|
|||||||
robert piepenbrink  writes: |
Looking over my picks, I realized that (a) I was limiting myslef to wars I thought I knew something about, and (b) of those, I tended to favor "unbalanced equality"--sides which differed tactically--and as many sides as possible. I believe this is technically known as "anarchy." But it's also a matter of the level at which I'm fighting. In a campaign game, you want multiple "factions." On a tabletop, you may prefer duifferent tactical capabilities. But I'd be a bit more pleased with myself if I hadn't seen wargamers cheerfully produce impossible "blended" armies, mixing forces on the same strategic side but never fought together to produce tactical superarmies. And I'll plead guilty to one count myself, but it was 40+ years ago. What's the statute of limitations? |
If you were a member of this website, you could participate in website polls. Would you like a free membership?
| POLL DESCRIPTION | |
<>>Poll suggestion by <"58518530"1.
Poll set up by |
, based on