Re: [GZG] Point Systems

From: "McCarthy, Tom (xwave)" <Tom.McCarthy@xwave.com>
> I've played in several games run by a GM who believes that all even
> engagements are examples of intelligence failures by both sides. 
Since
> he strives to give the players an even fight, he habitually lies to or
> hamstrings both sides.

This not only makes for some rather silly and frustrating games, but it
also 
isn't even historically true for the most part.  Although at the
tactical 
squad level it could be argued that most fights are one-sided, most
decisive 
battles in history have involved fighting forces where the victor didn't

really have much, if any, advantage over the vanquished.

The Americans had three fleet carriers to the Japanese's four at Midway,
and 
won.
The Americans had two fleet carriers to the Japanese's two in the Coral
Sea, 
and won.
The Greeks were ludicrously outnumbered by the Persians at Marathon, and

won.
Alexander the Great was outnumbered by Darius III at both Issus and 
Gaugemala, and won.
The Scots under William Wallace were somewhat outnumbered by the English
at 
Stirling Bridge, and won; the comparison was similar against Edward I at

Falkirk, and they lost.  When they fought under Robert the Bruce at 
Bannockburn against Edward II, they were outnumbered again and won.

Most serious battles don't have a gross advantage for one side over the 
other.	The ones that do where someone just rolls over the other are the

ones you never hear about.  Wargames are generally designed to simulate
or 
recreate the battles that you _do_ actually hear about.

E 

_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
http://lists.csua.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l