Lentulus | 23 Mar 2006 8:09 a.m. PST |
At Bicocca (April 22, 1522) Swiss pike were stopped in their tracks by spanish arquebus firing from behind field defences. Before that battle the Swiss were certain that a fast, determined attack by Swiss troops would always prevail. After that, they were not. Not to argue the history here, but the game design implication. Is there any way in a set of rules to reproduce the incorrect assumptions that drive tactics before a watershed like Bicocca (or May 1940 as another example) or is historical hindsight (and the fact that a player can read all the rules, and not just the ones that only apply in the circumstances he has encountered) always going to inform play. I can't see much of a way around this except for "idiot rule" that force inappropriate tactics. Can anyone else? |
brotherjason | 23 Mar 2006 8:28 a.m. PST |
I don't do a lot of historical wargaming, but I would have to say it has a lot more to do with a certain unit's stats, rather than the base rules. However, the problem there is that most players can read the other persons army lists and realize that certain tactics against certain units just won't work. This just comes from the god-like status that the players have with the ability to know every little bit of information about your enemy. Basically no "fog of war" effect. Now, having said that, if you wanted to recreate the battle know all well that it would most likely not work, then I would assume that you could design the units so that you get the desired outcome. |
Jay Arnold | 23 Mar 2006 8:36 a.m. PST |
If one is industrious, one can simulate "fog of war" by having two full painted armies for each force. The first force that is deployed on the table is all composed of the faction's standard line troops. Perhaps cavalry is distinguished or artillery as well. All thre same standard paint job. Only national colors are displayed. Once a certain range has closed, then the dummy unit is replaced with the appropriate unit. EX: You knew there were French to your front, but it wasn't unitl they closed within musket range that you realised they were Imperial Guard. Alternately, you could use completely inapropriate figures for the initial deployment. I.E. the French side has ACW Confederates at deployment and the Alliles have ACW Union. |
Zagloba | 23 Mar 2006 8:43 a.m. PST |
This is where Piquet gets it right- with the correct cards a Swiss player could overrun the Spanish. Its not very likely though, and if the scenario designer tweaks the available cards subtly enough, the Swiss player won't know his odds until too late in the game. Of course one could argue that that is unfair to the potential Swiss player, but you have to decide which is more important- trying to reach a realistic result or giving everyone an equal chance to "win", whatever that means
Rich |
John the OFM | 23 Mar 2006 8:59 a.m. PST |
I dom't like the designer forcing "incorrect assumptions", except as a scenario. One CAN rate the Swiss as "Regular A", and let the army commander's overconfidence take over. Heck, most people who paint up Swiss think they can walk on water anyway. Give the Sopanish arquebusiers a "-1 for facing charging Swiss" morale modifier if you want, just to make the Swiss a bit more over-confident. If the Spanish pass, BLAM. Swiss cheese. |
georgem | 23 Mar 2006 9:07 a.m. PST |
In WAB certain units are Impetous and must test at the start of their turn or they will advance towards the nearest enemy. This does not really solve the problem as a good player will not deploy the Swiss near enemy behind fortifications. |
RockyRusso | 23 Mar 2006 9:10 a.m. PST |
Hi Bicocca was one of the "tests" for our renaissance rules. Our initial playtest with this was taking the players from other periods of interest, giving them the units. Explaining what the rules allowed them to do and turned them loose. The swiss usually died where they were supposed to. As the players adapted to each other, our games usually play in two hours, it was interesting to see people try to "outthink" the situation. R |
Mark Plant | 23 Mar 2006 9:21 a.m. PST |
This is why I prefer to play periods where the tactics and weapons were not changing. Then the problem does not arise 8¬) The Piquet reference appears incorrect, btw. A good player will still know the odds in Piquet, just as any other set (few of which make it impossible for the Swiss to win, with sufficiently good dice, I bet). To juggle the cards to get the result you want basically amounts to Secret's "idiot rule" — basically tricking the player into committing a mistake. I don't mind an up-hill scenario, but I would be furious to be stiffed like that! |
advocate | 23 Mar 2006 9:30 a.m. PST |
