Weasel | 03 May 2017 1:43 p.m. PST |
The OOB says a unit gets 3 of something, but they're only supposed to have 2. This gun is rated better than that gun, but most books suggest it shouldn't be. A: Use them as written. It's just how the game is. B: Change them to fit. C: Doesn't really matter. |
Porthos | 03 May 2017 1:50 p.m. PST |
|
fullerena | 03 May 2017 2:05 p.m. PST |
D: Real history? But the rules say… |
awalesII | 03 May 2017 2:08 p.m. PST |
B – but be mindful of butterfly effect. If scenario or point based system is expecting 3 guns then you will have to adjust there as well. If the math for point based is too weird then you may live with wrong number of guns in a group in order to have a good game. How can math be weird? In some games, 2 is not just 2/3rds of 3. If a game requires a morale role at 50% then the 2 gun unit takes a morale role significantly earlier/easier than the 3 gun unit. One only needs 1 loss while the other 2 (100% more). |
Coyotepunc and Hatshepsuut | 03 May 2017 2:26 p.m. PST |
|
roving bandit | 03 May 2017 2:34 p.m. PST |
Try out A for a couple games to see if the rules are even worth taking the time to B. |
Timbo W | 03 May 2017 2:50 p.m. PST |
B, but make sure everyone is cool with B |
Joes Shop | 03 May 2017 2:55 p.m. PST |
|
Cosmic Reset | 03 May 2017 3:08 p.m. PST |
E. Fix the error. Review all of the other stats and fix the other data errors. Work back through the rules and look for any anomalies that the data corrections might cause. Realize that there are some oddities in the abstractions, and reverse engineer the abstractions. Fix the abstractions, but realize that there are simple contrivances in the abstractions that just aren't valid for one reason or another. Start from scratch, do the research, write my own rules. Teach the rules to the group. Realize that my rules are too detailed or otherwise take too much work to play, and that I've left out a few things, go back and play the original set of rules as they were written with the errors, because they are fun, simple, and complete. |
Weasel | 03 May 2017 5:31 p.m. PST |
I think Irish just described the wargamer cycle of life :D |
Mako11 | 03 May 2017 6:12 p.m. PST |
B. Still trying to do that for those little, 76mm pop guns on the M41, which, given recent research, seem to be horribly under-rated, in terms of penetration and effectiveness in at least two sets of rules. My guess is that some people may not have been aware of post-WWII developments at the time the rules were written. Appears there were some fairly hot AP rounds, and well as a decent HEAT round too. Looks like T-54s/T-55s from back in the day may have been vulnerable to even attacks from the frontal arc, rather than being invulnerable to them. |
Rich Bliss | 03 May 2017 7:47 p.m. PST |
|
goragrad | 03 May 2017 8:28 p.m. PST |
Didn't like the pen charts in Tractics and had access to a computer and a penetration formula that gave decent results. Used our tables when playing. |
Texas Jack | 04 May 2017 4:15 a.m. PST |
|
rmaker | 04 May 2017 9:06 a.m. PST |
|