Post
by barr7430 » Mon Mar 12, 2012 11:43 am
Greg,
I honestly feel that rules users should resist the temptation to twist rules to suit individual 'discussions' they have during games. The,
'that doesn't feel right, let's change it' approach is a rocky path leading to
' I didn't like that result because my favourite unit got creamed, let's change it' approach.
I often think that wargamers view a game in abstract mechanical logic terms not in the reality of what is happening on a battlefield. As justification:
1. Artillerists were semi civilians recruited often before campaigns or battles. They may not even have been the same nationality of those soldiers fighting beside them. Why put yourself at risk if the bad guy is killing someone else. Most soldiers are not Mel Gibson or Kevin Costner.
2. Issues of language. Crew - Dutch? neighbour regiment Danish? - coordination and communication... Shoot your gun at those charging cavalry..What? Shoot your gun at THOSE CHARGING CAVALRY... WHAT?Shoo....... too late - dead!
3. What distance existed between the two units gun and neighbour? Would the gun itself have felt threatened? were they previously targeting something else to keep it away from them? Why would they help someone else if not in danger?
4. Did you jump into every fight in the playground because you knew the guy who was getting hammered? I didn't!!!!!
Too many ifs....
Challenge yourself with this question...
Is what I am suggesting a real possibility OR is it just a way to win a wargame by utilizing all of the assets at my disposal to cause as much damage to my opponent?
"If you think you can, or if you think you can't, you are probably right"
Henry Ford