Hi guys,
I agree, careful scenario design is always important to making sure that
all the players have a good time. My "first blush" impression of the DSIII
rules though left me concerned that the possibility of long firefights can
throw the best planned scenario out the window. A few shaken results can
throw the bulk of one (or more) player's forces under cover (which is a
mechanism that I like by the way). If it normally takes a turn end to get
those forces moving again, a long firefight in the current turn can leave
that player (or players) effectively out of the game for long periods of
time. As such, I'm thinking that an optional rule to limit firefight length
would be usefull in the appropriate settings (like a convention).
I know it may seem to be overstating things, but we did see this happen in
the game we played. One of of the players on our side did a bit in the 1st
half an hour and then had nothing to do for the next 2 hours. He fell
asleep in his chair! It wasn't John's scenario that was the problem, it was
just how the rules pushed things. I'm just saying that that is something to
avoid if at all possible.
grant
convention or not. As such, I would prefer to see the
rules be set up such that it minimizes the chances that
one or more of these players spends most of the game doing
nothing.
The usual way to do this is to say "Larry gets the left
company with these three platoons; Moe gets the center
company; Curly gets the right company." A better way to do
it might be to say "Larry gets First Platoon of all three
companies; Moe gets Second; Curly gets Third." That way if
all the action is on the left flank, Curly isn't sitting
there with nothing to do.
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.csua.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.csua.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l