Re: RE:[MISC] [OT] Bring and Battle

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mikko Kurki-Suonio [mailto:maxxon@swob.dna.fi]
> >Exactly! Learning to win is not an important consideration for me.
> >Learning to play without constantly consulting the rulebook is.

Owen Glover responded: 
> Please forgive me if I sound a little slow here; but one of the
arguments
> used is in reference to a person only playing a game every 3 months or
so.
> In this case, it will be very hard for a person to develop a
familiarity
> wiht ANY set of rules to the point that he will not require constant
> references to a rulebook each Quarterly game he plays. This is not a
problem
> restricted to Stargrunt/Dirtside or Fullthrust but virtually any
game-set. 

   Sorry, Owen, but I only play DBA/DBM/HoTT a couple times a year--or
less--and I don't have a problem with remembering the rules mechanisms
(and
if DBA, DBM and HoTT weren't all slightly different, I'd have even less
problem).  I need to keep the combat factors & results page in front of
me
but I don't have to flip back and forth.  Likewise for FT, just put the
weapon range/to hit/damage information in front of me and I'm in good
shape.	Sure, if an unusual situation--e.g. boarding--comes up I'll have
to
hunt for it, but it just doesn't happen that often.
  Rules should, in my opinion, be transparent.	The purpose is to give
you
the feel of commanding a battle, not the feel of doing a research paper.

"Increased realism" at the cost of playabilty is NOT increasing realism
because a real commander wouldn't have to worry about finding the
exception
to section III.B.7.j.iv--he'd be worried about that enemy coming around
the
flank, and are there enough reserves to deal with them?
  Of course, not everyone agrees with this--someone must have been
buying
Advanced Squad Leader.