Re: Core Vote

From: Jim Barr <jimebarr_at_...>
Date: Thu, 02 Nov 2000 13:57:00 -0000

Hi all!

I haven't read all the details of all the posts on this, but from the
basic gist, I'd say I have to agree w/Warprat here. The multi-turn
close combats is part of the flavor of the game to me - get to have
dramatic moments like (pardon the puns) epic last stands holding up
advances. "We know we're not gonna make it, but we can buy the
Captain time to reach the objective!" etc...making it all last only
one turn I think would make games go even fewer turns, and heavy HTH
armies would make out much better, being able to successively go from
enemy to enemy that much faster without the threat of the horde of
bikes/'stealers/juggers/whatever being held up by the guys who refuse
to die...

Jim
--- In netepic_at_egroups.com, warprat <warprat_at_j...> wrote:
> Hi Eivind!
>
> The final results both give about the same casualties. But they
differ
> GREATLY on how the various units from both sides are left at the
end of
> the turn.
>
> Your way, is neat and sanitary. The many substeps create a
situation
> where the enemy armies are divided at the end of the turn. In
essence,
> the Close Combat burns itself out in ONE turn.
>
> The original method, (which I gave an example for), is NOT neat and
> sanitary. Big battles will rage for at least a couple turns, as the
> game goes on. Survivors from both armies the first turn, will be
locked
> on the second turn. It's very messy, but more realistic.
>
> My vote is for the "Down and dirty", method of the the original
rules.
> Huge Close Combat battles, that take on a life of thier own. More
like
> the raging inferno, a big battles should be.
>
>
> Comments?
>
> Warprat ;)
Received on Thu Nov 02 2000 - 13:57:00 UTC