While considering new projects I realised that a suprising number of possibilities were unappealing, I'm probably just old, cynical and have rolled too many dice but here's my list of personal biasis and steriotypes:
WW2 Eastern Front - Tigers and T34s I think it boils down to finding both sides deeply unappealing, I just don't care who wins.
Napoleonics - Either British Line shooting French Columns OR French columns smashing through everyone else, colourful but boring.
Hundred Years War - English longbows shoot French knights - colourful but boring.
Civil Wars - Identical armies using identical tactics - lacks interesting variety - boring
Wars Of The Roses. - particularly bad example of a civil war, English longbows shoot English longbows - colourful but very boring.
World War 2 generally - always seem to become a 'nerd fest' of armour/gun arguments.
Post WW2 - Long range 'nerd fest'
Super/Veteran Units - Don't like 'em, they're always over powerful, appear in larger numbers than they should and often seem chosen just to make winning easier.
So what do you like?
Generally agree, barring what are technically civil wars between Japanese armies, and the ECW; ample internal variety in these for my taste.
I think you're left with Colonials and a few ancients.
You don't like similar armies, and you don't like differences. I think, for example that to discount WWII as a 'nerd fest' of armour/guns, is to discount some interesting campaigns. For example, much of the Pacific War wasn't tremendously mechanised; Crete is a fascinating infantry campaign and throughout most of Germany's army waddled round on foot. You just need to pick your scenario and keep the tankies away. I'm getting into the Eastern front in 1941. The T28 and T35 were many things, but not boring.
I like civil wars (especially the ACW). If you have two armies that are exactly the same, the confrontation becomes a battle between the generals. Strips away the ephemera and gets down to the better leader winning.
Agree about the Napoleonics. French beat everyone in Europe, think they're something special until a few red coats show them who's really the boss. :P For added fun, game the Peninsula and a significant Spanish element on the British side. It gets the sphincter quivering.
I agree about super units. I try and eschew them. (Having said that my 20mm Russian Napoleonics was the Guard Corps.)
QuoteSo what do you like?
To clarify, I don't like Eastern Front not because the campaigns might not be interesting but because I don't care for either the Germans or Russians, neither side has anything redeeming features as far as I can see.
What I like are conflicts where there is a radical difference between forces but where each has a chance of winning or conflicts where there are sufficient variations to make things interesting.
My all time favourites are late antiquity through to the third crusades not only very different armies but different civilisations. I dable in Ancient Bronze age. Great Italian Wars to the fall of Rome. World War 1 the speed and scope of development was amazing.
Danj/fsn
Never looked at the campaigns of 1813 and 1814 then?
Chad
Quote from: DanJ on 27 February 2014, 07:31:01 PM
To clarify, I don't like Eastern Front not because the campaigns might not be interesting but because I don't care for either the Germans or Russians, neither side has anything redeeming features as far as I can see.
...
My all time favourites are late antiquity through to the third crusades not only very different armies but different civilisations. I dable in Ancient Bronze age. Great Italian Wars to the fall of Rome. World War 1 the speed and scope of development was amazing.
I'm curious, what are the "redeeming features" of a Crusader army :-\
Quote from: DanJ on 27 February 2014, 07:31:01 PM
neither side has anything redeeming features as far as I can see.
I can see what you mean. The Eastern front can seem like massive fists battering at each other. The Italians facing Russian cavalry could be intriguing, and as I say the early war has interest. What about the Winter War?
Quote from: Chad on 27 February 2014, 07:39:24 PM
Never looked at the campaigns of 1813 and 1814 then?
Vittoria and the Toulouse? Course! :P
DanJ
You are missing out Try Burma 1942 -45
Mart
Quote from: DanJ on 27 February 2014, 07:31:01 PM
What I like are conflicts where there is a radical difference between forces ...
Vietnam war?
Quote from: DanJ on 27 February 2014, 07:31:01 PMbut where each has a chance of winning or conflicts where there are sufficient variations to make things interesting.
