Re: [WW] Weapon reliability mechanics [was some silly argument]

["Steven \"Conan\" Trustrum" <trustrum@rogers.com>]

At 06:58 PM 10/9/02 -0600, Dirk you wrote:
>I disagree - although it's time consuming, especially for the first couple
>times you run a large-scale battle, both myself and my 4 players feel that
>it works very well. We started the game with each PC running his own
>character plus 3 NPCs, and there were 5 players at first, so even after the
>first player dropped out and the death toll on NPCs got up, it's still at
>about 15 characters total (on the PC side of things). The last battle we did
>involved the PCs ambushing a small convoy containing close to 30
>individuals, 2 trucks, 2 cars, 3 motorcycles with sidecars, and a Panzer II.
>Although the battle took around 1.5 hours, maybe 2, it flowed very smoothly.
>There has yet to be anything I'd consider a "small-scale battle" in my game,
>and that wasn't even the largest one, but we haven't had any problems with
>it so far. Sessions tend to run 3 hours (of actual game-play, more if you
>count eating and BSing), with the first hour or so being role-playing, and
>the second half being combat.
<snip>
Might I also suggest this old technique my gaming group used to use in high 
school: we'd convert everything over to the rules of a wargame (our choice 
was W40K epic), and run the battles using those rules and those minis. It 
worked great and was always lots of fun, especially when we converted over 
Star Wars and re-fought Hoth.


Steven "Conan" Trustrum
   Email: steven@trustrum.com
   Homepage: http://www.trustrum.com
"The only real people are the people that never existed"     -- Oscar Wilde