Re: What's wrong with SF?

>Oh, brother... do we have time for all the reasons? Short answer (or
>one of them) is that _some_ hysteric-- er, historical gamers don't
>think FSF is "serious" gaming. After all, it doesn't involve actual
>events -- it's fiction, "made-up stuff" which can't be relied on to be
>logical or even consistent, so how can a "simulation" be realistic?

Well, this is true. But for me this is often the draw of such a set up, 
nobody actually died during these conflicts. I don't wish to accuse 
historical wargamers of anyhting... after all I play historical wargames

quite regularly, I just find anything more modern than WWII a bit...
close 
to home. Perhaps it is that my father is a serving army officer.

>I could go on, but won't, and I expect that all of us here on this list
>would agree that that is, in the words of the late, great Douglas
>Adams, a load of dingoes' kidneys, but that's the attitude that some of
>the more rabid historical types take -- FSS is not "proper" wargaming,
>it's immature, over-grown kids playing with toys.

For my part, I do try and do a fair bit of research into the various
armies, 
I have NSL (based on WWII inf markings etc) and NI (based on the
insignia of 
the IDF from the 1970s). To try and keep the armies at least realsitic 
(ish). Not that anyone int he world can read the sergeant's stripes on
25mm 
infantry... but hey it keeps me happy.

Anyway, I can see that this is something that gets to other people too,
at 
least I am not alone...

Richard

>Funny, but that's what a lot of non-gamers think about wargames in
>general...
>
>Phil
>----
>Gravity is a Downer... So let's go flying!
>   -- so sayeth Phil Atcliffe (Phillip.Atcliffe@uwe.ac.uk)
>

_________________________________________________________________
It's fast, it's easy and it's free. Get MSN Messenger today! 
http://www.msn.co.uk/messenger