Oh...damn.... :-[
Try a bit of fantasy ;)
You can do whatever the hell you like then :)
Quote from: get2grips on 28 February 2014, 09:55:23 AM
Try a bit of fantasy ;)
You can do whatever the hell you like then :)
Nice call
Or how about VBCW?...you can make that as different as you would like it to be
Quote from: get2grips on 28 February 2014, 09:55:23 AM
Try a bit of fantasy ;)
You can do whatever the hell you like then :)
That's
exactly why when I die and go to Hell, my punishment will include compulsory fantasy gaming.
Fried eggs and octopus
Especially not together.
Jim
Quote from: get2grips on 28 February 2014, 09:55:23 AM
Try a bit of fantasy ;)
You can do whatever the hell you like then :)
Moving goals are very tricky to hit. No thanks!
OK, what I don't like:
Opps who pick up elements with no regard for the fragility of pikes, lances, or banners (and in Japanese armies, pikes and banners or lances and banners together); players who resign with a fit of sulks because you were also trying to win and didn't do what they wanted, or because the dice were unfriendly; players who play like idiots but win with good rolls (which is part of the game) but then lecture you as if they had taught Hannibal everything he knew; players who leave coffee cups on the table (come on, folks, it's all about spectacle; if we wanted real tactics, we'd play shogi or bridge); players who try to take over their partner's command as well, especially in scenario games.
And realising that my rabble of Arab levies are about to rout through my Janissaries fifty yards in front of the incoming Polish royal hussars, causing a very short battle.
Stuff I like:
Pretty much all Ancients and Dark Ages
The Angevins
100 Years War
Wars of the Roses
Early Tudors
The Great Italian Wars
The English Civil Wars
WAS
SYW
The Danube 1809
The Peninsular
The Mexican American War
The Franco-Austrian War 1859
The ACW
The Austro-Prussian War 1866
The FPW
WWI 1914/15 and 1918
The RCW
Stuff I don't like - simple - WWII and Modern
Quote from: DanJ on 27 February 2014, 07:31:01 PM
To clarify, I don't like Eastern Front not because the campaigns might not be interesting but because I don't care for either the Germans or Russians, neither side has anything redeeming features as far as I can see.
What I like are conflicts where there is a radical difference between forces but where each has a chance of winning or conflicts where there are sufficient variations to make things interesting.
My all time favourites are late antiquity through to the third crusades not only very different armies but different civilisations. I dable in Ancient Bronze age. Great Italian Wars to the fall of Rome. World War 1 the speed and scope of development was amazing.
I see where you are coming from, no Nazis for me either. Russians v Japanese early war, not a T34 in sight. Doesn't matter who wins or loses either. Italian Wars, oh yeah; WW! for me is Mesopotamia, ANZACs v Turks.
Quote from: Dour Puritan on 28 February 2014, 03:51:47 PM
Stuff I like:
Pretty much all Ancients and Dark Ages
The Angevins
100 Years War
Wars of the Roses
Early Tudors
The Great Italian Wars
The English Civil Wars
WAS
SYW
The Danube 1809
The Peninsular
The Mexican American War
The Franco-Austrian War 1859
The ACW
The Austro-Prussian War 1866
The FPW
WWI 1914/15 and 1918
The RCW
Stuff I don't like - simple - WWII and Modern
Words of wisdom. Learn from this man, all.
Stuff I like:
Pretty much any war fought before I was born or sufficiently in the future that I will no longer be around in the time in which they are set.
Fascinated by WW2 Eastern Front, particularly Stalingrad to Kursk which seems the pivotal part of the war and one in which weaponry and manpower were fairly evenly matched. So far, not interested in sideshows like the Western Desert but who knows Oddzial Osmy's 3mm stuff might persuade me.
Quote from: Ithoriel on 01 March 2014, 04:05:08 AM
So far, not interested in sideshows like the Western Desert but who knows Oddzial Osmy's 3mm stuff might persuade me.
