RE: Star Grunt 2 : Whenit finaly comes together.

On Mon, 26 May 1997, Glover, Owen wrote:

>	The rules make continual reference to a Referee/Umpire; this
> would appear to be a type of game that uses the structured use of a
> mediator

To make a historical point:

... just like the wargames of old, eh?	Real war games, not board
wargames.

>	Relative strengths are apportioned on the basis of "Operational"
> groupings eg a Recon team (one squad) is bumped by an enemy Fighting
> Patrol ( one Platoon), as well as experience of the relative
> firepower/combat effectiveness of the nations military forces.

Nota bene that the last is better handled by experience and rules of
thumb than any points system.  Unless you're going to drop in points
handling for the fact the terrain's primarily all swamp and you're
using slow wheeled vehicles which find it all but impassible, despite
their firepower, or the fact you're playing a defensive scenario with
fast GEVs (despite the fact speed only kills on the offense), and thus
turn the game into Accounting 101 instead of 'let's blow stuff up,'
then the points system will be forever flawed.

>	Actually it is the Ancient Art of the Military Appreciation and
> Assessment.

Which, incidently, is great fun to /develop/ and comes together pretty
quickly after only a few games of either DSII or SGII.

>	IMHO this set of rules is very good at approximating the art of
> Infantry Minor Tactics. Unfortunately, to misquote ...."No Plan of
> Battle ever survives contact with the enemy"

Those irritating shells flying around see to that.  :)

-- 
[  Alexander Williams {thantos@alf.dec.com/zander@photobooks.com}  ]
[ Alexandrvs Vrai,  Prefect 8,000,000th Experimental Strike Legion ]
[	     BELLATORES INQVIETI --- Restless Warriors		   ]
====================================================================
		      "There are no innocents."