An even more extreme example would be French tactics in August 1914. I don't know the full background, but was this a case of the first time that the Swiss had actually faced that combination of shot behind works? Clearly some one was trying out the optional rules for th first time! Bear in mind that most wargamers fight more large battles than most generals, and usually with a much better knowledge of the situation as regards relative troop strengths and qualities than did the historical generals. ry playing a campaign with a new set of rules. These rules may not reflect the players' understanding of what historically happenned, and if you can convince them to keep playing through this (rather than giving up, because it does not fit their prejudices), they will have to develop tactics appropriate to the situation. You can also play the 'hidden scenario' game, where you refight the battle but in a slightly different period or location. Then the players again do not have full knowledge of the situation. Choose a nice obscure battle and the palyers will not know any better. |
advocate | 23 Mar 2006 9:32 a.m. PST |
That will be 'Try playing
' in para 3. Sorry, John :o) |
Wyatt the Odd | 23 Mar 2006 9:57 a.m. PST |
Yes, Steve Jackson Games miniatures lines came in VHS cases for retail packaging, and the sets still do (at least until the older stock runs out. Brigade also uses a variety of similar cases. |
Wyatt the Odd | 23 Mar 2006 10:00 a.m. PST |
Bloody hell! That's not my post – which has clearly gone AWOL. Talk about fog of war. This is what I really wrote: WAB's "Impetuous" rule seems like a really good idea – in multiple periods. How about this: Units with high elán or elites already have certain bonus' on attacks. However, they can also have a high point cost (in systems that assign points). Take a page from some RPG's and allow an "impetuous commander" penalty to make a unit cheaper. The downside is that when the unit; a) Leads an attack, b) The unit is making its first attack or c) has just scored an impressive victory over opposing unit (ie; routed it, etc.) the player makes a roll on the "impetuous" table and the unit will do something like pursue, attack next closest unit, attack next closest objective, loot bodies, etc. rather than obey their next order. For fog of war, I think I have some ways to resolve/replicate this. First off, take a photo of the game table (without troops) and print out copies so opponents can mark their troops' positions before actually placing units. They can see the actual table while they're doing so, but they're deploying based on what they put down on their map. (sorta like real commanders). The next part is to not show off the other guy's army list. You can give a player a sheet listing what units are available to his opponent, but he doesn't know whether his opposite number is able to field Munchausen's Moravian Musketeers or the Burgermeister's Bohemian Ear Spoon Bodyguard. (works best with a point system for each unit, but not limited to that) Scouting rolls. Unit locations are committed (on the paper maps). Opponents "scout" their enemy's forces by dice roll – either opposed, or with a table of results which grant him full, partial, or erroneous information about troop disposition. Or, with a really bad roll, the scouts are captured and he gets info on only a small part of the field. There are penalties to scout units further back from the front. The scouting would be considered to be occurring while units are deploying, so the commander could re-deploy his units to a new position within their movement rate (on the paper map). A dice roll, or a modifier based on their previous scouting rolls would determine how many rounds they'd have to be able to re-deploy. The results are then placed on the table according to the maps This would result in a pretty good approximation of Clauswitz' axiom about no plan survives contact with the enemy, as one player could have a pretty good idea of how he wants to deploy his army only to see that it'd be ineffective based on scouting (rightly or wrongly) and then have to shift units on the fly. You could theoretically have the game start with units still in transition, or even intermixed as they swap positions. A truly sadistic referee (or evil dice) could determine that a particular unit didn't get its orders in time and is still heading towards its previously assigned position. At most, I would think that any or all of the above together would add maybe 15 minutes to a game. With the use of paper maps at a tournament, the set up for the upcoming game could be determined while the previous game is still being contested. Wyatt |
Zagloba | 23 Mar 2006 10:21 a.m. PST |
Mark Plant- The Swiss player would not know if the Spanish player had an extra missile fire card, and probably wouldn't realize if a move in difficult terrain card was removed. Tinkering with the cards is a big part of scenario creation. I agree that it does take a certain mindset to accept though- obviously gamers who are in it as a competition would not appreciate the deck stacking. Rich |
GRENADIER1 | 23 Mar 2006 10:28 a.m. PST |
