> On 7/19/99 7:26 AM, Ground Zero Games wrote:
I ran a few test games of the FMA skirmish rules this weekend, and I let the
players use this system for combat moves (I lifted it from StarGrunt),
but none of them really wanted to -- the general consensus was that it
seemed a little silly to randomize the movement distance for your figures, and
that the "combat move" must be, "... one of those British wargame rules that
doesn't always make sense, like WRG rules." In short, it felt more
"game-y" than realistic, and the players ignored it.
> Interested in others' opinions on [suppression] - originally we had no
The interesting thing about the suppression mechanism is that it makes the
initiative die roll more important than it is in other games. The player who
gains initiative is more likely to shoot first, and the player who shoots
first is more likely to suppress their opponent.
> In a message dated 7/19/99 9:02:44 AM EST, rick@esr.com writes:
<< at moves (I lifted it from StarGrunt),
but none of them really wanted to -- the general consensus was that it
seemed a little silly to randomize the movement distance for your figures, and
that the "combat move" must be, >>
I makes GOOD sense to randomize movement in skirmish games because they are
NOT fighting on a roller rink floor. You don't know the ground til you try to
move on it. And that short dash is a lot longer when trip over a tent peg or
twist an ankle in an unseen hole. Think about it! Go run around in the bush
for a whiloe without looking at the ground as you dart and dash. It's an
education.
> On 7/19/99 7:26 AM, Ground Zero Games wrote:
I agree, this doesn't make sense in a skimish game. In SGII, it makes perfect
sense. The orders you are giving are for a whole sqaud not just a single guy.
It's very easy for the squad to misunderstand the order or the location to
move to, and they can very easily get bogged down or stopped long before the
objective the "squad leader" had in mind...
Sgt: "Let's make a run for that tree over there...." (squad starts to
run...and half of them start moving in another direction) (they come to a
halt) Pvt: "Which tree Sarge?"
In a skimish game, I don't think a single model will mistake the position of
"where" it wants to move.....
Therefore, for simplicity sake, I think models that "combat move" should just
make a movement up to 2 times their base move.
This is used to enter close combat, I assume, and would use two actions AND it
would allow a model to sprint across the table.
Should there be some sort of firepower modification if a model uses it's
first action to "sprint/combat move"?
In message <77A9843EE93CD211BE1900A0C904B5A811D89B@exchange.esr.com>, "Rick
Rut
> herford" writes:
Oh, I like the combat move, but as a 2dX roll, rather than dX x 2. On average,
you will move slightly more than a normal move; over all,
your movement is bell-shaped, so you will tend to move around your
normal rate mostly, but there's always the chance for the "fumble" or the
sprint...
Maybe combat move is half half normal distance plus move die? It's
occasionally shorter, occasiuonally longer, generally a little longer than
base movement.
> In a message dated 7/19/99 9:31:48 AM EST, jerrym@cvzoom.net writes:
<<
Therefore, for simplicity sake, I think models that "combat move" should just
make a movement up to 2 times their base move.
This is used to enter close combat, I assume, and would use two actions AND it
would allow a model to sprint across the table.
> [quoted text omitted]
and what happens when you misjudge your ability to cover the ground with in a
single close assault move and wind up delayed over broken ground and get hit
with overwhelming fire because you couldn't quite cover the distance in the
time alotted. Cest le guerre! That's what it's like on the battlefield, which
makes troops damned careful not to over extend themselves. Which means they
tend to be VERY conservative with what they will attempt. a range of possible
movement within the period is much less chesslike and more battle-like
than set movement.