(no subject)

[winterbadger]

One of the games I played in at Cold Wars. (Kingswinford - September,1643)

Those 28mms are so handsome! Pity I don't paint anywhere near that well...

Comments

[gr-c17.livejournal.com]

Those do like nice. I take it this is the computer assisted rules system? How did you like it?

[winterbadger]

I liked it a lot. I'd like to run a couple of games sometime soon, maybe one for my Thursday night gang and one at my place, to see if other people like it.

Pros: It handles all "transactions" (record-keeping, command, morale and rallying, shooting, melee), which enables the system to track far more detail than players would ever want to with markers/rosters. It also resolves actions much faster: the GM indicates the units involved and answers a few questions about the interaction and *click* all done, results provided. It links unit morale to army morale and vice versa seamlessly. It measures and tracks fatigue/friction for all unit actions, which discourages players from doing things (like firing every time they have even a tiny chance to do something, or constantly shifting from one formation to another or repeatedly performing elaborate maneuvers) that in other games there are no negative consequences for.

Cons: The rules are an integrated package, and one can't tinker with fundamental mechanics (one can tweak the system by adjusting the OBs or what one inputs when resolving actions). Players for whom actually rolling their own dice is an important part of the game may feel that moving the figures around the table and making decisions without feeling that visceral connection of throwing dice is unsatisfying. There is probably a limit to how large an engagement can be effectively managed by a single umpire, and I'm not sure how you would coordinate several different iterations of the software running sections of the same game. But the ECW game I playe din that had 4 players per side and 2-3 times that many units didn't seem to lag appreciably at all.