GHQ Ruleset vs The Other Guy's

BattlerBritain · Post by **BattlerBritain** » Tue Mar 28, 2006 1:33 pm

I think I slipped into a coma about 3 pages back.

GMills · Post by **GMills** » Tue Mar 28, 2006 9:05 pm

sorry about that coma thing. But it was asked for.... so I gave it to them.
By the way PSkarr, here is my addition for THREAT PH Javilin system:
WEAPON SYSTEM: JAVILIN 100 250 500 750 1000 1500 2000
-- 70 80 80 85 88 88

For PK I use same stats as Hellfire and add 20% for top attack.
Its simple to alter the stats to add more weapons, Javilin is the first new weapon I have to added in almost 20 years.

pmaidhof · Post by **pmaidhof** » Tue Mar 28, 2006 9:37 pm

Gary, thanks for the explanation yesterday, and the javelin stats.

Pete

GMills · Post by **GMills** » Tue Mar 28, 2006 9:45 pm

Pete,
It is me who say "Thank you" for serving our country.

pmaidhof · Post by **pmaidhof** » Tue Mar 28, 2006 10:13 pm

Gary, there are plenty more people on this forum entirely more deserving of our thanks for their service.

First addition in 20 years, there is some room for growth?

GMills · Post by **GMills** » Tue Mar 28, 2006 11:12 pm

More growth? Of course, no rule set should be static. My only guide was to keep the charts on one page if possible or two if I had to and keep it simple.

MaxVertigo · Post by **MaxVertigo** » Fri Mar 31, 2006 12:14 am

jb,

I saw that Gary was asking if you wanted your rules uploaded to the site where the Threat rules are. Let me know if you are interested and I can get them out there. You can email the files to me at MaxVertigo@yahoo.com

Gary,

Are you going to Recruits on Friday? I thought I saw you listed putting on a Civil War game.
I was talking with Duane and he said they were expecting lots of people but didn't get as much games as he would like. I decided to put on a 6mm WWII game using the Blitzkrieg Commander rules on Saturday morning. Should be fun!

jb · Post by jb » Fri Mar 31, 2006 7:34 am

MaxVertigo wrote:jb,

I saw that Gary was asking if you wanted your rules uploaded to the site where the Threat rules are. Let me know if you are interested and I can get them out there. You can email the files to me at MaxVertigo@yahoo.com

I must have missed that,but they are not copyrighted yet. That will have to be done first.

Mk 1 · Post by **Mk 1** » Fri Mar 31, 2006 9:18 am

jb wrote:I must have missed that,but they are not copyrighted yet. That will have to be done first.

JB:

To "copyright" them, all you need to do is place a copyright notice on the documents, either on each page (best), or on the title and "credits" pages.

Use a format such as:
This posting copyright (c) Mark Singer, March, 2006. All rights reserved.
Permission granted to reproduce or distribute in electronic or print format so long as it is not sold.

That's all you need to do. That gives you the full protection of the law.

A registered copyright (r) means only that the patents and copyright office has looked at it and agrees that it is a copyrightable work, and holds a record of the date on which it was copyrighted.

But so long as YOU hold a record of the date on which you created and first showed a copyrighted work, you have every bit as much protection for it.

Or so I've been told. Not an attorney myself, mind. Just a businessman who has been copyrighting company materials for 20+ years. All readers are urged to seek counsel from a competent attorney licensed to practise within their own jurisdiction. No warrantees are provided, expressed nor implied. Your mileage may vary. Adult supervision required. If nominated I will not run. If elected I will not serve. Kids don't try this at home.

Mobius · Post by **Mobius** » Fri Mar 31, 2006 9:39 am

Mark I can't quite make out that last line.
Something about something belonging to Major League Baseball?

ShortRound70 · Post by **ShortRound70** » Fri Mar 31, 2006 10:32 am

I wanted to bring this over from the Vietnam thread. I really think JB's got some good ideas for rules.

