[madman]

The more I see you attempting to adapt other game systems to cover Traveller the more deviant they go from Traveller. I was a huge fan of Striker back in the day but revisiting it lately I am much less satisfied with the combat system (2D6 rolls for each trooper firing plus armour and penetration modifiers), the lack of friction (which I have only witnessed since getting back into gaming in the last couple years), the IGOUGO sequence of play, and most especially the nonsensical small arms (a legacy of various Traveller books with, I assume, a few designers putting their $0.02 in at various places).

When I got back into gaming one of my primary goals was to update and bring Striker into the 21st century (game design wise). I am far from the cleverest guy around so my quest has stalled and restarted a few times now. I have also looked to put Striker aside and find a new and generally accepted set of rules I could live with. No such luck yet. Everything I have seen and tried just came off as second rate at some point. While each game system brings much to the table all take some major aspect and simplify it into nonsense. To me it is an attitude of either “we don’t know enough about this aspect so let’s not research and dumb it down to our level of knowledge”, or “our players won’t know enough about… so let’s dumb it down”. The other thing is every group I have gamed with sees some other system as “the ideal” so no consensus.

Striker was intended to allow PCs to interact in a combat environment. Although you could design forces up to division size and weapons and vehicles as big as OGREs or fortifications like the Maginot line, forces on the table were rarely going to be bigger than a platoon or two. When you start to add in all the other aspects covered in Traveller or its supplements, expansions and adventures the limits were definitely off. Any interest in bringing Striker up to snuff?

If you want a prime example of why I think it is still far and away the best “starting point” just review the force design procedure. Start with a budget and pick a force quality level. Assign troop types based on that level. Then assign troops to positions (troopers, weapons crews, and especially NCOs and Officers) and you will see, in one aspect, the brilliance of the basic game.

[madman]

Getting back into gaming after 25 years out I am swamped by the many titles and systems for my periods of interest. After testing a few new takes on my favorite topics the old games seem so lacking now. For me it has become more of a find an opponent and what do they play and do that. Sometimes that means some holding of the nose but usually we can agree on either a system or mods to an existing set of rules that appeal or offend less.

[madman]

Not Connard Sage wrote:

Not Harpoon…

Reasons?

I had Harpoon 1e and 2e but never played. No opponents and not top of my interest level back in the day. I also have Warship Commander and the supplement Sea Command. I have as many notes in the margins of WC as there are rules. Not a finished set of rules IMHO.

I picked up copies of Harpoon 3e and 4e from the pirate sites since getting back in with the intention of doing Falklands. Still I need an opponent.

[madman]

Whirlwind

Somebody operating at my level of play. Now just move to Toronto!

JD’s games are awesome. In the early ’90s I, along with a cadre of others, were heavily into Air Superiority. JD’s WWII games came along just as I got out of games (for a couple decades) and the rest of the gang broke formation for computer games or parts unknown. If you are not on it JD has a support group for his WWII games. With the imminent release of the Russian front title there is quite a lot of activity. They arrange and play many games on line, which is not something I care for. BTW I converted AS to micro armour almost from the start. I replied to the thread on WWII micro aircraft with pics of some WWI and modern planes, all from back in the day, which showed my solution for a stand.

[madman]

I have tried it a couple times. There is a great modern gaming podcast, the sitrep podcast on youtube but I find myself too distracted by the conversation. I keep stopping and picking up a pen and paper, rewinding and making notes.

[madman]

One of the other considerations I have long been interested in is the size of the minimum viable unit. For low level units it may be as large as a platoon or even a company. Graduate up to WWII era it would be a squad with it’s support weapon inherent or split into a rifle section and a support weapon team (think lmg with 2 to 5 crew). At “present day” it would be Striker’s classic 4 man fire team and as your primary weapon gets to the PGMP and FGMP level I would consider an individual trooper an entire “unit” for game and basing purposes. Also by level I mean troop quality as well as weapon technology and training and command support, again basing my thinking on variations on Striker.

