Re: Simple is good

You wrote: 

>Wow. Although most of the guys I game with like to finish a game, if 
>the game is too simplistic, they can't be bothered. They find it more 
>a waste of their time to play something that doesn't give them the 
>right (to their mind) feel and complexity. I can't imagine us playing 
>a game where the rules fit on an index card. 

Neither can I.	I mean, space combat you can do this way--it's 
basically a couple of machines going at it on a flat, level surface 
with no obstructions.  But ground combat is a little more complex than 
that.  

>Why do you prefer ten zillion six siders to say a d1000? And it sure 
>isn't better than the die levels Jon has worked out for Stargrunt.  I 
>don't necessarily see that using a bunch of d6s is an improvement. It 
>works for FT, but I don't see it working well for SG2.  

Hear, hear.  Once you get used to it, DSII has an elegant simplicity.  
You want _real_ complexity, play CDII.

>significant. Nor troop quality. SG2 does this (IMHO) very well. That 
>make all the difference in the real world, I'd guess. 

Yeah, no joke.	An Airborne Ranger with a rifle is, methinks, somewhat 
more effective than a NLF irregular with a rifle.  And there should be 
some differentiation in a ruleset intended to 'kreigspiel' rather than 
serve as a glorified poker game.

John M. Atkinson