JB wrote
SR70 ,yeah one of these days. It seems I'm never satisfied with them. They also seem to "evolve".Like I mentioned in an earlier thread you can always "pile" on real statistics,and give a roll for each,but from experience this has a tendancy of just "bogging" down the game. The real chore is to realise what "happenings" can all be added together into the same roll,and still have a flavor of realism. Like I said my game has evolved over the years,as a matter of fact I use the same mechnism in VN,WWII,modern,and ACW. I can take forces from any of these and game against the other. After all can a .54 cal kill you today?
sorry I was rambling on about this on this thread...

The "Other Guys Rules" thread is probably where this should go. Anyway, JB, if they are made available, I'd definately check them out. The sound pretty well thought out. Would make a nice addition to GMills', & Mobius" rules. Not bad for an old Cav. Trooper.

GMills wrote:
Pete,
It is me who say "Thank you" for serving our country.

pmaidof wrote:
Gary, there are plenty more people on this forum entirely more deserving of our thanks for their service.

EVERYONE who has worn, or is wearing the uniform gets a big "THANK YOU!"

Semper Fi!

Mobius · Post by **Mobius** » Fri Mar 31, 2006 12:59 pm

JB wrote
SR70 ,yeah one of these days. It seems I'm never satisfied with them. They also seem to "evolve".Like I mentioned in an earlier thread you can always "pile" on real statistics,and give a roll for each,but from experience this has a tendancy of just "bogging" down the game. The real chore is to realise what "happenings" can all be added together into the same roll,and still have a flavor of realism. Like I said my game has evolved over the years,as a matter of fact I use the same mechnism in VN,WWII,modern,and ACW. I can take forces from any of these and game against the other. After all can a .54 cal kill you today?
sorry I was rambling on about this on this thread...

I think I said this somewhere before but..

I was thinking about this recently but in another context. The context of what kind of die to use. (Stay with me on this.)
Back when I played WRG in the '70s the rules had the better ATGMs needing a '2' or better on a D6 to hit. The game was designed to reflect what was 'happening' at the time.

So 30 years later much better ATGMs evolved putting those old ATGMs to shame. Yet per the rules ATGMs still need a '2' or better on a D6 to hit. Why? because if they needed a '1' then they would be perfect. And there isn't a number between '2' and '1' you can roll on a D6.
Thus the game can't evolve to keep up with times. (And maybe why its not played much anymore.)

But now I come to jp's statement. If there were independent variables that maybe had more die rolls then as technology evolved just one of those could be improved to give an improvement for new generations.
When putting all chances that are added together into the same roll you are putting all your eggs in one basket limiting the ability to in the future evolve the rules.

No one ever talks about the longevity of a set of rules.

Mickel · Post by **Mickel** » Fri Mar 31, 2006 6:34 pm

But can rules evolve like that? To take an extreme example, could you pit 10,000 pike and longbow armed warriors against a platoon of tanks? In theory, an arrow might be able to render a tank combat ineffective by killing a TC that thinks he's bullet proof and standing out of his hatch. Now this might take a thousand consecutive 6s, as opposed to the co-ax rolling a dice and killing as many men as there are pips, but would you want to go there? A rule set that can't 'evolve' would simply not consider the possibility and not have a table/calculation/rule to cover it.

The change of technology has tended to lump rules into eras. The rate of change in technology wasn't huge for the last 2,000 years BC, so you could probably cover that with one set of rules, but if you look at the last hundred years you'd be struggling to get away with two playable sets, such has been the pace of change.

Rules are the writers perception of reality, but they are probably more about the writer's (& players') goals at the end. I use two sets of missile era naval rules. One uses D100s, and the other D10s. One leaves me a little dissatisfied with the results, the other can take a fair while to sort through to get the result. So far, they have given similar endings, but I know which I find personally more satisfying.

I've used two or three missile era tank rules. Two used a D6 and one used a D100. Now in theory, I should follow the same logic as with the naval rules. But I don't, because I am no more satisfied with the result after going to all of the additional effort of the more complex rules.

So I can claim to be proof to the argument that detail is good, but I can also be proof to the argument that relatively straight forward playability is good. So what does that really prove? That it's a matter of opinion, and there is no right or wrong answer here.