Actually I think the best way to reflect this problem is to have all troop types have variable morale ratings. You have each troop types morale be based on a possible range. When the Swiss approach the Spanish they have an idea of where their morale will range but not what it will be likewise the Spanish. SO the Spanish first roll to establish what their rating is and then test against it. The rating is then recorded for the rest of the battle. The Swiss then test when they receive fire They roll to see where their rating falls and then test against that rating it is recorded for the rest of the battle. The effect is to give the lowest ranking militia a chance to have a good day and fight well. And to give the possibility that the Old Guard will have a bad day and break in front of the Silisian Landware! Also as commander you do not know until your troops are commited to a fight what will happen but once they have been tested for the day you can get a good idea of how well they will perform for the rest of the day. I think this is very acurate. If you couple this with a mechanism for units acting against your orders you get some really fun possibilities!! |
basileus66 | 23 Mar 2006 10:41 a.m. PST |
I see a problem here. From a wargamer design point of view I would propose a three way solution. First I would make the Swiss phalanx very vulnerable to small arms fire. Also, you can make the Spanish arquebusiers veterans and modify their chances to hit favourably. For example, when assaulted missile units must check for reaction. If they pass the test they will shot from the optimus weapons range (possitive modifier) but if they fail they will shot at long range (negative modifier). Veterans can re-roll any failed test. Second, I would give the Swiss a high melee modifier when charging against arquebusiers and/or cavalry. At least until 1522 if you want keep historical. And third, I would make the modifiers provided by field fortifications diferent values
only known for the player who set them. May be some tracts are low value and you are clever enough to deduct where they are set and profit from it, may be you make a mistake launching your assault troops against the stronger part of the enemy fortifications. (Jannissaries should be at least as aggressive as Swiss troops. Also the Spanish troops between 1520 and 1580) Just some thoughts |
Lentulus | 23 Mar 2006 11:04 a.m. PST |
"An even more extreme example would be French tactics in August 1914" Which is an interesting example, as well, because they were a response to the failure of the passive French tactics in 1870 — which would have worked far better in 1914. |
lugal hdan | 23 Mar 2006 12:37 p.m. PST |
I'm also not a fan of "idiot" rules, but historical hindsight it a real problem when trying to recreate battles, especially around a tactical transition point in time. I guess the best bet is to make the rules such that the Swiss SHOULD be confident of victory in most conditions, but allow the arquebusiers the chance to win if they roll well enough. Just because it happened historically doesn't mean it should happen FREQUENTLY, just that it CAN happen, right? If you're playing a campaign, you could make the Swiss high morale dependent on never losing a battle, so that after the first battle in which they get stomped, they no longer consider themselves unstoppable and lose their elite status. |
Lentulus | 23 Mar 2006 12:52 p.m. PST |
In a campaign you can manipulate the situation a bit. Years ago I played in an Italian Wars campaign where the GM also wrote the tactical rules. He deliberately twisted the interactions so that you could never quite be sure if things would work they way they did in the history books or not. |
basileus66 | 23 Mar 2006 1:16 p.m. PST |
Lugal: The problem is that the arquebusiers were usually successful versus pikes if two conditions were met: First, they were present in big numbers. Second, they had a safe place to reload their weapons. That could be provided by friendly pike blocks or terrain -like happened in Pavia- or they were behind breastworks as at La Bicocca -where the palisades were further enhanced by a ditch deep enough to prevent the Swiss to reach the massed German, Italian and Spanish arquebusiers. Also, at Biccocca the Imperial troops had developed a method ad hoc to fasten their shot: they had a second line of people realoading the arquebuses and passing them to the troops in the front. That was possible because they had field fortifications to protect the reloading parties. In certain sense Biccocca was like the assault to a breach in a wall rather than a field battle. The Swiss were mauled in other battles before Biccocca. In Marignano Francis I had nearly wiped out the Swiss in Imperial pay. Actually, the significance of Biccocca was that the losses there piled up over those suffered at Marignano. There after the Swiss were not as bold as in late XVth Century and early XVIth. However that should not make us think that they were not highly professional and agressive troops. They were regarded highly by their French masters and can be depicted as an elite. By the way, the Tercio was not a tactical formation but an administrative unit. The tactical unit of the Spanish infantry was the Company. Anything between 6 to 12 companies (600 to 1500 men, usually but not ever) formed a Escuadron -literally Squadron- or 'Colunela' -little column- under the command of a Sargento Mayor or a Maestre de Campo. Much as it is cherished by Michael Roberts and the proponents of the Military Revolution the weakness of Habsburg armies was not tactical but economical: they hadn't the resources to fight France, England, Sweden, Ottoman Empire and internal rebellions at the same time -Hungary, Catalonia, Portugal-. But that is a history that happened one hundred and thirty years after Biccocca, Pavia or Mulhberg. Regards, Antonio |
