Any kickstart on TFT horizon?

[hcobb]

Note how the system doesn't worry about critical success or failure when scores of rats attack.

[Skarg]

Originally Posted by JLV

From my little experience of other systems' mass combat versions (I rarely see them in action because most of the campaigns I've played in were at the micro level, not the macro), it seems like they generally use that abstract resolution mechanic way of solving the problem.

But given TFT's roots in a tactical combat game, it seems to me that it would be a perfect vehicle for a really clever and fun "mass combat" game (call it "grand tactical" if you like) as a stand-alone item that might even sell well on its own in the wargaming community!

I've played out TFT battles with hundreds of figures before, each one having their own stats and equipment. I don't necessarily recommend it be done often, and it won't work for even larger battles unless someone makes a computer game for it, but it can be done.

We used adapted wargame rules to resolve large battles in our TFT campaigns. I used an adaptation of Avalon Hill's Alesia game, and another GM used adaptations of Metagaming wargames. I used Metagaming's Rampseed and Avalon HIll's Wooden Ships & Iron Men for naval combats.

I'd be very interested in a well-done hex-based tactical combat system for TFT and/or GURPS. Abstract mapless mass combat systems tend to disappoint me, and tend to seem like too much abstraction, not enough interestingness, and too much work for what you get. As a detail-oriented wargamer, student of medieval military history, TFT/GURPS tactical combat player, and expert in applying "GM discretion", if I just want a fudgey abstract resolution, I can fudge my own mapless descriptions and outcomes without needing a system if that's what I want.

[JLV]

Yeah, I used Ramspeed for naval combat as well -- and I always thought that the units of marines and archers depicted there could translate well to small groups of TFT soldiers (assuming they are drawn from central casting and don't include unique or special individuals), so that is something worth looking into, I think. I don't remember offhand who the designer of Ramspeed was, but I wonder if he's still gaming and would be available to consult with SJG on a re-design of a Ramspeed-like pocket game for TFT...

[larsdangly]

Originally Posted by Skarg

I've played out TFT battles with hundreds of figures before, each one having their own stats and equipment. I don't necessarily recommend it be done often, and it won't work for even larger battles unless someone makes a computer game for it, but it can be done.

We used adapted wargame rules to resolve large battles in our TFT campaigns. I used an adaptation of Avalon Hill's Alesia game, and another GM used adaptations of Metagaming wargames. I used Metagaming's Rampseed and Avalon HIll's Wooden Ships & Iron Men for naval combats.

I'd be very interested in a well-done hex-based tactical combat system for TFT and/or GURPS. Abstract mapless mass combat systems tend to disappoint me, and tend to seem like too much abstraction, not enough interestingness, and too much work for what you get. As a detail-oriented wargamer, student of medieval military history, TFT/GURPS tactical combat player, and expert in applying "GM discretion", if I just want a fudgey abstract resolution, I can fudge my own mapless descriptions and outcomes without needing a system if that's what I want.

I don't understand; so are you saying you resolved battles with hundreds of combatants using TFT rules, or that you resolved such battles using other rules, and the situation happens to have been related to your TFT campaign? It is really hard to imagine someone playing out a a fight among several hundred combatants using real TFT rules. For starters, how would you manage all the book keeping?

[Skarg]

Originally Posted by JLV

I don't remember offhand who the designer of Ramspeed was, but I wonder if he's still gaming and would be available to consult with SJG on a re-design of a Ramspeed-like pocket game for TFT...

(Skarg grabs his Ram Speed rulebook from the stack of Microgame boosk...) Ram Speed was designed by Keith Gross.

[Skarg]

Originally Posted by larsdangly

I don't understand; so are you saying you resolved battles with hundreds of combatants using TFT rules, or that you resolved such battles using other rules, and the situation happens to have been related to your TFT campaign? It is really hard to imagine someone playing out a a fight among several hundred combatants using real TFT rules. For starters, how would you manage all the book keeping?

Both.

Most big campaign battles were done with wargame rules, almost never involved PCs - they were mostly for fun and interest and to have a real game system's cause & effect and uncertainty determining what happened in the campaign world's wars. I my case I used counters tending to be about 100 men each.

I have also played out a few battles with 100-200 figures in both TFT and GURPS. I mention it not to suggest everyone do it, but to mention it can be done and has been done, even by 14-year-old GMs. ;-) (... who had three+ years of TFT experience and more years of wargame experience.)

I managed the book-keeping by putting squads on pieces of paper, several characters to a sheet, and giving most of them ID numbers that helped me keep track of where they probably were. e.g. Red A1 through A 10 are in A squad of the red army, and I drew their ID numbers on their counters in red ink. Yes, I also made hundreds of counters for these battles, with the aid of photocopiers, rubber cement and scissors.

There are even more efficient ways to do it, especially now with computers. You can pack quite a large number of character stats onto one sheet of paper if you make an organized table grid for them. The first edition GURPS Basic Set had a decent example of this for tracking PCs or NPC groups, called the GM Control Sheet - it lets you keep most stats visible without needing to look at players' sheets. For many TFT characters you could have practically everything on one line.

As for running the action, it helped to look at the situation and realize that except for long-range missile fire, most groups were concerned just with the people near them, so you could resolve action for figures who were near each other, and only some of them would actually be engaged or able to attack each turn due to all the distance, allies in the way, blocked LOS, confusion, etc.

That also means you don't need a massive table of everyone's adjDX, even though it is still very important that actions are interleaved and higher DX goes first versus people they are fighting. The main concession I made to sanity and playability was resolving all distant missile fire in a separate phase, IIRC after all close-range actions. e.g., I'd to the left flank, then the center, then the right flank, etc, and then everyone trying long-range shots. I think I had those being essentially simultaneous unless long-range shooters were being shot at by other long-range shooters, in which cast I'd do those in adjDX order.

Generally I would let players make a lot of the choices for the NPCs on their side of the battle, without showing them the NPC record sheets or letting them deliberate.

I thought it was pretty grand and cool and liked it for its own sake, but it was a lot of work and took quite a while to do, and I had some mixed feelings about doing it for some of them.

[philreed]

Note: This discussion has derailed and veered from the subject. For that reason, this is being closed.