnade]

Tom,

Okay, I've had time to look over your rating system again and have nothing but PRAISE for it.

I'm an old poop, you see. I find it easier to read and edit on paper, screens distract me somehow. I also like to read a document, set it aside for a time, and then read it again. That gives me a better chance to catch things, or so I think!

The idea of 5 levels inside each rating catagory; 10 can be too much, is inspired. In this manner your rating catagory states a question which the level then answers in one of five ways; strong yes, maybe yes, neutral, maybe no, and strong no. Most testing that deals with subjective choices presents the testee with the same five choices.

There is one very, very minor nit and it has to do with word choices. As an old poop, I like using 'simpler' or 'smaller' words. What would you think of using terms other than 'generational' or 'temporal' or 'spacial'? Instead of 'generational', 'version' perhaps? Maybe 'time' and 'locale' too? As I said, this is an extremely minor, even silly, nit.

My thought on your rating system is this; PERFECT, now run with it!


Sincerely,
Larsen

P.S. Oops, forgot the format catagory. It is good too; a short, 1-4 word, description - neat, simple, easily understood.

 

[Whipsnade]

Tom,

Okay, I've had time to look over your rating system again and have nothing but PRAISE for it.

I'm an old poop, you see. I find it easier to read and edit on paper, screens distract me somehow. I also like to read a document, set it aside for a time, and then read it again. That gives me a better chance to catch things, or so I think!

The idea of 5 levels inside each rating catagory; 10 can be too much, is inspired. In this manner your rating catagory states a question which the level then answers in one of five ways; strong yes, maybe yes, neutral, maybe no, and strong no. Most testing that deals with subjective choices presents the testee with the same five choices.

There is one very, very minor nit and it has to do with word choices. As an old poop, I like using 'simpler' or 'smaller' words. What would you think of using terms other than 'generational' or 'temporal' or 'spacial'? Instead of 'generational', 'version' perhaps? Maybe 'time' and 'locale' too? As I said, this is an extremely minor, even silly, nit.

My thought on your rating system is this; PERFECT, now run with it!


Sincerely,
Larsen

P.S. Oops, forgot the format catagory. It is good too; a short, 1-4 word, description - neat, simple, easily understood.

 

[jchurchill]

A few quick observations about Diplomacy and to a lesser extent TCS as I never actually played TCS so much as used the rules to build pocket empires...

True, "Diplomacy" has closely balanced forces but that is an unrealistic picture of the real situation in 1901-1914 as I think all of us agree. But liberties were taken to create a game where Austro_H and the Ottomans would not get clobbered all the time every time.....


Esperanza is clearly the gorilla but an alliance against her would be more in the nature I would think of an alliance against France in the War of Spanish Succession or even the Napoleoanic period. Predictable but necessary probably. All the other powers would have to gang up to keep the Esperanzan menace at bay.

 

[jchurchill]

A few quick observations about Diplomacy and to a lesser extent TCS as I never actually played TCS so much as used the rules to build pocket empires...

True, "Diplomacy" has closely balanced forces but that is an unrealistic picture of the real situation in 1901-1914 as I think all of us agree. But liberties were taken to create a game where Austro_H and the Ottomans would not get clobbered all the time every time.....


Esperanza is clearly the gorilla but an alliance against her would be more in the nature I would think of an alliance against France in the War of Spanish Succession or even the Napoleoanic period. Predictable but necessary probably. All the other powers would have to gang up to keep the Esperanzan menace at bay.