Alxbates | 23 Mar 2006 3:34 p.m. PST |
I really, really like Jay Arnold's idea
|
Chthoniid | 23 Mar 2006 4:06 p.m. PST |
I can't see much of a way around this except for "idiot rule" that force inappropriate tactics. Can anyone else? In Shattered Lances there are two types of games- encounter and positional. In positional games (eg. Crecy) the victory conditions are different. The game works like you are 'playing against the clock' (the countdown being mediated by the relative size of the two forces). This modifies behaviour 2 ways. First, the attacker is relatively less concerned about losses and more concerned about time. So you take more risks to try and force an earlier conclusion to the game. Elegant manouvering all day, just puts the game out of reach. Second, the reward for capturing a position is very high- practically ensuring you win the game. So if you're facing large 'game' bonuses to win and penalties for timid tactics, then players tend to be much more agressive. Casualties count for less than lost turns. Chthonic regards B |
Rich Knapton | 23 Mar 2006 4:32 p.m. PST |
Your premise: "At Bicocca (April 22, 1522) Swiss pike were stopped in their tracks by spanish arquebus firing from behind field defences." is wrong. The Swiss were not stopped by either the artillery or the shot. Enough Swiss reached the top to where the arquebusiers couldn't deal with them and the Imperials had to call upon the pike-bearing landsknechts to advance and drive the Swiss back over the field fortifications. I cannot think of a single battle where shot ever stopped determined advancing pikes. It certainly wasn't at Bicocca. Rich |
Condottiere | 23 Mar 2006 7:13 p.m. PST |
Enough Swiss reached the top to where the arquebusiers couldn't deal with them and the Imperials had to call upon the pike-bearing landsknechts to advance and drive the Swiss back over the field fortifications. Well, if you count a handful of double-pay men and a few rankers, then yes you are correct. But, I think the original premise is also essentially correct: the combination of obstructing terrain (ditch) and determined and steady arquebus fire defeated the Swiss at La Bicocca. But, this is a digression. Is there any way in a set of rules to reproduce the incorrect assumptions that drive tactics before a watershed like Bicocca (or May 1940 as another example) or is historical hindsight (and the fact that a player can read all the rules, and not just the ones that only apply in the circumstances he has encountered) always going to inform play. That is a difficult task. Short of setting up a specific scenario with specific goals, which often amounts to a scripting of the game, there arre very few ways in which a set of rules can guarantee that the players cannot learn from history. How many gamers would "lead" Pickett's charge again and again, unless a specific scenario sets forth the objectives (e.g., the copse of trees on yonder ridge, etc.)? |
RockyRusso | 24 Mar 2006 11:43 a.m. PST |
Hi Well, we can discuss extremes in this thread and the related one above
sigh. Here is the problem I wanted to address. The problem with period specific rules is that they are TOO specific. Renaissance rules that ignore Aztecs still locked in the Stone Age? Or portugese facing barely iron age sulu sea pirates? In nam, state of the art USA allied with Montangard with crossbows? Ultimately, you could easily write rules that only addressed Biccoca and nothing else. But outside of old TSR modules, no one does. So, there is not a lot of rationale with writing a system that only addresses classic European Renaisannce major battles, and ignores the assault on Vienna. Rocky |
Rich Knapton | 24 Mar 2006 1:10 p.m. PST |
"Well, if you count a handful of double-pay men and a few rankers, then yes you are correct. But, I think the original premise is also essentially correct: the combination of obstructing terrain (ditch) and determined and steady arquebus fire defeated the Swiss at La Bicocca. But, this is a digression." Sorry John but if you are designing rules for the Italian Wars and your assumptions are wrong your rules will be in error. Therefore this is not a digression but goes to the heart of how to design rules for this period. The fact of the matter is that the steady or unsteady arquebus fire did not stop the Swiss. Therefore they were not defeated by this fire. As to your assertion that it was only a "handful of double-pay men and a few ranks" cannot be supported at all. What we know is that groups of Swiss attackers made it to the top of field fortification and entered in among the Imperial shot. At this point the landsknecht pikes came up through the shot to engage the Swiss. Apparently George Frundsburg, leading the landsknechts, met the Swiss captain Arnold Winkelried or Albert von Stein, depending on the source, in hand-to-hand combat. Frundsburg killed his Swiss opponent and was wounded in return. The Swiss were driven back by the pikes of the Landsknechts not by arquebusiers. What was wrong with the Swiss attack was that the Swiss failed to wait for the artillery to weaken the Imperial position. Also, had they waited for the French flank attack to develop it might have pulled some the pike away from where the Swiss were to attack. So if you are modeling a set of rules based on the mistaken opinion that it was the shot that defeated the Swiss, you're building error into your rules. Also, it was not just arquebusiers the Swiss faced but also artillery. Rich |
