Don’t take it out on Mike; he’s just the messenger. The buck stops here!
I don’t mind a few comments, even if immediate, as long as they’re considered. In fact they enable me to provide more detail as to the thinking behind the rules.
To answer each comment in turn:
- Scale is mentioned in 1.1.3 Scales. It is not precise deliberately as few things are ( for example, in 1973 no Israeli tanker parked his tank 499 metres from a Sagger and thought he was safely within its minimum range). We are emphasising the overall effect so have adjusted ranges and distances as required to allow most weapons to be used and to give a representation of relative effectiveness, even if these are not precise. This is not to everyone’s taste but what is?
- Using inches is quite common in wargames rules produced in the ‘Anglobubble’, from which over 90 per cent of the requests for copies have been received. If I’d used centimetres there would probably to be similar comments, a bit of a no win really so one makes a decision. As for using metres and a conversion, the use of a imprecise ground scale would have led to to the “you’ve made the minimum range of ATGM X Y metres when Wikkipedia says it’s Z metres” type of comments. There’s nothing wrong with suspending disbelief, one can still make the appropriate noises when turning turrets.
- KE and CE are handy terms. The plethora of jargon and technical terms have put many people off the period so we’ve tried to keep them to a minimum.
- The link I sent was to show that ‘Sabre Squadron’ appears in the US Army nomenclature so might not be confusing stateside, although Armored Cavalry organisation still confuses me! I think most wargamers realise that different armies use different terms to mean the same thing or the same terms to mean different things, and the term is defined in 1.1.2 Armies.
- The Datasheets will be expanded and will allow for ammunition developments.
- Actually it might be that the Scorpion is low. One for the Action List.
Thanks for the positives John. This is a first release so wanted it to be a quality publication. The thinking behind the rules is something that was important to get across from the first. And I’m very pleased with the name!
Thanks for the comments