Sources for factual combat statistics, was Re: Modern Close

I saw the same system. More complexity doesn't necessarily produce more
accuracy or better results.  The game was unplayable - unless you got
your rocks off on charts. Being an actuary would probably be a plus with that
game, IMHO. Others may like it but, I couldn't abide it.

--Peter M.

[quoted original message omitted]

On Tue, 21 Nov 2000 22:26:56 -0500, "Peter Mancini"
<Peter_Mancini@msn.com>
wrote:

> The game was unplayable - unless you got your rocks off on charts.
Being an a ctuary would probably be a plus with that game, IMHO. Others may
like it but, I couldn't abide it.

The game was NOT unplayable. In fact, it flowed really well. The charts looked
overwhelming, but they were not. It was pretty easy. In fact, the logic was
such that after two or three shots you had the combat system down pat. The
system around the combat charts was pretty smooth. There WAS a fair bit of
"character creation" to get the basic numbers, but once that was done the game
moved along pretty well.

I played a game at GenCon. 30 figures a side, 10 figures per person. Used the
basic rules (a bit more streamlined than the full combat rules) and the
scenario was over in 3 hours.

I preferred the vehicle system, to be honest. It seemed to work better for
tanks. And I liked the feel of the system. It gave realistic seeming results
to what you did.

What I don't like is the "fudging" of the character skills. Characters were
rated with skills from 3 to 18. All that accuracy in the game is fine, but it
is all based on modifiers to a skill number that is essentially created out of
thin air. This same problem, however, exists in other game systems like GURPS.

The system used in "Dragonstar Rising", the board game, was adopted as a
"basic" version. The system used in the "Aliens" board game is very, very
slick (reminds me a little of FMA), though I never did reverse engineer the
character stats. Some of the weapon systems in the background univers were
cool (I happen to like their land mines). I'm still planning (and have about
half done) a conversion of the Living Steel background to SG2.

But the game was most definitely playable. I have very fond memories of a
specific sewer based scenario...

A 60 figure game over in 3 hours? Wow, I remember there was enough to keep 5
or 6 figures busy rolling dice and checking charts. I found it
a l ot of work - but then you found the mechanics were what was fun
about the syste m. Perhaps I had not been taught right or perhaps we
overfocused on the s ystem. Either way I congradulate you on finishing
a game that large that quickly.  I'll stick with FMA myself.  ;-)

Speaking of which, has anyone done a conversion of they Kryomech aliens to F
MA yet? I have many of them but I haven't done a conversion yet.

Actually, it was playable, if you ignored most of the 'advanced' rules, and
played relatively small engagements. We used it from time to time as an RPG
combat system, stripped down to keep it playable. Even so, our motto for the
campaign was 'we've got a chart for that!'

Should anyone care to know more about the system, email me directly. While
it's been quite a while since the last time I've played it, I do have most of
the core books sitting on a shelf somewhere.

> On Tue, 21 Nov 2000, Peter Mancini wrote:

> I saw the same system. More complexity doesn't necessarily produce
Others may like it but, I couldn't abide it.
> --Peter M.
//explorer.msn.com</a><br></p>
> [quoted text omitted]