The end result would start to mimic the smallest units in commonly utilized period miniatures games from the past. I won’t address before WWI as I am not familiar with the rules. But I have seen RCW rules which use the platoon as the base unit type. WWII rules often utilize a squad or multi team squad breakdown. During the Soviet Afghan conflict four man fire teams became more the norm, especially for better trained and motivated troops. Finally as you start wielding weapons as discussed above a single figure/trooper is as powerful as an entire WWI era platoon. Of course to truly be able to utilize a force of such a make up they would have to be very high initiative troopers. Same as at lower tech levels breaking the squads into smaller teams, fire base and maneuver elements, would require higher quality troops not just better weapons.

[madman]

Andrew Rolph wrote:

Kiszczonka

The Vintage Aviator. My understanding is it is where Peter Jackson (of Middle Earth) parks his money. I also remember some monkey business there a year or two ago.

[madman]

I’ll bet he is a representative from the Nigerian Oil ministry as well. Double duty (or dipping).

[madman]

One of the big ticket items which stalled my efforts to update Striker was the classic Traveller small arms (including Mercenary). I intended on using, as a basis for going forth, real WWII and more modern unit organizations and equipment load outs. Traveller’s small arms, and crew served weapons, bear little semblance to any real world firearms. They are such a mish mash of calibers, weights, features and other characteristics that trying to making any sensible units gave me a sore head. In order to make it work meant throwing out and re-doing so much again it seemed like starting over from a clean sheet may have been less work and pain.

[madman]

Ah Striker. The love and bane of my gaming life. So good and so frustrating. Spent too many hours of lost youth designing equipment, forces, endless rules additions, etc.. I mean to go back and “update” it. My tastes and outlook on games have changed so much since then. Combat is a convoluted, too many layered mess of way too many rolls. But the design sequences and the organization and employment of your forces were sheer genius. The infantry weapons are a total mess of nonsense characteristics, mostly due to weights and very random choice of calibre, etc.. That was primarily because they are all based on the weapons thrown into Traveller at various times and by a myriad of authors.

If anyone is interested in developing it further please reply and we could start a thread here. I did on TMP but between the way topics disappear and my hurting head as I tried to plow forth I dropped it for some time. I have been getting more encouraging feedback from fellow gamers and finding none of the present systems scratch that particular itch the way I want so………

[madman]

Some excellent replies and follow ups. Please see the topic in the previous post immediately prior.

[madman]

Look great to me!

[madman]

Shaun are you my doppelganger? What year? For me it was ’74 or ’75!

[madman]

I don’t know why it isn’t letting me post here. Maybe too long? Here is a link to the same post on a different forum.

http://leadadventureforum.com/index.php?topic=112733.msg1410699#msg1410699

[madman]

This site is not allowing me to post a sum up new reply!

[madman]

For me Traveller and Star Wars happened at the same time. Yes I was gaming way back then. Although I read a lot of SF back in the day SW always was my idea of the Imperium. My longest Traveller campaign was running a spec ops team during a Quebec war of independence. Actually just before. Their mission was to intercept and diffuse incidents.

I was also in a long running Morrow Project campaign. If I had the players I would run one now but using Traveller’s (either classic or Mega) game system. TMP’s combat system makes Advanced Squad Leader blush. Or so it was for edition #1 back in the day.

[madman]

Tony Hughes wrote:

We have recently been gaming RCW with an old set of rules called Red Actions. Each unit type has a set of characteristics for Combat, Movement & Morale (4 separate values) and this looked to be horrendously complicated and we almost didn’t use them but, after a few games, we got used to it and it isn’t as cumbersome as it sounds. The rules in general are quite simple so that bit of complexity doesn’t actually wreck them.

Tony. Thank you for mentioning these rules. I have downloaded and read (once) the 2nd edition and they look great.

[madman]

1. I like to help others. It has always been my nature to give back to my hobbies when and where I can.
2. I need help. Since getting back into the hobby I am overwhelmed by choices and it is taking some time and effort to sort out where I want to go.
3. Inspiration. Many times the inspiration I see on line leads to feeling inadequate except almost everyone is willing to tell you how they did it. Attending the few local cons and seeing the results of real world gamers makes me realize I am not as bad as I think!
4. Conversations with the like minded. Perhaps also finding someone else local with similar interests.

My efforts are certainly nothing to post expecting to stroke MY ego!

