Re: [MISC] [OT] Bring and Battle

You wrote: 

>  Plus, I 
>> have found that, all too often, I would be the one designing the 
>> scenario, and therefore would be the guy stuck with the Ref cap.
>
>Don't need a ref. Unless you have players who can't agree to sort 
>things out themselves.

Well, there are some exceptions to this.  My Assault on Carter Island 
scenario demanded a ref because I wrote up 5 pages of house rules.  
Excuse me for being anal-retentive.  :)  I enjoyed reffing so much that 
I wrote up another scenario which is 4-sided, none of which know even 
half of the picture.  I'll be playing at least one side, but that's the 
one whose ROEs prohibit firing unless fired upon.  I doubt most people 
would find them interesting.  I'll be running it next week and posting 
an AAR.  Maybe even write up some fanfic as an intro.  BTW, we've got 
at least one Ukranian on here--what's a good selection of typically 
Ukranian surnames for some officers?  

Of course, I like reffing a lot.  It's a challenge to keep both sides 
guessing about the situation's specifics until the very end.  Maybe 
it's just my God Complex coming through.  ;)

>system is infallible anyway. (I've seen many, and all can be abused 
>by munchkins). Real battle doesn't give you the luxury of picking 

I'm not saying it can't be done, but I've yet to see it completely done 
with Dirtside.	Even the infamous GMS-slinging size 1 vehicles can be 
dealt with by proper application of artillery and so forth.  

>even sides. The issue isn't win-lose, its how well you lead your 
>troops and how much fun you had. If you play an unbalanced game, but 
>score enemy casualties out of all proportion, then you should be 
>pleased. If you lose, it can be taken in stride. It is a GAME after 

True.  Historically very few battles are "even".  I'd say that an 
"even" battle is an indication of utter failure on the part of the 
higher command.  

John M. Atkinson