It wouldn't have been a sideshow if Germany had cut the canal, denied ABC Alexandria and captured the Iraqi and Persian oilfields - we'd have been out of the Med except for Gib and many of the reasons for pushing on the eastern front would have dissipated with German access to the oil fields through friendly states in the south.
I am very interested in the wars of the perfidious Vichy French - Madagascar, Syria, Torch.
Sideshows all.
SS.
People who take it too seriously (including, at times past, myself).
People who insist on perfect forces, even when the documentary evidence is scant/black and white, especially many Flames of War players!
Massively over priced rules and figures.
People who criticise a paint job when they won't take/share advice themselves.
Players whose terrain is not thought through (remember the days of DBM, an opponent used to chalk his terrain in)!
People who cannot appreciate the beauty of the fez or the glory of wine gums.
Oh, and can we add the know-it-all who's never put brush to figure or written a rule, but tells you at interminable length what's wrong with your efforts?
Quote from: FierceKitty on 01 March 2014, 08:55:42 AM
Oh, and can we add the know-it-all who's never put brush to figure or written a rule, but tells you at interminable length what's wrong with your efforts?
unfortunately isn't that at times all of us when our personal little pet theory or project is questioned by some ignorant heathen, with . . .
evidence . . . :D
(I ignore the brush to figure bit - I know several jolly good chaps who earn far too much and outsource all painting :o)
Those I can take. Not the ones who've read - at best - some tiresome Featherstone item from the 70s.
So, to sum up;
a) personal preference of period is as wide as history itself, and
b) we all hate a smart arse, especially when he's right.
Have I missed anything important?
Quote from: Hertsblue on 01 March 2014, 09:55:59 AM
So, to sum up;
a) personal preference of period is as wide as history itself, and
b) we all hate a smart arse, especially when he's right.
Have I missed anything important?
Rudeness, mannerless people, lukewarm beer, German Pedanterie ( :P )...
Spiders and Visigoths.
I am always amazed that the general public fetishize chess. "Oh aren't they so clever!" 64 squares, 32 pieces, and no element of randomness.
Who was it who said that wargaming is "the chess of a thousand pieces"? To which I would add "of a thousand rulesets". I celebrate our diversity. I am fascinated by FK's Burmese, marvelled at the Mongol sculpts and say "you're kidding?" at snotlings. They hold no intrinsic interest for me, yet I find in them inspiration for my own causes, and hope that I may learn from them.
Once I have got through my current personal crisis, I intend to share some of my doings. Not because I think I'm any good - I have the evidence of the panting competition to convince me I'm not - but perhaps to encourage the majority like me, who are in it for the fun.
We need to have a "Sense-talker of the month award".
In what sense?
Read more Jane Austen.
Quote from: FierceKitty on 01 March 2014, 10:19:35 AM
Read more Jane Austen.
Who's providing the sensibility?
Regards
Edward
Quote from: FierceKitty on 01 March 2014, 10:17:41 AM
We need to have a "Sense-talker of the month award".
Seconded, I'm just a little surprised that FSN triggered this thought :o :)
Heyyyyy! Is that fair?
Oh yeah. it is.
Quote from: fsn on 01 March 2014, 09:47:11 PM
Heyyyyy! Is that fair?
Oh yeah. it is.
;D ;D ;D
Not sure I can do sensibility but I'm pretty good at insensibility, especially after a good Friday night out :)
Cor Blimey Guvnor!
I go away for a long week end after kicking off a thread and come back to fine nearly 3 pages of replies, TWO of wich seem to be on topic :o, is this a record?
The original post was a bit tongue in cheek. I've played most periods I listed as well as for many of the periods people very kindly suggested I try, especially Western Desert, and the 1814-15 campaign, it was a huge Waterloo game with magesticly complex rules which cured me of Napoleonics.