[madman]

Big fan of Traveller as well. Back in the day I was more interested in it as a game system. I didn’t want to be “limited” by the existing Imperium. Littel did I realize anything goes depending on where you set your campaign.

Never got into the minis much. I did get some of the original Martian Metals and later the Citadel range (now sold by RAFM under different packaging and mixes) but never did much with them. As back then I was more into 6mm. Out of curiosity, since it has always been a major obsession, what about Striker?

[madman]

One of my favorite game systems is/was Striker, which was basically a mass combat system for Traveller RPG adventures. You were required to create your forces, and equipment, based on some reasonable organization rules. The results gave characteristics for game purposes. To me it was one of the great strengths of the rules, frankly probably better than the actual combat rules which used a quick and dirty system developed for character combat and tried to apply it to military situations.

You have four quality levels of troopers, recruit, regular, veteran and elites. Each has an inherent morale value, 4, 7, 10 and 13. They also have skill modifiers for various tasks but lets keep to combat so those would be 0, +1, +2 and +3 to a 2D6 to hit roll requiring a base of 8+ at effective weapon range for single shot weapons. There is a myriad of modifiers for automatic weapons, areas of fire and number of targets which can be attacked but for looking at troop quality lets stick with the morale values.

You “buy” your forces in one of four general grades, militia, conscript, long service and picked. Each of these gives a percentage of each troop type your forces will be composed of. At the lowest level, militia, you would only get a single elite trooper for every 100 troopers. At the highest level, picked, you have no recruits.

Now you generate units based on 4 man fire teams assigning your troopers as you see fit with certain restrictions. Each squad has an NCO who is part of one of the two to three teams or mounted separately. A platoon is composed of two to five squads and a command group. The platoon has an officer and may have a senior NCO, or one of the squad NCOs can perform that function. Each fire team has a morale value equal to the average of the troopers in it. This average morale is used to determine the initiative of the team. Values are low for teams of 5 or less average morale, high initiative is 11 or greater. No team which contains an NCO or officer may have low initiative. This sometimes leads to having the squad NCO be an individual or part of a two man team. For teams containing officers the officer’s morale determines the initiative.

This forces your hand to organize your forces in a reasonably balanced way. The team morale and especially their initiative has major consequences in game play. Individual troopers roll for attacks applying their personal quality modifiers.

Complex and to me very interesting. I enjoyed the pre game work developing troops based on different organizations and qualities for different forces. Revisiting the game I don’t care for the individual rolls for attacks but still feel the organization rules enjoyable.

[madman]

The pink foam is insulation foam (at least here on the left side of the pond). Usually sold as 2′ wide by 8′ long sheets of various thicknesses. Get thee to the DIY store with a sharp OLFA knife. Buy a sheet (or many) and cut them to fit in your motorized conveyance. When home make more and more careful cuts.

[madman]

John D Salt wrote:

Certainly in the modern period one needs to analyse “troop quality” into more than a single dimension. I would suggest that troop quality might include:

Leadership — so killing the leader removes the advantage

Determination — the ability to stick to the job, what is normally meant by “morale”

Cohesion — the ability to stick together as a group, and so presumably to stick to the job (or at least to defect en bloc)

Expertise — the ability to use weapons, tactics, or terrain to best advantage; battlecraft and fieldcraft

Energy — fitness, freshness, lack of fatigue, ability to put in effort Initiative — ability to improvise, and so resistance to the psychological shock of the unexpected Good leadership may compensate for poor initiative, and vice-versa.

Experience might typically lead to greater cohesion, expertise and initiative, against a loss of determination and energy. Selection would normally select for high determination and energy, perhaps for initiative. Training acts mainly to improve expertise, but also energy and cohesion. “Energy” in particular may be subject to considerable variation from time to time for the same troops, depending on how well fed and well rested they are.

Although I like the concept, unless all this is boiled down to one or two characteristics during game play, this would either be overwhelming to players or likely to drastically slow a game down. If, on the other hand, the effects and interplay of these characteristics are determined and applied before the actual game. The resultant game effects simmered down to one or two modifiers used during a game. Then post action they are retained between games and adjusted based on the results of various battles I would see them useful.