basileus66 | 24 Mar 2006 2:22 p.m. PST |
Rich, I must disagree with you. The Swiss that made into the Imperial field works were just a few men. Certainly they were defeated by Imperial pikemen not by the arquebusiers
but that was the usual way. The point is, however, that if they were repulsed with relative ease was only due to the forbidding casualties that they suffered while crossing the obstacles while they were being shot to pieces. Also it is a little bit unfair dont' recognise the decissive role of a branch because the victory was due to the combination of all the army. Of course, that's how succesful generals work: optimising his resources to got the best results from them. At Biccocca the Imperialist shot was the principal resource used in the victory. not the only one, but the most important. May be that if the Swiss would have wait for the artillery they would have broke the Imperial lines
but precisely because that artillery would have erased the principal factor on Imperial victory: the shot protected by fieldworks. |
Rich Knapton | 25 Mar 2006 1:36 p.m. PST |
"At Bicocca (April 22, 1522) Swiss pike were stopped in their tracks by spanish arquebus firing from behind field defences. Before that battle the Swiss were certain that a fast, determined attack by Swiss troops would always prevail. After that, they were not. Not to argue the history here, but the game design implication. Is there any way in a set of rules to reproduce the incorrect assumptions that drive tactics before a watershed like Bicocca (or May 1940 as another example) or is historical hindsight (and the fact that a player can read all the rules, and not just the ones that only apply in the circumstances he has encountered) always going to inform play." Why would you want to? I have read that in replaying Waterloo it is generally the French who win. The players can see what the French did wrong and rectify it. Why would you want to force players to play tactics which obviously didn't work. I have almost no knowledge of Napoleonic warfare and even littler Napoleonic gaming experience. But, it seems to me the French got sucked into fighting for the two fortified position. It would seem more logical to screen those positions and send a huge right hook into the Allied left flank. This way your army is between the Allies and they are not allowed to link up. Now you can defeat them detail. If you force the French to take those fortified positions, it is better history but a poorer game. If you allow the French commander to soften up the Imperial position with artillery prior to sending in the Swiss (and maybe fill the ditch with fascines) and if you send a strong flanking force to hit the Imperials in the flank and rear, you will have a much better game even though not historical. Of course you have split your army in two in the face of the enemy but it would be fun to fight. As Rocky said, you can build too much into your rules. My objection to Bicocca was meant as a reminder to test your assumptions. Secret Identity did ask not to argue history. So I started a new topic for those who would like to discuss the battle. TMP link |
Mr Medici | 24 Mar 2017 5:50 p.m. PST |
So, doing some thread necromancy here, but am thinking of doing the battle of Bicocca once I've got the miniatures together. The same question that occurred to the OP occurs to me too. It's veeeeery interesting. Setting aside whether it was pike or shot that did for the Swiss, it certainly looks to have been their charge out ahead of the rest of the army that sealed their fate. This charge seems to have been because of a pay dispute – they were threatening to go home if they weren't allowed to get the battle over and done with (and thus be paid, presumably out of the loot) but offered to put themselves at the head of any attack. Now I'll be using DBR rules (still trying out different sets) to begin with, in which each turn a commander generates D6 command points for his units to use. I wonder if an authentic effect could be achieved by putting a special rule in place whereby the Swiss will start to leave the field unless they are moved toward the enemy (thus eating up command points)? Meanwhile the French player can do whatever they want with the rest of the army with whatever command points are left over. Another factor is that after the disastrous Swiss assault, the French retreated. But what if they hadn't? Perhaps some sort of rout test after the combat at the ditches; we could try to see what might have happened if the French stuck around. |
Great War Ace | 25 Mar 2017 8:37 a.m. PST |
If the French can "see" the Swiss defeat/rout, then the French units must test morale. Those that stay can be used. If enough stay, then you still have an assault. Simple. |
