I mentioned on the GQ Yahoo group that one thing about the way the Solomons Campaign has been done, it could be done without a referee - though obviously a lot of the "fog of war", particularly with respect to the Tactical Index, would be missing.So I'm sure part of the "recommended format" would be to have a referee.I'm wondering what the thoughts are on how much other information to give to the players - assuming they don't own it themselves. Obviously they need to know the rules on composition of missions/command decisions, and their effects on the Tactical Index.Should they be given all of the information on a monthly game turn (i.e. what the other side could get too), say for intel purposes? (My thoughts go either way on this one)Should they be given all of the monthly turns at the beginning, so they have some idea of what's "in the pipeline" to them? (I would lean toward only giving them the current turn - the "hints" that certain reinforcements won't be available again on help this)Should they be given the details on how the engagements will be resolved? (My thought would be no - the possible exception being Engagement X, so they have some idea of what the Tactical Index needs to be to have a successful Assault, and the ramifications of a failed Assault).Any other thoughts?
1 reply to this topic
Posted 25 July 2008 - 04:51 AM
For "fog of war," nothing beats playing a refereed scenario for the first time. I think your ideas are just about right. I probably would lean towards not giving them the other side's possible Intel results. I am running this game in about a week for a novice group, though I suspect that they all have bought the game and will have studied up on strategy and tactics by the time I have arrived. Hopefully I can present an AAR here.
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users