Re: [DSII] Genre (terrain is good!)

All things in moderation, especially moderation...

At 5:43 AM -0800 2/23/99, Thomas Anderson wrote:
>On Mon, 22 Feb 1999, Michael Llaneza wrote:
>i'm not so sure. for small-scale games like SG2 and 40k, that's
probably
>true - cover is central to tactics in infantry actions, and especially
at
>that scale.
>
>however, when you're fighting with massed armoured forces, a cluttered
>table is just a pain, because it becomes very hard to get line-of-sight
>over a decent range, and so tactics become very simple - basically,
>they're a lot like close assault because you have to be so close to
your
>target. you lose the interplay of long-ranged soft-hitting weapons and
>short-ranged hard-hitting ones. that sort of thing.
>
>not that i'm advocating a billiard table. the sort of terrain i don't
mind
>is roads and rivers, as they don't block LOS, plus one or two woods, an
>urban block and a hill or three. but no more! give the crunchies
somewhere
>to play at close range, but keep the field open for sweeping armoured
>maneuevers.
>
>> Even a simple game like De Bellis Antiquitatis benefits greatly from
>> terrain. An average game takes 60-90 minutes (100 Year's War usually
>> runs shorter). I ran a demo game at Games of Berkeley. I set two
>> experienced players at each other on a complex array of hills and
>> streams that took over two hours to play and left both players nearly
>> exhausted from the mental strain of maneuvering in my maze.
>
>and this is a *good* thing? :-)
>

According to both players and a half-dozen spectators, yes.

Michael Carter Llaneza
Veteran, Bermuda Triangle Expeditionary Force, 1991-1950
Devolution is very real to me.

Whenever I hear the "Odd Couple" theme, I get this image of Dennis
Rodman borrowing Marge Schott's toothbrush.