Re: mechanics of surprise

On 1 Mar 2007 13:46:55 -0800, "Will in New Haven"
<bill.reich@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:

>On Mar 1, 4:39 pm, Russell Wallace <russell.no.s...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> gleichman wrote:
>> > It might be worth running by someone other than one's self however to
>> > prevent one's own limitations becoming dogma. For example, this
thread
>> > has shown many hold to the common concept that in general surprise
and
>> > ambush cannot be overcomed by the defender. I hope that I've
dispelled
>> > that notion for the real world at least.
>>
>> (At least in cases where the defender is significantly stronger.) But
>> yes, that's one of the things forums like this are good for.
>
>"Cannot be overcome by the defender" and "does not confer an often
>significant advantage" are not the same thing. Gleichman has killed a
>strawman and may now pound his chest. Being trained to return fire and
>counter-attack an ambush does not put you in a position where you
>don't try to avoid being ambushed.

Mary's complaint in her original post was that surprise, in her games,
does give a "cannot be overcome by the defender" result. She was
looking for a modification that would tone suprise down to a mere
advantage; in abstract wargame terms a one place odds ****ft on the CRT
rather than a big enough ****ft to turn a even-odds attack into an
automatic "defender destroyed" result. 

If it makes combat more realistic to tone down surprise this way, then
that's good news. It means that standard surprise rules are like the
"death spiral" mechanics seen in many games - a naive attempt at
"realism" whose removal would make the game both more realistic *and*
more fun to play. 

-- 
Erol K. Bayburt
ErolB1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]