I can't realy get my head round fantasy or sci-fi, without the framework of history anything is possible so you have to learn the 'fluff' to get the context. Having said that I am partial to a bit of Victorian sci-fi and steampunk. :-[
But I should have added 28mm games with half a dozen units of 12 figures taking a flag for a walk and pretending to be an army and 28mm WW2 games with wall to wall tanks into my list of dislikes. There was a game at the club a few weeks ago played on a 6x4 table with at least 4 panthers and some half tracks and a 75mm A/T gun on one side faced off against half a dozen shermans, a couple of tank destroyers and a churchill crocodile!
I dislike rules in general since they usually prohibit me from winning anything!
The rules I really hate are the ones that work with ridiculous scales so that you either have to move one tank up base-to-base with your enemy to be able to hit anything at all, or the other way 'round; you just enter the table and get blown away by something on their end of the table. Okay; reading the rules for a change might solve some of these problems but being as lazy as I am that's probably never going to happen... :(
Cheers!
Rob
The list is long of things I dont like however...
As far as wars go...almost anything really although I do have a range of 'Yeah, I could get into that a bit (skirmish) / a lot (an army)' and there are periods that I don't really fancy at all. But saying that, I have never had a great interest in the ACW but that doesn't mean I will never get into it.
For some reason, I'm not overly interested in wargaming current conflicts, could be because it takes the gaming aspect out of the hobby and it becomes a bit too real.
I enjoy Fantasy and SF but apart from RPG or skirmish wouldn't really do either solo.
People who pontificate loudly and can be heard three tables away.
People who have large rucksacks that take up the space of a small family car at shows meaning you can't get close to have a look and when the ba**ards turn around said rucksack has the same hitting power as a blunt instrument.
Lack of personal hygiene of some people at shows.
People who only use the rules and have absolutely no background knowledge of the army they are using.
People who say 'They never wore that'. To which my reply is usually 'Were you there? No? So shut the feck up then.'
Grumpy Old Man?
Who, me? :) :)
MickS
Yep, lack of personal hygiene and the wearing of back packs, repels me from viewing most bring and buy stalls.
Although thanks to the backpack I am not a physical wreck at 61. And yes I do wash/shower every day. Having said that my pack is a 20L and i have seen some folk at shows with what must be 50L packs. Something that still rankles to this day - I was at a show a few years back which was very busy and stood on tip toe to see if I could see my brother in the crows. Immediately some big, artless oik with all the social skills of a warthog bellows at me, "If you would like me to move you only have to ask." Stupid twit! Been waiting years to get that off my chest. A/ feeling much better for that, B/ still not too keen on wargames shows.
Funny that some periods to my mind, lend themselves to different "sizes" of forces.
For example, I couldn't countenance a Zulu War skirmish, but could skirmish the Boer Wars. Napoleonics need to be brigade level at least, and ancients need a critical mass. I'm not a big fan of WWII at anything other than 1:1 scale, but WWI could be big or skirmish.
So, for the "stuff I don't like" it's organisation charts in rule books that give the approved scaling, not the real one. A tank is not a platoon/troop. A battalion is not 4 bases, it's 600 sweaty, scared, overburdened, hungry, confident, cold, tired, smelly men.
I hate cold chips........
Dammit woman you'll never get that painting finished if you keep popping in for a chat!
Wood chips, gravel chips, potato crisps Marie ?
IanS
regular potato......very expensive here....Bacon is 12.00 a packet....lol
Yeah but yer fags are cheap
yeah dirt cheap, but bronchial cough medicine (required during Hamatam) the dusty season is ten quid a bottle....
Its funny here cos a Samsung Galaxy 3 is only 165.00 now
S4 is 300.00
a block of butter is 6.00.....so the key here is to eat local fresh products or grow your own.
I can get a basket of mango`s (carrier bag full) for 1.00
The downside of course .... the roads are mainly dirt, European clothes are scarce....
