Simple is good

At 07:26 PM 7/30/98 -0400, you wrote:

<snip>

>> I really, really like the game (it just has too many %T$$#"%&$#
counters
>> on the table -- if I wanted "sneeze-away" cardboard counters, I'd
play a
>> %$%"$#%"$# boardgame). It's just a tad too complex for the time I
have.
 
>I would have to agree.  I find FT "elegant" but DS2 is definitely not. 
>Drawing chits--or much worse, drawing a different selection of chits
for
>different weapons and different targets--just isn't elegant.  Weapons
have
>different effects on infantry vs armor, granted, but this is not the
way to
>represent it.	A cheat sheet and a vehicle list would improve things,
but
>not (in my opinion) enough.  Drawing chits looks like a simple way to
vary
>the probabilities but in fact you need to a) keep track of the things;
b)
>have a container; c) remember (or look up) what combinations are valid.
>  The only other miniatures game I play with regularity is DBA/DBM. 
Each
>troop type has a die roll bonus, which may vary by class of target. 
For
>example, Light Horse is +2 against everything;  archers are +4 vs
mounted,
>+2 vs foot.  There are about ten different sets of bonuses, some of
which
>are seldom used; the chart takes up a space perhaps 2"x3" and is easily
>copied; for those of us who don't use a wide variety of troops (Light
Horse
>& Fast Knights, yeah!), it is easily memorized.  If you lose your dice,
you
>can easily replace them and it doesn't change the probabilities.

Good comments guys.  I (and most of the guys in my gaming group) tend to
agree.	Full Thrust, DBx and its variants and the fairly new Charlie
Company (RAFM's Vietnam skirmish/roleplaying rules) are probably the
most
popular because they are adaptable, fast and the rules don't get in the
way
of the game.

When I first joined, I asked if they ever played DS2.  Most of the
criticisms of it and SG seemed boil down to "too many fiddly bits."
Anything where you can write the relevant rules on the back of an index
card and finish a game (or two) in an afternoon is a hit.

I own both of the FMA games and like their content, but don't really
care
for their mechanics.  I'd like to see the chits and n-sided die column
shifts replaced by the "fists full of six-siders" mechanic you see in FT
and Charlie Company.

(For those of you who've never seen/played it:	Charlie Company is a
squad-based Vietnam RPG/skirmish game.	Base fire power is one die for
every rifle, two or more for larger weapons.  Fire is squad versus
squad(s).  Modifiers can halve or double the number of dice rolled and
are
cumulative.  Sixes hit.  Then you roll to see which troopers of the
target
squads are hit and whether they are wounded or killed.	Good points:
Quick
and simple, easy to learn.  GM keeps everything moving along and reduces
rules squabbles.  Bad points: It is locked into the GM-controlled RPG
format.  While that works very well for ambush scenarios and other
fog-of-war situations, it lacks the team vs. team aspects that I like in
most other games.)

Jeff