> On Mon, 9 Jun 1997, Chris McCurry wrote:
I
> like the dirt side and star grunt books mainly for ideas but the
I have found that they speed a large game up rather than slow it down.
With many units on the table, the fewer looks at documentation one has to make
the better. DS flows very quickly. The rules make sense and I have managed to
convert a number of folks at my local gaming store. By having
unit/commander grade, damage, morale level and other info all out there,
its very easy to see. I can't think of how many times I forgot to move a
unit in Space Marie/Epic. The turned over marker in DS helps prevent
that.
> On Mon, 9 Jun 1997, Ryan Montieth Gill wrote:
> By having
Um... since SM uses order markers, I tended to use them to remember which
units I've moved... E40K is a bit worse, though :/
Later,
> At 07:21 PM 6/9/97 -0400, Ryan Montieth Gill wrote:
> I have found that they speed a large game up rather than slow it down.
I agree that chits on the table speed up a large game but drawing damage chits
slows things down. I like dice for the damage aspects and the chits to record
results...
As far a remembering to move units: I believe that as a tactician it is the
responsiblity of the commander to remember which unit he has moved. If
a commander forgets to move a piece then that piece must not be important.
(My group likes realistic-ness the more believeble the future the better
the game). it is possible to get caught up in battle and forget to give orders
to units. In this case that unit would follow instincts. (i.e. take cover,
return fire, dig in, ect.) The new Epic 40,000 does a good job at showing
this.
In gaming it depends on the type of gaming that the players are into. If the
players want to play a believeble future then thats how it should
be...
if you don't want to forget pieces use chits. The people at GZG did a good job
at a generic science fiction game.
CMC
> At 07:21 PM 6/9/97 -0400, Ryan Montieth Gill wrote:
I don't have a problem with chits in the game. If you dont like them on the
table, make a chart to lay on the side and number your squads on the chart.
You then lay the chits on the chart instead of the table. It certainly speeds
up the game to have all the info on the table next to the squad and it sure
beats having to record the info on a sheet and then erase and change it
everytime the units status changes.
> As far a remembering to move units: I believe that as a tactician it is
If a
> commander forgets to move a piece then that piece must not be
If
> the players want to play a believeble future then thats how it should
I think the point was missed here. The chips arent used to record who has
moved and who has not. They are there for informationl purposes. As for
"believable", how is forgetting to move a unit more realistic? Even if you
didn't give orders, it would be highly unlikely that soldiers wouldn't take
the inititave and do something on their own. I can see it now..."Hey Sarge!
Those guys are moving across the open while the ones behind them are shooting
at us! Sarge:"Well, we can't shoot back and we can't pull back, the @#$@#
commander forgot to tell me what to do?!?!" As you can see, it's plain silly
to say a unit won't do something because they weren't told what to do. It is
MORE realistic to not "forget" a move then to forget one. I hate to do
this...but I can't see where GW could do a good job at anything...sorry
guys...I won't say anything more, but I didn't bring up their products.
BTW..you're right..GZG did do a good job.
As for "believable", how is forgetting to move a unit more realistic? Even if
you didn't give orders, it would be highly unlikely that soldiers wouldn't
take the inititave and do something on their own. I can see it now..."Hey
Sarge! Those guys are moving across the open while the ones behind them are
shooting at us! Sarge:"Well, we can't shoot back and we can't pull back, the
@#$@# commander forgot to tell me what to do?!?!" As you can see, it's plain
silly to say a unit won't do something because they weren't told what to do.
If you recall: "it is possible to get caught up in battle and forget to give
orders to units. In this case that unit would follow instincts. (i.e. take
cover, return fire, dig in, ect.) The new Epic 40,000 does a good job at
showing this.
Ordering troops is a big part to warfare. In real life do you see a General
forget to give orders? No because they are trained. A General who forgot to
give orders would not be a General for very long. In some games giving orders
takes time. And, at times a commander may choose to not give orders because it
would expend his ordering ablility (<a good example of this is DBM> dice are
roled for "order points" which are then distributed among available units, of
course inportant units get first dibs... at times unimportant units will not
get orders at all, in such cases they rely on instinct) Instints which was
stated originally.
This place is great... fun to chat and get some ideas. keep them coming CMC
> On Tue, 10 Jun 1997, Chris McCurry wrote:
Ahh but what of the Fog of War. Urquart was a very good commander but there
was a several day delay in communicating with XXX corps which was just 25
miles down a road. Communications break down, TOCs, have to move...heck, and
air burst of artillery fragments could have shredded the antenna on the
platoon commander's tank. It does happen in real life.
In game terms forgetting to give a unit new orders or to move them can be a
problem. Paying close attention helps, but in Epic the long turns between one
player and anothers move could be really tiresome. Getting cought up in
waiting for the close combat phase could force one to forget to move a
unit...Doh. Dirtside is much more playable in that respect. (not to mention
many others...)