GZG @ historical cons

It's tricky.

There is always the idea of running a historical battle using non-period
weapons (i.e.. Fighting Gettysburg II, pre-NAC (Great Britain, Canada,
US Military) vs. Separatists (National Guard, Militias, etc.) after the fall
of the US and military law is declared).

One would think that this would be seen as a conciliatory gesture (an attempt
to be more historic). However, often this turns out to disappoint all
concerned. The historic crowd is disappointed because the standard maneuvers
and spacing are not represented. The SF crowd is disappointed because of the
necessary PSB required to put a historic battlefield into a modern battle
(usually it takes a lot of rules shoehorning to fit a SF battle into a
historic battlefield).

If this tactic is used, it is best to recreate a more modern battle (WWII or
later). Usually a more obscure battle is better (historics are less likely to
quibble over details) such as from the invasion of Granada, Panama, Desert
Storm, or one of the UN "Peacekeeping" missions, than a better known battle
(Gettysburg).

-----
Brian Bell bkb@beol.net
http://members.xoom.com/rlyehable/gzg/