Re: What's wrong with SF?

I play both myself and I tend to try to put the snobs in there places. 
I
would also argue that it goes both ways.  There are plenty of
sci-fi/fantasy
gamers that will give yo uthe same level of crud for proposing
historical
games (I know I tried to get my buddies into historical games).  I think
the
thing I liked about SG2 is that it felt like history even though it's in
a
sci-fi setting.  It was hard-egdged and seemed to stick to "realistic"
weapons technology.

I think it really comes down to the same thing you find with any
fan-based
passtime.  Football vs Baseball, Ford vs Chevy, import vs domestic.  We
all
like to pick and choose and tend to defend what we think is best.

Eli
----- Original Message -----
From: "Alan and Carmel Brain" <aebrain@webone.com.au>
To: <gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu>
Sent: Saturday, July 12, 2003 12:48 AM
Subject: Re: What's wrong with SF?

> From: "Allan Goodall" <agoodall@hyperbear.com>
>
> > There seems to be a bit of noise coming from the more vocal
"historicals
> > only!" people on rec.games.miniatures.historical about this, but
it's
> > interesting to see just how many "die hard historical" players have
popped up
> > and defended the game.
>
> I'm a historical gamer - but also have been known to indulge in
Fantasy,
and
> even Full Thrust <g>
>
> Back in the 1970s, when I first started "Modern" gaming, we researched
what
> was still in the Labs, and tried to simulate what we thought would be
happening
> in or around the year 2000.
>
> We were heavy on the smart bombs and ATGWs, but didn't predict either
Chobham
> Armour or Long-Rode penetrators.
>
> We got roundly castigated by the "historical fanatics" for doing such
SF
stuff -
> lasers and suchlike - but they were quite comfy with WARPAC vs NATO
confrontations,
> which were and still are now thankfully in the realm of Fantasy.
>
> To me, a well-researched Orc army list, or a list for the forces
employed
during
> the siege of Gondor, is at least as valid as a clash between 1799
Neapolitans
> and 1814 Swedes - yet the latter was called "historical" then.
>
> The attitude towards historical gaming has changed a lot since then,
with
the
> WRG not only providing army lists for "Ancients", but also providing
data
about
> historical opponents, or opponents they *could* have fought. For
example,
the
> 1000 AD Welsh Army List's opponents include Native Americans from the
Louisiana
> region IIRC, based upon the apocryphal stories about Madoc's voyage
west.
But No
> more games between 3rd Century BC Alexandrians and 1450 AD
Bergundians.
>
> So..what's wrong with SF? Some systems are just a bit too "free form",
allowing
> pretty much anything, the ion doubletalk generators vs the neutronic
frobnitzs.
> But those have mainly died by the wayside. Others have been called
"Napoleonics
> in the year 40,000" with some justice - though the various Epic
incarnations
> have matured so that they really reward tactics, formations and
keeping
reserves,
> rather than the old line-up-and-everybody-shoot.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>