Help support TMP

POLL: Tactical Factors in Combat Systems

158 votes were cast.

Back to POLLS home page

Tom Bryant writes:

I'm with Parzival on this. Years ago I read an article by a gun writer (Masaad Ayoob maybe) who did a rather detailed breakdown of the strengths and weaknesses of the .45 ACP and 9mm rounds for handguns and in the end he compiled all the factors to a few simple things based on the individual rounds strengths and weaknesses and in that article I first understood the concept of signal to noise ratio as it could apply to wargaming.

Far too often we equate levels of detail as some kind of measure of accuracy. In reality a lot of these cancel out. That's why I came the understanding that simplicity is often the "best" way to give reasonable, and plausible answers to how to modify the basic data for our games.

Back to the Homepage

Areas of Interest


1,406 hits since 17 Apr 2015
©1994-2019 Bill Armintrout
Comments or corrections?

If you were a member of this website, you could participate in website polls. Would you like a free membership?

I disagree
bar of chart
I agree
bar of chart
no opinion
bar of chart
Most miniature rulesets include a combat system for resolving conflict between two units, which is then modified by a series of tactical factors (i.e., +2 for flank attack).

Writing in Slingshot, Richard Taylor says:
These lists of tactical factors are often the most complex and inelegant part of any ruleset. They are considered necessary in order both to reflect historical reality and to reward tactical play (there is no use cleverly maneuvering your units into a flanking position or onto favorable terrain if there is no reward in the combat system for doing so). I feel they have tended to be overusedů
Do you agree?

Poll set up by Personal logo Editor in Chief Bill The Editor of TMP Fezian, based on this pre-poll discussion.