Title: TMC II Post mortem
Description: so ends another game
Pvt Vanguard - February 12, 2006 10:19 AM (GMT)
Many thanks to those who stuck it out, I was glad of the opportunity to run a game and I hope you enjoyed it along the way.
There was good work along the way and it was interesting to see the differences in how it played out. I'm not assigning marks for these games but my observations would be:
Everyone recognised the superhighway as a top objective, yet no-one left much force around to defend it. Although it didn't matter in the end here, reacting to the enemy may not always be the best thing. Otherwise, be careful when dividing your forces as in many cases losses were higher then they needed to be if you outnumbered the enemy. Especially important for attacking the strong defences of the laser site.
In any event, one way or another the enemy were neutralised and the key objectives remained in Imperial hands.
Keep an eye out for TMC III, this time a cooperative SRPG!
SilentPsycho - February 12, 2006 08:45 PM (GMT)
I've found this an enlightening experience in terms of actually playing an SRP (ok, this was a much smaller scale, but an SRP none-the-less). I hope I'll be able to take part in TMC III. Co-operative sounds interesting :)
Dark Chaplain - February 12, 2006 08:55 PM (GMT)
Thanks for running it vanguard :)
I too look forward to TMC3
Captain Lithonius - February 15, 2006 03:22 PM (GMT)
Good stuff Vanguard. Very good, I think the board needs more tactically based games, especially for newer players. There are only two things in hindsight I'd change:
- perhaps a more combative start may have been in order to grab the newer guys interest (more explosions!). I made the same error with the BFA game, I started it too slowly.
- swapped the choices around a bit to make them all about the same level of attractiveness. A lot of the initial picks looked exactly the same, and you'd be mad not to pick the heavy infantry if you were solely gunning for effectiveness.
What do you think?
Anyway, an entertaining read all up, its a damn shame I didn't have time to join in. I so would have picked the engineers, the mortar platoon and the trucks and seen if I could live through to the end! :)
I do have some more queries from a GM perspective regarding how you built the scenario, but I can PM those if you'd rather not lift the curtain too much for the second round of players?
SilentPsycho - February 21, 2006 04:25 PM (GMT)
A bit of a belated piece of criticism, maybe for future academic RPs, you could give individual evaluations? I know you didnt want to give specific marks or grades to each candidate, which I have no problem with, but I would've preferred to have been given specific observations for my actions. I'm a n00b when it comes to SRPs so I would've liked to be able to been told what I could improve. I am aware that a lot of your observations applied to me (such as lack of garrison for the highway), but sometimes it's nice to know what applies to me specifically. :)
Pvt Vanguard - March 3, 2006 10:21 AM (GMT)
Sorry for the slow reply here guys, been rather preoccupied with recent work and study up Oxford way.
Fair comments in hindsight. Not all the options were equal but the primary flaw of the HI was that they are slow without transport but perhaps that didn't balance as well as expected. The slow start was an error though, having the recruit company engage the cultists at RMB would've made a more action packed beginning.
Hmm... I guess some better feedback could have been useful. The main thing I would suggest for yourself is to not expect your foe to be idle. Your plans to attack back into Atbakta were fine but when the enemy drove out on top of your build-up forces it could've been a disaster. Basically don't let your forces become static, don't expect the enemy to either.