But its getting much better here...investment is coming from Arabs, Chinese, USA, u.k.
and most visitors to my hotel love..me soldiers.... 8).......
oh by the way we killed the cobra today.....Yipppeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee ( new handbag) lol....
A celebrated UN survey once rated Bangkok the most expensive city in the world to live in; the point being that they were pricing articles required to live like an American. If you're willing to go the local route it's a) ridiculously cheap, and b) rather tastier.
Quote from: marie on 09 March 2014, 09:33:38 PM
yeah dirt cheap, but bronchial cough medicine (required during Hamatam) the dusty season is ten quid a bottle....
Its funny here cos a Samsung Galaxy 3 is only 165.00 now
S4 is 300.00
a block of butter is 6.00.....so the key here is to eat local fresh products or grow your own.
I can get a basket of mango`s (carrier bag full) for 1.00
The downside of course .... the roads are mainly dirt, European clothes are scarce....
But its getting much better here...investment is coming from Arabs, Chinese, USA, u.k.
and most visitors to my hotel love..me soldiers.... 8).......
oh by the way we killed the cobra today.....Yipppeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee ( new handbag) lol....
You don't eat cobras, do you? I know the 14th Army ate pythons in Burma. :-& :-& :-&
Quote from: Hertsblue on 10 March 2014, 08:35:18 AM
I know the 14th Army ate pythons in Burma. :-& :-& :-&
I suppose eating them still beats being eaten by them? :D
Cheers,
Rob
Quoteoh by the way we killed the cobra today.....Yipppeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee ( new handbag) lol....
turning a cobra into a handbag :o
..belt or purse maybe, 3 or 4 for a handbag surely.
I am confused as why your going around smashing up beer bottles
I hate Malaria, my second time this year completely wiped me out this time, no painting for a month....
decided, tonight was the night ,so I`m finishing off my 20mm Afghan wars troops and buildings....building my strength to tackle The Mongols...... 8)
Thought you'd been quite for a while. Hopefully last time for this year.
Me I hate delivery drivers, due a delivery yesterday, with a 13 hour delivery slot, turned up in the 20 mins I wuz out... AGH !!!!! >:( >:( :(
IanS
Isn't that called Sod's Law, Ian ?
Marie....Hope you're feeling better now.
Cheers - Phil
I'm one of those people who plays for fun, although I really enjoy learning about the historical aspect of an army, battle or period, I don't have to know everything about the subject to find pleasure in pushing toy soldiers around and simulating their acts using dice!
What I really hate though is confusing or convoluted rules! I'll be the first to admit that I neither have the patience, time or intelligence to learn loads of over the top rules!
Chain of Command is a recent example that had practically destroyed any of the love I had for ww2, sucking the joy out of playing a game. anything that takes 2 hours of moving little disks around to gain some kind of advantage while my lovingly painted troops sit in their box waiting to get on the table is a waste of my limited gaming time I'm afraid!
1) broken concord (vide supra)
2) tropical summer
Quote from: Ric on 27 May 2014, 07:07:57 AM
I'm one of those people who plays for fun, although I really enjoy learning about the historical aspect of an army, battle or period, I don't have to know everything about the subject to find pleasure in pushing toy soldiers around and simulating their acts using dice!
What I really hate though is confusing or convoluted rules! I'll be the first to admit that I neither have the patience, time or intelligence to learn loads of over the top rules!
Chain of Command is a recent example that had practically destroyed any of the love I had for ww2, sucking the joy out of playing a game. anything that takes 2 hours of moving little disks around to gain some kind of advantage while my lovingly painted troops sit in their box waiting to get on the table is a waste of my limited gaming time I'm afraid!
I've never played for anything else (no-one would ever pay me to do it) :'(.
The problem with ultra-simple rules is that, generally speaking, they give rise to unrealistic tactics and unhistorical results. That obviously doesn't bother the fantasy freaks - which is probably why they do it - but a game that rides roughshod over history isn't worth playing IMHO.
