Re: bayonettes are too a useful device

On Tue, 12 May 1998 05:59:57 -0500 (CDT), jatkins6@ix.netcom.com (John
Atkinson) wrote:

>Sounds cute--but how realistic?  How often do crowds seriously resist 
>troops trying to put them down? 

It was cute. It was mostly for one-off scenarios, or scenarios set in
particularly unique time frames. They were about as serious as the boar
hunt
rules I saw a few years ago. However, the rules did have some good ideas
for
anyone who was interested.

>All it takes is one .50 cal to regain control.  Really, most mobs have 
>no stomach for real fighting.	They're just there to loot something.

If you're willing to use a .50 cal. On the other hand, the rules also
handled
things like rock throwing kids in tight city blocks, and protesting
students
against riot troops. Palestinian games can be quite interesting from a
strategic point of view. If the game rules force both sides to limit
casualties, you could have a really nice maneouvring game. Put too few
troops
(armed with baton projectors) against an angry mob trying to get to a
government building, and the game could be quite interesting.

>Besides, who wants to paint up a couple hundred (small mob) civillian 
>figures for use in a one-off sort of scenario?

They gave some suggestions. For modern games it's not as practical. For
other
historical time periods it works quite well. A Renaissance scenario with
peasants used as the mob is good as the peasants could work elsewhere.
Mob
scenarios in feudal Japan have the same advantage. 

Granted it was a one-off set of rules, but it was an interesting idea,
the
kind of thing people would play at cons.

>On the other hand. . . Civillians might come in handy for some 
>Stargrunt scenarios.  

I find they are very useful for 1920s/Call of Cthulhu wargame scenarios.
Keeping collateral damage down in the civilian population is a good way
of
limiting a superior force against a smaller, fanatic force.

>Note also that kids tend to flock around troops that don't 
>have a reputation for brutality (see: US Army in Europe during WWII) 
>and if one of them happens to have grenade. . . 

Happened to all the Allied forces. Also happened in Vietnam (it isn't
the
first GI that was "sucker-punched" by an innocent looking kid carrying a
grenade...).

>Just don't give 
>me credit when your rampaging troops flatten the entire villiage.  

As mentioned above, I think it's more interesting to have one or both
sides
try to keep civilian casualties down. I don't find that any more sick
than a
game where average soldiers are melted by a napalm strike.

Good ideas, John.

Allan Goodall	     agoodall@sympatico.ca

"Once again, the half time score, 
 Alien Overlords: 142,000. Scotland: zip."
  - This Hour Has 22 Minutes