[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: (TFT) Length of time for mass combats.
>Are you arguing that TFT battles should take longer? I
>think that one reason ancient battles lasted all day was
>because the battle was really a series of skirmishes in
>which the armies would clash until one side broke, then
>they would regroup, maneuver and clash again.
Not really. I think that realistically
a one on one fight usually lasted longer than
the 2 or 3 combat turns it takes in TFT.
GURPS theoretically would help with this with
its parry rolls, but then he made the turn 1
second so in GURPS it is worse!
However just because longer combats are
more realistic, I don't think TFT should go
there. I mean, what can happen? A kills B,
B kills A, someone kills the other but is
wounded himself, plus unlikely rare events.
TFT gives these results, and I don't see how
making the combat last longer adds anything.
I agree with what you say about maneuvering
and skirmishing, etc. Even so, I think that
TFT is to deadly too fast.
Back when I was trying to make TFT more
realistic, this bugged me a lot. Nowadays I
would not worry about it except I've been playing
around with the idea of Castle building / Siege
combat rules and it would be nice if the time
scales worked nicer.
Does anyone play Advanced Squad Leader?
The game Red Barricades played out the battle
in Stalingrad at the squad level (!) where
each day typically lasted 8 game turns. The
only problem was that else where in the rules
they said that a turn was ~2 minutes...
What they did was say that most days the
majority of the time was spent sitting around
not fighting. A big lull with people painfully
crawling into position. Then things would heat
up, and the days advances or gains would be
Realistic? I don't think so, but that is
their story and they are sticking to it.
Post to the entire list by writing to firstname.lastname@example.org.
Unsubscribe by mailing to email@example.com with the message body