General Striker Revisited?

[whartung]

Originally Posted by mega-striker

Well had a quick look at this Frank Chadwick revision and it is basically Mega Traveller large scale combat in a new wrapper. Again not where I want to go.

So I guess it's not clear to me where you want to go.

You want a coarser scale?

Platoon/Company level infantry? Troop level armor?

Most mini systems are "vehicle" scale (they're mini's for crying out loud -- folks like the MINI and model aspect of the games), and so infantry comes second and is scaled to fit with the vehicles.

Otherwise it's at an individual scale.

Squad Leader is, well, "squad" level, with leader, crews, and single vehicles.

Panzer Leader is company platoon level, and troops of vehicles (I think).

I though maybe you'd like to look at Heavy Gear, it has 10 man units, but it tracks unit damage down to the individual. It also doesn't have the command system of something like Striker II.

Striker II is mostly a Sci Fi version of Chadwicks WWII Command Decision game.

[kilemall]

Well, sounds to me more like you want a wargame unit scaled thing and not Striker at all, right?

[mike wightman]

Striker is a wargame...

[kilemall]

Originally Posted by mike wightman

Striker is a wargame...

Whole phrase was "wargame unit scaled", each counter/mark standing for fireteam/platoon on up.

[mega-striker]

Sorry, I thought I had defined my scale but I don't see it with a very quick look.

Each game unit is a fire team (as defined in Striker), weapon team, individual (leader, player character or "hero"). All vehicles and heavy weapons are singles. I see leaders as actually two or three person command stands. I also like the idea that members of a squad or section can be (temporarily) grouped together and act together as a single "unit" for movement and combat.

Another idea I have is based on a combination of troop quality and tech level the minimum unit size may range from platoon to fire team. This is based on my historical understanding where at the turn of the 20th century individual teams or squads did not act independently. At very high tech levels and/or high quality troops an acceptable fire team may be as few as two or even a single trooper. My thinking is a PGMP or FGMP is powerful enough by itself. I put this idea forth elsewhere and was informed that no fire team should be composed of fewer than 3 troopers as the need and benefits of mutual support would not allow for smaller teams.

[whartung]

Originally Posted by mega-striker

Each game unit is a fire team (as defined in Striker), weapon team, individual (leader, player character or "hero"). All vehicles and heavy weapons are singles. I see leaders as actually two or three person command stands. I also like the idea that members of a squad or section can be (temporarily) grouped together and act together as a single "unit" for movement and combat.

So, then, how does Striker II not fit the bill here?

[mega-striker]

Sorry for the delays. I have a long commute which means early to bed, early to rise and I have been very tired lately so avoided replying for fear of being incoherent or incorrect.

I have gone over Striker II quickly and for these purposes only looked at direct fire from a primarily infantry point of view. My bias and direction I want to pursue. I mention some places it diverges from original Striker and Classic Traveller.

Striker II uses D20. Not a bad thing in itself, I am just used to 2D6 for anything Traveller oriented. Frankly I started gaming with D20 as my first miniatures rules set was Tractics, which I loved back in the day. The other divergence is, again, more a matter of inherent system where SII you roll low to hit.

Step one is where you roll multiple dice for hits. Each successful roll gives a single hit as opposed to OS's "for every roll X over needed adds another hit" method. Frankly when I got back into gaming a few years back I was confronted by the use of the "buckets of dice" mechanic. When I got out of gaming in the early '90s I hadn't seen this as it was not used in the games I played, although it was just starting to be introduced from, I believe games coming from the UK. The reduction of dice thrown for conditions which in OS would introduce (seemingly endless) dice roll modifiers is not a bad approach.

This brings one of my (originally) biggest bug-a boos, saving throws against hits. Getting back into gaming I played a few games of Chain of Command which is where I first saw this mechanic. I thought I was playing D&D all over again. SAVING THROWS(?) against successful hits. Didn't matter what explanation was given it just seemed wrong to me. In order for me not to go screaming from the room I have taken it as more of a second die roll for fineness of results. So far from ideal I have found a way for ME to live with them. I do have an issue with the use of D6 for the "save" and D20 for the attack mind you. Why not one die type for all combat or at least direct combat?

This mechanic now sounds a lot like 2300's die roll modification in practice. Not exactly but the sense is there. Unless the first roll is low enough to matter the second die is not rolled. Not very far off his approach IMHO.

So to wrap up I am being very picky. I have a rather narrow approach I want to go in if I am going to make up my own rules. I am open to looking at existing rules so if you please I would appreciate any more suggestions if they are similar to what I have mentioned. It appears no one replying to this thread is of similar enough mind to me wrt where I am looking to go with rules where the base unit size is fire teams, weapons crews, individual vehicles, etc. for both miniatures basing AND single dice rolls. I still like OS but see it as more of a skirmish game. If anyone is interested my old updates and additional rules were all written for OS and for those of you still playing it I believe they would be of utility and interest. Very niggly detail oriented, but that was always the feel I got from OS. Let me know if I should post these somewhere, and where. Thank you all for your input, analysis and comments. They are truly appreciated even if they conflict with my desires. Thank you very much.

[whartung]

I dunno, sounds like Striker II to me. Perhaps you want to go through and rework the dice rolls, but I dunno about that.

Striker II is a version of Command Decision. Command Decision is "a set of miniatures rules which enables players to refight operational-level combined arms engagements during WWII".

So, that's not squad based skirmishes. The units may be individual, the at the action level, I think it's higher level. Mind, I have not played either.

Kibitzing the die rolls, I can't speak to that, it's never been something I cared about.

I appreciate the D20 as it's easier than the D100. But I appreciate its linear scale. A +1 on a D20 has the same affect on the outcome no matter what (5% one way or the other), unlike 2D6. And for something physically based like shells smacking in to armor, I find percentages better.

An interesting note about Command Decision is that the turns are 30 minutes at scale, and from that they make the assertion that the came plays almost in "real time", since that actual turns, depending on complexity naturally, may take 30m to pull off. So, 3 hours of gameplay may well be 3 hours of combat. That's interesting, at least to me.

[mega-striker]

Whartung

I agree it looks pretty good (and a lot different than I thought originally) and I will give it a better go over. As I said I started with D20 and have no aversion to it. Mixing D20 and D6 in a single combat results seems sloppy to me. Time scale is 5 mins per turn which has a good feel to it wrt the rest of the game scale.