[Consim-l] Flat Top question

[Stephen Loughrey]

Markus,

Well the tactical systems of the WWI and WWII games are in fact very
similar. We might differ in our wording a little here, I say easy play
giving quick results, others might term that a crude combat system. Crude is
not inaccurate but it is tainting the discussion a little I think. However I
won't get into a discussion about what words one should or should not use,
we all support our opinions and cases as best we can and that is to be
expected.

In any game there is always a trade off between complexity, game mechanics
and reflected results. I believe that Second World War at Sea has the
balance right. I concede that the games may be bloodier than historical, and
that is okay. I probably play more aggressively with counters than a real
admiral did with ships. When I go to the effort to play a game I want to see
some results. So the results are bloodier ... well perhaps but they are
still in
line with what they are modelling.

>From what I have read of naval battles the tactical combat rules in Second
World War at Sea reflect those battles pretty well. When I read a naval
combat report from WWII it often reads like the tactical game plays. Or
even, when I read about how commanders perceived threats and planned their
courses of action that reminds me of the Operational part of the games.

In an evening I can play an Operational game representing a number of days
with many tactical battles which I believe play out like actual historical
battles. I'm happy, and I think that many other WWII naval combat gamers
would be too.

(*) Yes I am talking about the standard rules and not the Karl Laskas'
variant.

Kind regards
Stephen

----- Original Message -----
From: "Markus Stumptner" <mst at cs.unisa.edu.au>
To: "Consim-L" <Consim-l at mailman.halisp.net>
Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2007 3:57 PM
Subject: Re: [Consim-l] Flat Top question


> On Sat, 27 Jan 2007, Stephen Loughrey wrote:
> > I think that the Second World War at Sea games are fantastic, at both
the
> > tactical and operational level. I believe that the tactical battles give
> > both quick and accurate results to both ship-to-ship and battles and air
> > attacks.I can comment more if you are interested.
>
> This is interesting insofar as it would make them entirely different from
> their WWI and pre-WWI siblings whose tactical systems are quite crude (*)
> and on top of that produce results that (as confirmed on CSW by someone
> who conversed with Avalanche staff about this) are intentionally chosen to
> be bloodier than historical.
>
> (*) the exception to this are Karl Laskas' variant tactical subsystems
> which I believe were published in some of the add-on booklets to the
> series. I'm not aware that they extended to WWII though.
>
> Markus
>
> Last 3 games played: Abensberg/Eckmuehl, Star Viking, WW I
> ---------------
http://www.dbai.tuwien.ac.at/user/mst/games/ ---------------
> "Bakayaro! Bakayaro!"  ("Stupid Bastards!  Stupid Bastards!") -- Admiral
> Aritomo Goto's last words to his staff, October 11, 1942
>
> _______________________________________________
> Consim-l mailing list
> Consim-l at mailman.halisp.net
> http://mailman.halisp.net/mailman/listinfo/consim-l