Re: My own comments on Re: mixing technology force in Dirtside

--- "Grant A. Ladue" <ladue@cse.Buffalo.EDU> wrote:
> > It's not just you.	Most napoleonic rule writers
> think that Napoleon was 
> > infallable, and that his troops were better than
> anyone elses around. 
> > Then some will be Anglofiles, and that's about it.

>    Considering that Nappy managed to kick all of
> Europe around for the better
>  part of 15 years, I'm not sure that the rule
> writers are that far off.  Since

Bonaparte was, OK, a good tactician.  Where he
excelled was at operational level--the marching around
before a battle.  Many of his battles were pretty much
foregone conclusions because he set them up so that
his opponents wouldn't have a hope in hell.  Which
makes for really boring wargames.

>  most gamers actively dislike modelling command and
> control at all, blending

Yeah. . . 

>  the poor commanders of the non-french into their
> troops is the only way to
>  get close to a semi-historical result for those
> troops.  The individual French
>  trooper may not have been much better than his
> foes, but his commanders were
>  *much* better than almost everyone they faced for
> an extended period of time.

That and the simple fact that practically no gamer is
as good as Nappy or Murat or Wellington etc, and so
when you have two tactical mediocrities slamming
masses of troops (most Napoleonic era games I've seen
are troops shoulder-to-shoulder from one end of the
board to the other).

John

		
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Get it on your mobile phone.
http://mobile.yahoo.com/maildemo