RE: GZG @ historical cons

It's tricky.

There is always the idea of running a historical battle using non-period
weapons (i.e.. Fighting Gettysburg II, pre-NAC (Great Britain, Canada,
US
Military) vs. Separatists (National Guard, Militias, etc.) after the
fall of
the US and military law is declared).

One would think that this would be seen as a conciliatory gesture (an
attempt to be more historic). However, often this turns out to
disappoint
all concerned. The historic crowd is disappointed because the standard
maneuvers and spacing are not represented. The SF crowd is disappointed
because of the necessary PSB required to put a historic battlefield into
a
modern battle (usually it takes a lot of rules shoehorning to fit a SF
battle into a historic battlefield).

If this tactic is used, it is best to recreate a more modern battle
(WWII or
later). Usually a more obscure battle is better (historics are less
likely
to quibble over details) such as from the invasion of Granada, Panama,
Desert Storm, or one of the UN "Peacekeeping" missions, than a better
known
battle (Gettysburg). 

-----
Brian Bell
bkb@beol.net
http://members.xoom.com/rlyehable/gzg/	     
-----

> -----Original Message-----
> From: John C [SMTP:john1x@hotmail.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, November 24, 1999 2:02 PM
> To:	gzg-l@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
> Subject:	RE: GZG @ historical cons (was: RE: Another T-shirt
Idea)
> 
> 
[snip]

> Not everyone feels this way, and the majority of the attendants are
pro-SF
> 
> and fantasy, but the people in charge tend to be different story. 
See, we
> 
> used to run two games at every HMGS con; one SF, one historical.
> 
[snip]

> John Crimmins     john1x@hotmail.com	 johncrim@voicenet.com
>	  http://www.voicenet.com/~johncrim/index.html
>     Home of "Destroy All Monsters!" and other nonsense.