Sorry... just the 00:25 ramblings (& probably completely off the point) of someone who should be asleep!

Mike

jb · Post by jb » Sun Apr 02, 2006 3:54 am

Mobius wrote:
JB wrote
SR70 ,yeah one of these days. It seems I'm never satisfied with them. They also seem to "evolve".Like I mentioned in an earlier thread you can always "pile" on real statistics,and give a roll for each,but from experience this has a tendancy of just "bogging" down the game. The real chore is to realise what "happenings" can all be added together into the same roll,and still have a flavor of realism. Like I said my game has evolved over the years,as a matter of fact I use the same mechnism in VN,WWII,modern,and ACW. I can take forces from any of these and game against the other. After all can a .54 cal kill you today?
sorry I was rambling on about this on this thread...
I think I said this somewhere before but..

I was thinking about this recently but in another context. The context of what kind of die to use. (Stay with me on this.)
Back when I played WRG in the '70s the rules had the better ATGMs needing a '2' or better on a D6 to hit. The game was designed to reflect what was 'happening' at the time.

So 30 years later much better ATGMs evolved putting those old ATGMs to shame. Yet per the rules ATGMs still need a '2' or better on a D6 to hit. Why? because if they needed a '1' then they would be perfect. And there isn't a number between '2' and '1' you can roll on a D6.
Thus the game can't evolve to keep up with times. (And maybe why its not played much anymore.)

But now I come to jp's statement. If there were independent variables that maybe had more die rolls then as technology evolved just one of those could be improved to give an improvement for new generations.
When putting all chances that are added together into the same roll you are putting all your eggs in one basket limiting the ability to in the future evolve the rules.

No one ever talks about the longevity of a set of rules.

Use a D10 for the More "modern" weapon-a roll of 2-0 will give you 90% chance of hit. Now using the D6 for the older weapon a roll of 2-6 will give you an 83% chance of a hit. This is only one way of doing it. You can even just use a D10 for each and just use the closest% for a hit...

jb · Post by jb » Sun Apr 02, 2006 4:03 am

Mickel wrote:But can rules evolve like that? To take an extreme example, could you pit 10,000 pike and longbow armed warriors against a platoon of tanks? In theory, an arrow might be able to render a tank combat ineffective by killing a TC that thinks he's bullet proof and standing out of his hatch. Now this might take a thousand consecutive 6s, as opposed to the co-ax rolling a dice and killing as many men as there are pips, but would you want to go there? A rule set that can't 'evolve' would simply not consider the possibility and not have a table/calculation/rule to cover it.

The change of technology has tended to lump rules into eras. The rate of change in technology wasn't huge for the last 2,000 years BC, so you could probably cover that with one set of rules, but if you look at the last hundred years you'd be struggling to get away with two playable sets, such has been the pace of change.

Rules are the writers perception of reality, but they are probably more about the writer's (& players') goals at the end. I use two sets of missile era naval rules. One uses D100s, and the other D10s. One leaves me a little dissatisfied with the results, the other can take a fair while to sort through to get the result. So far, they have given similar endings, but I know which I find personally more satisfying.

I've used two or three missile era tank rules. Two used a D6 and one used a D100. Now in theory, I should follow the same logic as with the naval rules. But I don't, because I am no more satisfied with the result after going to all of the additional effort of the more complex rules.

So I can claim to be proof to the argument that detail is good, but I can also be proof to the argument that relatively straight forward playability is good. So what does that really prove? That it's a matter of opinion, and there is no right or wrong answer here.

Sorry... just the 00:25 ramblings (& probably completely off the point) of someone who should be asleep!

Mike

...when I stated my rules evolved,I stated that my mechanism for resolving data is evolving. Yet,I can take say some Romans('scuse I don't a do ancients..) and attack a squad of Iraqi infantry circa today. The Romans won't stand a chance even if the Iraqis rolled crap at long range (they should move back if continually missing!) I don't have Romans on my charts,but I do have close combat. I can do things like this with my mechanism, but I don't think I ever would. Unless I got bored someday. I'm sure that if you thought about it you could probably do it with any game "system"