tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38671384.post2140441663590942288..comments2024-03-18T20:32:20.647-07:00Comments on Dale's Wargames: One More Square and the Impact on EngagementDalehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13667428218897971037noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38671384.post-76771590087885924892018-01-28T22:26:55.888-07:002018-01-28T22:26:55.888-07:00When considering the Neil Thomas rules, I know the...When considering the Neil Thomas rules, I know there are a lot of gamers who enjoy the book for its scenarios whether they are player with his rules or not. His 3' x 3' game and fixed play of 15 turns, seems to be formulaic in that an average move for infantry is 6", so his scenarios (especially those that have troops exit or join the map) are based on a principle that a unit can generally travel from one side of the board to the other in 6 turns.<br /><br />Adding squares could adjust scenario balance in some cases. For a while, I was doing his games on 8 squares wide, but the two out squares, I treated as flank zones and all units had to pay double movement costs while in them. I felt this did allow the forces to have a recognisable 'open' flank, but that this was not a space that would be just then get absorbed into normal play.<br /><br />I think the main argument for adding squares is that it increases the number of cells and therefore increases chances of points of crisis being created in separate parts of the table at the same time - the sort of situation that allows you to be winning on the left flank, but losing on the right.Normhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05031444717952755557noreply@blogger.com