Re: Battle at Camelot Comics and Games--After Action Report

On 22-Nov-99 at 21:46, RWHofrich@aol.com (RWHofrich@aol.com) wrote:
> In a message dated 11/21/99 8:02:25 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
> oglover@museum.vic.gov.au writes:
> 
> > > -----Original Message-----
> >  > From: RWHofrich@aol.com [mailto:RWHofrich@aol.com]
> >  > Subject: Re: Battle at Camelot Comics and Games--After Action
Report
> >  SNIP
> >  > I can't speak for the others, but mine boils down to the
following:
> >  > 
> >  > 1.  Basic non-familiarity with the system, which includes 
> >  > figuring the odds, 
> >  > especially with secondary die rolls involved.
> >  
> >  Ah, the beauty of this game system is that you apply a little more
"real
> >  life" approach to the game! Rather than calculating the odds based
on
> >  matematical considerations try considering Troops to Task and
relevant
> >  weapons etc. I think you'll find a more enjoyable game too.
> >  
> 
> Actually, because of the wide range of weapon systems available, if I
could
>  figure the odds a little better, then I could actually decide what
the 
> "correct" weapons were for the task at hand (for example, my IFV
designs 
> generally have a GMS and a direct fire weapon--deciding which to use
can be
> a  pain sometimes, especially when the gun is a DFFG and the range is
> medium). 
> 

Your playing the rules not the game.  Pretend you are the commander of
that force in RL.  You aren't a Vulcan, you do the human thing and make
your best guess based on experience.

Remember the good old days when you didn't have a clue about the 
mechanics?  You went to the table, were given a rough, these are
what weapons each group has, and, when you used them told you
what dice to roll?  I don't know about you but I like wargaming
not playing statistics.

Roger