[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [risk] "Skewed" combat?

To: risk-users@gamerz.net
Subject: Re: [risk] "Skewed" combat?
From: Bill Bauer <bbauer@thalia.org>
Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2000 10:54:49 -0500 (EST)
In-Reply-To: <20000329224915.L12094@gamerz.net>
Reply-To: risk-users@gamerz.net
Sender: owner-risk-users@gamerz.net

On Wed, 29 Mar 2000, Richard Rognlie wrote:

> Anyone up for testing the "attacker attacks at 1.16 advantage" aka
> "skewed" combat?

  ummm... I don't think this reflects much reality-wise...

  It is a given in the military world that the DEFENDER has the advantage
in any assault. Why would the attacker get the advantage?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bill Bauer                       |         "Viking is a verb, and a
bbauer@thalia.org          |  ---+---   /  longship is STILL the ultimate
http://www.thalia.org       \0-0-0-0-0-/   in rowing machines..."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Follow-Ups:
- Re: [risk] "Skewed" combat?
  - From: Richard Rognlie <rrognlie@gamerz.net>
- Re: [risk] "Skewed" combat?
  - From: "Ray Pearce" <raypearce@enterprise.net>

References:
- [risk] "Skewed" combat?
  - From: Richard Rognlie <rrognlie@gamerz.net>

Prev by Date: Re: [risk] "Skewed" combat?
Next by Date: Re: [risk] "Skewed" combat?
Prev by thread: Re: [risk] "Skewed" combat?
Next by thread: Re: [risk] "Skewed" combat?
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread