|
Post by Redeye on Jan 25, 2009 10:46:50 GMT -8
Hey guys, in order to put a bit more structure/outcome to our events, I was wondering if you would consider some of the ideas I had when I tried to get a WW2 airsoft group together last year. Basically, instead of just running around shooting blanks and looking cool doing it, there was an actual structure and purpose to the skirmish with a victory/defeat outcome based on troop losses and objectives lost or gained. What was gained or lost on one battle had affects on the next, etc. I put these ideas on a website I created. Below are the links if you'd like to peruse and see what you think. (Disregard the references to airsoft insert "reenacting") There are also links within these selections that will help explain things: Campaign/Skirmish Structure: home.comcast.net/~overlordhq/Campaign%20Skirmish%20Structure.htmForce Classification Affects: home.comcast.net/~overlordhq/Force%20Class.htmSkirmish Outcome/Winning: home.comcast.net/~overlordhq/Winning.htmIt may add a new element to the event. Read stuff over and see what you think.
|
|
nolareenactor
member
And at this range, I'm a real Frederick Zoller
Posts: 208
|
Post by nolareenactor on Jan 25, 2009 14:55:00 GMT -8
I like it. I liked when the two US medics were taken, though we were slaughtered, it was like capture the flag.
|
|
|
Post by Klaus Schüßler on Jan 25, 2009 15:46:58 GMT -8
This would be great, but we are very short on players, and don't have enough people to have admins. Last event was what 6 vs 5. We can certainly get together though and come up with some plans on creating a story.
I really like the idea of having different skilled troops too but we will have to implement it without admins. I think it would be better called moral instead. Skill is usually obvious from each players ability already, the vets usually stayed alive longer. Perhaps more realistic, especially for our late war theme, is to have each person be a different moral. We can have the guys draw cards randomly and it would inform them what level of moral they should try and play at. Fanatic fights to the death and trys to make sure the others do too. Confident fights hard but if casualties are too high they might pull out. Reluctant means that if someone doesn't keep them moving forward, or after light casualties they may try and surrender.
|
|
|
Post by Redeye on Jan 25, 2009 18:07:42 GMT -8
We should have a dinner/meeting some time and maybe hash some of this out. I knew from the get-go that things would have to be modified.
Agreed about the admins or referrees or whatever we'd call them. That's sort of why I thought of the flip counters at the respawn/HQ points. It takes someone's (admins) judgement out of the equation and makes it the responsibility of the guy in the field to record their casualty. The flip counter concept would also turn our 5 vs 6 encounter into a company strength event, eh?
Hopefully we can get feedback from everyone.
|
|
|
Post by Klaus Schüßler on Jan 25, 2009 22:25:36 GMT -8
repeatedly dieingand coming back into the attack is very tiresome, perhaps a platoon action instead The respawn rules we use now require a commander. All men must wait at the respawn point until a comander takes them over. Plus it requires a minimum number of people to do. That way it simulates units going back into the fight and not random men. Klaus
|
|
|
Post by mrsparkle on Jan 26, 2009 11:30:36 GMT -8
repeatedly dieingand coming back into the attack is very tiresome, perhaps a platoon action instead The respawn rules we use now require a commander. All men must wait at the respawn point until a comander takes them over. Plus it requires a minimum number of people to do. That way it simulates units going back into the fight and not random men. Klaus Those rules work pretty well and should be ok with a small number of people. The simpler systems seem to work much better, since even those get screwed up often enough. Except we would probably have to respawn each side as a whole due to the small teams.
|
|
|
Post by Redeye on Jan 26, 2009 17:28:02 GMT -8
repeatedly dieingand coming back into the attack is very tiresome, perhaps a platoon action instead The respawn rules we use now require a commander. All men must wait at the respawn point until a comander takes them over. Plus it requires a minimum number of people to do. That way it simulates units going back into the fight and not random men. Klaus Well yeah, numbers can be worked with quite easily. What I was looking at is there is a way to conduct company size battles if we wish, even with a few guys, and would simulate a real grinding action too.
|
|