Quote from: Hertsblue on 27 May 2014, 08:43:04 AM
I've never played for anything else (no-one would ever pay me to do it) :'(.
The problem with ultra-simple rules is that, generally speaking, they give rise to unrealistic tactics and unhistorical results. That obviously doesn't bother the fantasy freaks - which is probably why they do it - but a game that rides roughshod over history isn't worth playing IMHO.
Yeah because in ww2 the allies and the Germans didn't shoot at each other until they'd spent an hour moving in to their deployment area before placing a big disk on the ground, then moving back a few feet because too fat lardies said so..
Im not wanting to sound disrespectful here so apologies if I do but, I don't follow what you mean by unhistorical results... IMHO It comes down the the fact that all games are fantasy, historical ones with big ass tanks and fantastical ones with big ass dragons. We determine the results of a real life conflict with dice in the hope of changing history.
I do agree that some rules are too simple for their own good, but I consider those ones fine for introducing someone to a genre or period, before introducing more advanced rules. A good example of this is back powder, then on to perhaps general de brigade.
In the end it's each to his own and it's how you play and not what you play that is important to me! I'd rather lose because I did a silly maneuver or had an unlucky sequence of rolls than be beaten by the rules!
If you were a woman, Hertsblue, you'd be Halle Berry.
Quote from: Ric on 27 May 2014, 07:07:57 AM
I'm one of those people who plays for fun, although I really enjoy learning about the historical aspect of an army, battle or period, I don't have to know everything about the subject to find pleasure in pushing toy soldiers around and simulating their acts using dice!
What I really hate though is confusing or convoluted rules! I'll be the first to admit that I neither have the patience, time or intelligence to learn loads of over the top rules!
Chain of Command is a recent example that had practically destroyed any of the love I had for ww2, sucking the joy out of playing a game. anything that takes 2 hours of moving little disks around to gain some kind of advantage while my lovingly painted troops sit in their box waiting to get on the table is a waste of my limited gaming time I'm afraid!
Ric if it takes you more than 10 - 15 minutes to do the initial recon your group and mine are doing something radically different in that phase of the game.
Jockeying for position is one of the aspects of the rules I really like and I do think that real units spent time sending patrols out to probe enemy positions before launching raids or full blown attacks. "Sarge, there's a couple of blokes over behind that hedge talking foreign"
Our CoC games are fast, furious and decisive.
While I agree that all of our games are to some extent fantasy some get closer to the real thing than others. Personally I prefer games that get the right result for the wrong reason rather than those that get the wrong result for the right reasons :)
My group has found CoC has re-interested us in WWII.
If the recce phase is taking more than a few minutes then you are doing something odd. It should be quick, and more importantly provides a way of starting games that is significantly different from line your troops up 12" from the edge of the table.
Don't confuse abstraction with un-historical.
Of course my '2 hours' comment was meant to add to the effect of how little I enjoy that phase of the game so apologies for that! Maybe it just feels that long to me... That being said I still don't like it, which is the aim of the thread if I'm not mistaken!
Absolutely no reason why you should enjoy it Ric, was just intrigued by an experience of the rules so extremely different to mine.
No problem ithoriel, some like pizza but hate cheese haha, I think it's because I like a bit of Hollywood in my ww2 games which is where Bolt Action is my game of choice in that period!
I've never played a TFL ruleset I liked.
Also, what does, 'the fantasy freaks' mean?
In my opinion if it takes more than five or ten minutes to explain the basic rules so you can start on game turn one your rule set is probably too complicated.
I've used vary many 'simple' (note, not simplistic) rules sets where Ive had an enjoyable game, used the correct tactics for whatever period I've been playing and got a historical result.
I often think overly long winded rules put people off even trying wargames.
For me, a good game is easy to learn but hard to master, involves enough skill that I win because I'm brilliant and enough luck that I lose because the dice were against me!
