Page 2 of 2
Re: Board Sections??
Posted: Wed Jul 11, 2012 1:35 pm
by Blathergut
Bumps this to the top again for (final?) suggestions!
Re: Board Sections??
Posted: Thu Jul 12, 2012 2:29 am
by Trailape
Sections I would like to see are as follows:
Community (Blogs, Opponent Finder etc)
Modeling and Painting (a Gallery section maybe)
Rules Questions
Uniform Info (Napoleonics is a period where you are always trying to nail down specifics on uniforms)
Scenarios
Post Game Reports / AARs
Product Reviews (Miniatures, terrain etc)
Media (movies and magazine atricles etc pertaining to the period)
That's all I can think of for now
Cheers
Re: Board Sections??
Posted: Thu Jul 12, 2012 5:20 am
by Rekila
MikeHorah wrote:
3. Asymmetrical games.
The other question for me is whether within an era where the basic troop types are pretty much the same how vaild or valuable is an equal points system? I can see in earlier much broader eras where there is much greater variety , the "scissors - paper-stone" element and the huge variations in army shape that equal points is rather less of an issue.
But it can produce stalemate or very defensive games in more uniform periods (no-one dares to attack as it always fails). The extra units for the player with the initative in FOG(N) goes some way to offset that of course. Does that work? Does it go far enough or too far?
One could ( and Terry and I have for ACW many years past ) devised scenario cards which assign generalised objectives (valid for a range of terrains )with one side in an offensive mode operationally and the other defensive with (say) three randomly selected force levels for each randomly selected card . Force levels can be points based with a different casualty limit ( read attrition or victory points)for each level which if breached means that player has lost regardless of their objective . It becomes possible for both to win or both to lose of course. You can also have situations where the defensive player has a superior force to the attacker(even if they don't know it)
This worked very well for Corps and below level ACW games as the shape of the Union and Condederate forces were broadly similar. Designing and trialling such standardised scenario cards as an alternative to equal points games might be something to have a go at. Anyone up for that?
I can only encourage you to follow with that. Setting different roles for both players as attacker /defender is not only more historical (especially at Corps level) but also more fun that the equal point level. We have been playing games with FoG R using cards to select the armies, where red cards give units and black ones terrain, defenses etc, so the armies are unbalanced and the stronger one must attack. That the different armies have different initiative and that one player must attack and the other defend was the thing that immediately make me like the rules when I first read them.
Re: Board Sections??
Posted: Fri Jul 13, 2012 3:48 am
by Trailape
I have always found scenario based games to be more fun and usually more challanging, (depending of how well crafted the scenario is of course).