Pyth
Senior Member
The great Ken Burn's Parody/deadpan-comic-poetry-fable ... John Hodgeman's Hobo Matters.
Oh, you must mean like an old Spanish town. We should really talk. ;-)I'm curious - does anybody know of rules or game mechanics the SL or ASL designers/developers tried out but opted against for one reason or another? Sure, ASL left some SL ideas behind (Scouts, Near Misses, etc) but I'm curious about basic things that Don Greenwood, Bob Macnamara, John Hill, etc, played around with but ultimately didn't think were worth keeping.
The thought came to mind when I was thinking about how Walls and Hedges are handled in the game, and how it's pretty impossible to represent a narrow walled city street, as in Old European cities.
Exactly!The great Ken Burn's Parody/deadpan-comic-poetry-fable ... John Hodgeman's Hobo Matters.
Interesting....but evidence of this...??? By that I mean reference in some old school mails you have or some General passing reference, or your connection to ASLRB v1 as PTer or "helper"... etc.... Be a very interesting "road not paved"...I thought there was some talk about opportunity fire during the movement phase, but did not make the cut. The idea was for the attacker to have the use of Op fire declared during Prep to use in both the movement and Adv. fire phase.
A semi-simultaneous MPH/DFPH certainly would have been viable: allowing the defender the ability to use their CX capability (2 MF) in lieu of dfire would have allowed a more fluid situation with increased decision points.Interesting....but evidence of this...??? By that I mean reference in some old school mails you have or some General passing reference, or your connection to ASLRB v1 as PTer or "helper"... etc.... Be a very interesting "road not paved"...
I have to come clean, this was my own idea some years ago. Sorry for the fabrication. I envisioned more of a fluid fire and maneuver during the movement phase. Can you imagine that with AFV bounding fire.Interesting....but evidence of this...??? By that I mean reference in some old school mails you have or some General passing reference, or your connection to ASLRB v1 as PTer or "helper"... etc.... Be a very interesting "road not paved"...
Not saying nor suggesting it would not be viable.A semi-simultaneous MPH/DFPH certainly would have been viable: allowing the defender the ability to use their CX capability (2 MF) in lieu of dfire would have allowed a more fluid situation with increased decision points.
The OP was after what paths "the designers" looked at but did not take. Not home rules, as interesting as yours is.I have to come clean, this was my own idea some years ago. Sorry for the fabrication. I envisioned more of a fluid fire and maneuver during the movement phase. Can you imagine that with AFV bounding fire.
There was conversation, informally as I recall, about exploring a semi-simultaneous aspect beyond the Mph/DFph amalgation we have in place. Given the, what, nigh 40 year run of this game, I can't place the "Who, What, Why, or When" beyond the recollection.The OP was after what paths "the designers" looked at but did not take. Not home rules, as interesting as yours is.
Please in future on an answer like this come clean outright, better a slight de-rail for an interesting tropic, than creating misleading chatter that this was discussed by the "designers" when it was patently not. Thanks.
Understood. Thanks.There was conversation, informally as I recall, about exploring a semi-simultaneous aspect beyond the Mph/DFph amalgation we have in place. Given the, what, nigh 40 year run of this game, I can't place the "Who, What, Why, or When" beyond the recollection.