(Phil Dutre) | 25 Mar 2017 10:24 a.m. PST |
if you want to include factors or tactics that were unknown to the commanders at the time (they found out during that specific battle), the best way to model it in the game is through chance cards or random events or something like that. In other words – if something was unknown to the commanders, and you want to model that, it should also be unknown to the players. |
Weasel | 25 Mar 2017 3:51 p.m. PST |
Maybe the Swiss had just passed their morale tests until then? :-) |
Ottoathome | 25 Mar 2017 6:51 p.m. PST |
Dear Lentulus In a word NO! You cannot force a player to make a mistake. It is disastrous in a game. My dog in this fight is that my two favorite periods are the Renaissance and the 18th century. I've done a lot of gaming in both and La Biccoca is one of the most interesting battles and one I have done many times. The only caveat I make about your post is that the Spanish were not in field fortifications, but behind a high park wall which was reinforced with earth and flanking positions such that it was more like a permanent fortification. It was almost literally impossible for the Swiss to climb the face and come to grips with their enemies. However all that aside, it depends on how you frame your rules. In two of the five times my Swiss have fought La Biccoca they won. This is because the rules allow them to. The issue is not to trick or force the Swiss commander into making a blunder, but to get them to act like Swiss. I have no doubt that each and ever confederate at La Bicocca knew that this was an almost vertical uphill battle, but they believed in themselves and their massive morale effect on their enemies. That the Spanish weren't impressed is no fault of their own. In my games of the Renaissance, which are always part of campaigns (even if a set piece battle) the Swiss are super-troops. As I told one person though, when he eagerly with a glint in his eye asked "How do I get Swiss" expecting, he was some sort of point system or force pool idea." I simply said "An act of God." If you get the Swiss, it will be for one battle only and then they move on. To close the loop, how you get a defensive position like LaBicocca is also an "act of God!" Quite simply- in my Renaissance game, no matter who you are, unless the Landsknechts, or the Spanish, it is very much like bare-knuckle boxing with a bush chipper. You will only come away with it with stumps. It is much the same in the 18th Century. If I were to put on a game and to the two participants I said (to side A)"Ok, you guys are the Prussians, and you have these troops and these are Grenadiers, and these are your guns etc. etc., and to side B, I said "Ok you guys are the French and this is Rossbach. There would be a moment of surprise and a visible dimming of enthusiasm on B's part and a quick looking at watches and mumbled excuses and edging towards the door. Now… Rossbach plays out just fine if you don't force the French player to act as chuckleadedly as Soubise and Saxe Hildberghausen did. Much the same, with La Bicocca. Both sides in a game must have equal access to victory. That is not historical at all, but history doesn't matter in a game where you are giving up an afternoon and want to have fun. For those who objects and say "But I like the challenge of a hopeless situation" I say "methinks you lie." To those who gabble on about "victory conditions" and "How good you can do in an impossible situation" I submit that there has to be for the sake of equity some measurable means of victory that can look like a victory and feel like what we would call a victory. Being anhihilated 40 to one in power against you and you taking pride you killed two of them is not a victory. But I believe in a far more impressionistic idea of gameing. |
Ottoathome | 25 Mar 2017 6:57 p.m. PST |
Oh yeah I once did an experimental game where one side could not win. It was Zulu's versus Amazons. Only the Amazons had T-Rexes, velociraptor packs, and herds of triceratops stampedes under mind control. The Zulu's were simply lunch. I never heard anyone enthusing as to "how good they did against such impossible odds" even when I said that the 800 Zulus could win if they destroyed TWO T-Rexes of the six the Amazons had even if they lost every man. In most iterations they killed four, but none of them thought it was fun or had a good time. |
Zephyr1 | 26 Mar 2017 2:35 p.m. PST |
Seems like for a Bicocca-like scenario, giving the defending non-Swiss player secret or "surprise" terrain (like that sunken road) to spring on the Swiss would be the best option. The rest of the player's deployment, well, that's on him… ;-) |
Ottoathome | 27 Mar 2017 3:56 p.m. PST |
Sounds nice to propose "spring on them" things until one has been sprung upon. All this fog of war and hidden conditions (that essentially get your opponent to make stupid moves sounds awfully duplicitous and I doubt many would stand for it if it were done to them. What you are essentially doing is saying "You're IT for tonight." Equity and friendship argue against it. On the other hand if you don't care about the feelings of people you play with go ahead. |