I sympathise with the above, but I feel drawn to defend at least some rule-writers. There are so many of the wrong sort of player who will persist in playing the loopholes or areas of loose interpretation that are a feature of simple rulesets that one is forced to write in ever-increasing detail to force them to handle their armies in a manner resembling that of real generals of the time. I ended up with about four pages of house rules for DBR before I gave up on the wretched set, and about half of them were necessitated by a player who won about half his victories by utterly absurd minutiae which no real general would ever be troubled with.
To take a simple example: in a perfect world nobody would charge across an enemy unit's front in a wargame, because real regiments a) wouldn't obey a suicidal order; b) would be cut to mincemeat seconds after attempting it. But since the are players of the sort sadly recorded in the above paragraph, you need a zone-of-control rule. And now you need to clarify whether it applies if the unit exercising the ZOC is immobile in square or a BUA, is in disorder, is about to break, is of a type not permitted to seek contact with the sort crossing their front, or has no melee arms, and whether it restricts troops crossing en route to engage another enemy, impetuous troops, troops with remarkably good discipline, religious fanatics who actively want to die, convicts for whom the alternative is a slower death for them and their families, troops led by a charismatic general....
Wargames try to effect a simple representation of a very complex phenomenon. We can expect to be less than perfectly successful.
Rule writers routinely attempt to quantify the un-quantifiable. What price bravery?
I enjoy writing rules, often it's easier than trying to start learning a new set from scratch, at least when you write your own you know what you're trying to achieve, the most interesting bit comes when you give your new rules to others to play and wahtch them fall apart under the rigours of combat as it were.
That's when you realise that a simple mechanic is worth far more than a thousand rules, so when you ask
QuoteWhat price bravery?
. One method might be to allow one or more chances for an impossible situation to occur, for instance in my WW1 rules there is an 'Heroic Action' Rule. Once per game (or more if agreed between the players) a player may elect to attempt an heroic action. The action must be discussed with the opponents and agreed that it is Heroic but possible, the sort of thing that wins VCs, like running across no-mans land and attacking a machine gun. The player attempting the action rolls a D6, on a 5 or 6 it works and the machine gun is taken out and a platoon stand is placed in the MGs position, on a 1-4 the brave fools were cut down by said MG and the platoon is removed from play. So in this situation the price of bravery is 5 or 6 on a D6, or if it's a very unlikley event then the players may decide it has only a 1 in 6 chance of succeeding.
Quote from: FierceKitty on 28 May 2014, 09:00:21 AM
To take a simple example: in a perfect world nobody would charge across an enemy unit's front in a wargame, because real regiments a) wouldn't obey a suicidal order; b) would be cut to mincemeat seconds after attempting it.
Except, in reality, units did, e.g. the Second Battalion and the Eighth Regiment. the South Carolinians at the Peach Orchard, Gettysburg. There are many other examples of units advancing with exposed flanks.
So why not allow wargamers to do so (and suffer the censequences)?
You're illustrating my point.
Stuff I don't like ?
Having a haircut......I feel quite light headed now....Well, it was about 5 inches below the collar.....and Mrs T was giving me grief about it.
At least I've been sheared at the right time of year this time.....
Cheers - Mr Chilly-Bonce ;) ;D
Would Mrs T knit it up for me......
IanS
QuoteExcept, in reality, units did, e.g. the Second Battalion and the Eighth Regiment. the South Carolinians at the Peach Orchard, Gettysburg. There are many other examples of units advancing with exposed flanks.
So why not allow wargamers to do so (and suffer the censequences)?
Then you've got to have rules which allow units to move out of sequence in the opposing player's turn, so when and how is it allowed? etc.etc.etc.
Quote from: Ithoriel on 28 May 2014, 08:55:27 AM
For me, a good game is easy to learn but hard to master, involves enough skill that I win because I'm brilliant and enough luck that I lose because the dice were against me!
Well said that man =D> ;D