Prev: Re: Attachments, HTML, and Some Digest Replies Next: Re: Attachments, HTML, and Some Digest Replies

Re: Attachments, HTML, and Some Digest Replies

From: Doug Evans <devans@n...>
Date: Wed, 6 Oct 2004 10:53:34 -0500
Subject: Re: Attachments, HTML, and Some Digest Replies

>For some reason I'm having problems figuring this out. You mean you
>shuffle each player's deck, split out some cards (so you now have a
total
>of four decks), and then draw only from a player's partial deck? I'm
not
>sure how this would change things in Piquet. I'm probably just being
>dense today.

Never assume density where my obscufatory verbage explains the result.
Backing up, as it's been quite some time since I saw Piquet in action:
there's one deck with cards representing all units, both sides, right?
You
draw card after card, and can have one side moving unit after unit. If
you
split the deck into one per side, you have the idea I had. It's still
possible for one side to get cards that you want to 'get stuck in',
while
the other side only gets commands for units out of action, but at least
you
get to move SOMETHING every other card.

>It doesn't represent realistic overwatch, where a unit is ordered
>to stay put and fire at targets of opportunity. It gives the unit
>a little too much flexibility.

I don't want to get too into how long a turn is, and how much time it
takes
for a unit to react and leave, but there is something different between
pointing a weapon in a direction and waiting to pull a trigger, and
leaping
up, snagging kit, and buggin' out.

What if the other side has an even smaller unit on OW, and your buggin'
out
boys starts to approach. Do they get to bug out? At some point, isn't
there's the possible problem with order in which saved actions are used?
For that matter, wouldn't any unit be likely to turn around run in the
face
of a larger unit?

I'd be comfortable that the whole action sequence covers things not
instantly obvious.

>> Unfair! You acknowledge his Laserlight-ness; you ignore my bestial
>> nature?!?
>
>Mea culpa! I actually intended to write Doug/Beast, but I got
distracted
>and missed it! My apologies Doug/Beast!

Natch, I was teasing, but it's nice to get to show the connection to my
nick, approaching twenty years of age, is not some
religious/anti-religious
reference.

The_Beast

Prev: Re: Attachments, HTML, and Some Digest Replies Next: Re: Attachments, HTML, and Some Digest Replies