Initially when reading John’s post I felt one would also have to consider a few characteristics for your leaders as they will not be one dimensional either.

Intelligence- How likely to apply the correct tactics, or even know or remember them for the leader with a poor roll.

Imagination- How likely to pick or create new tactics as opposed to doing the same thing every battle.

Charisma- Who’s gonna follow ‘ol stinky?

Morale Fiber- Will so and so have to “confer with the Brigadier” every time his unit gets in the thick of it? Or will they have the self control not to order “no Prisoners” after seeing the effects of a nasty action when they should move on to their objective? Could also be prone to plunder as opposed to dealing honorably with the locals after a battle, or during.

Just more food for thought.

[madman]

Just found this thread. Lots of great work there. I immediately made the Nausicaa link as well. so cool. Somewhere there was a thread where someone had 3D printed the Tolmekian knights. Great looking but the characteristic mouth slits were too fine to print. Otherwise perfect. I wonder what else is out there.

As for an alternate for Dullcote I found a reference on some miniatures site to the following product: Windsor & Newton professional Matt Varnish. It is supposed to be very tolerant of weather conditions especially humidity. I have yet to try it myself but I did pick up a can from one of the higher end (read not big box store) art supply houses in our area. Price was OK too. Unfortunately it has been raining cats and dogs around here a lot of the time. Plus I am finally off my lazy behind when it comes to painting the lead mountain, WWII and Soviet-Afghan war era, and I am kinda loathe to stop as I think I will be done for many months if I do!

[madman]

Just Jack wrote:

Those are awesome! I’ve spent lots of time staring at those OO Polish troops (have some of the ‘green men’), they’re great sculpts, but I don’t have anything to do with them, and I hate when I buy troops I don’t need, just ‘cause they’re pretty V/R, Jack

 

Well if in your universe the Cubans threw off the oppressive yoke of Communism and embraced the oppressive yoke of Capitalism, then maybe their place wrt Soviet use of client state forces was taken by the Poles. Just like in our reality the Cubans were used as proxies in various African conflicts maybe in your reality use the Poles.

[madman]

Air Superiority and Air Strike.

[madman]

In addition to the above I think “random” events should be developments of existing events or possible outcomes of recent events.

For example letting the players know there has been three weeks of rain would give them an idea that fields could be muddy, rivers might be swollen and fords impassable (despite the maps) and bridges should be checked out before running heavy loads over them. Maybe that well hidden minefield you laid out last month is now all waterlogged meaning the mines have risen to the surface making them obvious or maybe they are so sodden as to be useless.

The forces on your flanks are seeing action so reinforcements could be diverted.

A good commander should be aware of his environment and be advised of this, not just sprung on them blindly. Noted some events can’t and shouldn’t be broadcast before the game but no more than one and highly unlikely except as part of an ongoing campaign. Then the effect and especially knowledge of the event can then be used by the affected player in possible future scenarios. For example that field of standing crops which burnt with a squad in it last week will not have grown back up in time to provide concealment for the opposing units during the next battle. But the last time THEY saw it is was a head high corn field and still a month from being harvested.

[madman]

Oh Dave. Those Curtiss Goshawks, especially in Navy colours. I want to quote Wolfman (from Top Gun), but this is a family site.

[madman]

The stands were from 30 years ago. These were my final generation, about #4. They allow the plane to be pointed at any attitude from straight up to straight down and rolled to any angle at the same time. The antennae were always only mean to impart the feeling of who is high(er) depending on the size of the game. We played Air Superiority at the end and you use both aircraft performance charts and flight data charts so no need to represent anything other than the position and orientation of the plane with the stands.

I recently became aware of a WWI game called “In Clouds of Glory” which uses a very innovative flight stand. However, it requires very light models like the 1/350 plastic kits or shapeways ones. Similar results but the models are “hung” from their noses instead of their tails as on mine. The altitude is represented by position along a vertical carbon rod so you have a much greater range which combines with the limitations of WWI planes to pretty much allow full altitude representation on one yard or meter long rods. I haven’t read into it far due to lack of suitably inspired opponents in my area (GTA).

https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/21706/clouds-glory

The round magnet/steel ball idea is novel but it still limits your potential positions so, for my level of detail fanaticism, it wouldn’t have sufficed but may have been an alternate jump off point. The scooter was from an earlier iteration which used long 4-40 set screws installed in the “burner cans” and locked to the stands with jam nuts. The adapter in the picture gives and idea of the earlier concept. The bent brass rod/wire is lighter and much simpler. The bend behind the plane is what you use to position the plane bank wise as just twisting on the fin/rudder caused damage to the mini, especially the much more scale GHQ and CinC modern planes I started with. There is a slight bend in the part of the wire which inserts into the tube. This keeps the plane from rolling or slipping out of the tube.

