Help support TMP


POLL: Is Stand Removal a Bad Thing?


517 votes were cast.


Back to POLLS home page


TheBeast Supporting Member of TMP writes:

Have to say 'Have no problem with it' is only slightly more positive than 'No opinion'. I guess the question assumes everyone should have more passion on the issue. ;->=

I'd have avoided 'Wouldn't play any other way' and vacillated on 'My preferred manner of play'.

Damn liberals; always seeing things in shades of gray…

And, no, I did not seek out the pre-poll discussion, and am not complaining about the choices given.

Doug

PS Bob, while we sympathize with your frustration, I'll point out that Bill can not take full responsibility for the polls, as they are developed out of community discussion. Once again, the individual is trampled under the insensate foot of the mob. ;->=


Back to the Homepage



2,217 hits since 31 Mar 2011
©1994-2017 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?

VOTING RESULTS
AnswerVotes%Chart
poor way to model unit losses
94
18%
bar of chart
no opinion
33
6%
bar of chart
have no problem with it
390
75%
bar of chart
POLL IS CLOSED
POLL DESCRIPTION

Writing in Battlegames 22, Bob Barnetson brings up the argument that relying on stand removal as units take damage may be a bad way to model things:

Using stand removal to track casualties typically ignores that casualties have a non-linear effect on combat power. Where combat is hand-to-hand fighting, only 1/4 to 1/2 of a unit's initial manpower would be involved in combat at any one time. Losses wouldn't begin to tell until the unit could no longer covers its frontage and faced being out-flanked, or collapsing in the centre....

Do you agree that stand removal is a poor way to model unit losses?