[madman]

Any feel for the infantry rules? I have been looking for a set of rules in which both infantry and armour are given the same respect. I really like the feel of Chain of Command but as I game in 6mm/1:285 that doesn’t work. I am leaning towards Conflict of Heroes but have yet to play the armour rules, which being an adaptation of the infantry rules, may or may not have a good feel to them.

Personally for anywhere but North Africa I prefer an infantry game with armour support. For NA it will be the opposite.

Stephen

[madman]

Mike wrote:

ha, reminds me of Kelly’s Heroes and the yacht!

I have only seen Kelly’s Heroes a couple times and don’t remember a boat. I do remember one in Hogan’s Heroes though!

[madman]

Thank you. They were all painted between 25 and 35 years ago. These are all hand painted. It does show but I am still proud of them. I think a few of the modern ones may have decals but very few if any. The decals were a pain mostly due to the size. The Alby is Voss’ is in it’s mid life markings. All my bipes have inter-plane struts, usually made from copper wire. The Fiats’ are warren truss. None of these are GHQ or CinC.

[madman]

I hope you don’t mind other’s input to your thread. Keeping up the WWII theme here is a couple of my Italians. I don’t know for sure the makes of most of my minis, especially the WWII types anymore. Could be H&R, Skytrex, Irregular, Croissant…? I do have GHQ and CinC and they are obvious.

Some WWI fun

And finally a scooter in “Nam

I have lots more, almost all modern.

[madman]

Here are some suitable trailers for 6mm

German Trailers

WWII US Trailers

And some potential campers (caravans?)

Bedford QLD & QLR

2-1/2 Ton GMC Workshop

Opel Blitz Variants

A little smaller

WC-54 Dodge Ambulance

And this one looks good for a long trip, maybe even to Beverly, Hills that is;

Mercedes G3a Van Body

I am sure other companies make similar but I had quick access and good pictures to the above.

[madman]

Can’t forget the Hanriot!

[madman]

My understanding is each troop (platoon) of Shermans in UK service had one firefly to 3 or 4 75 mm Shermans.

Here are a couple “reasonable” discussions on applicable tank tactics from “the site we shall not name”. I am not a devotee of the subject so cannot comment on the accuracy, or not, of the participants’ opinions. But mostly they sound reasonable and some are backed up by appropriate references.

http://theminiaturespage.com/boards/msg.mv?id=488125

http://theminiaturespage.com/boards/msg.mv?id=488239

 

[madman]

I have a few of the perfect six items, mostly the barricades and like the look of the fortified earth works for modern/sci fi.

[madman]

I want to apologize to Phil for completely taking over his excellent review thread of those air combat board games. I hope he is not too annoyed and is deriving some pleasure from Zippy and my back and forths. Please let us know if we are being trying and we will start a new thread. I can understand seeing “a reply” posted to YOUR thread and nowhere is there any discussion of your topic.

 

Stephen

[madman]

I guess the above is a cut and paste made by the guy with the site. I could have sworn the ones I gamed with had pictures as well. Maybe hopeful thinking.

[madman]

Also note the bottom strip on the left side above showing http://www.skirmishcampaigns.com having them. I did some searching but could find nothing there. Perhaps they were being made available as free too freely?

[madman]

Found it here.

http://wargameinsvergie.blogspot.com/search/label/CY6

Scroll down a bit it is from a older post. I searched his page using CY6 and this lot came up. Further down there is something similar but in B&W. I wonder if the rules have been updated or these charts are part of one of the scenario books/packs. If I remember correctly the ones we played with were similar. Maybe downloadable from some user group website?

[Author]

Posts