Quote from: hedgehobbit on Today at 10:09:14 AMDuring WW2, the US army produced wargame rules. Not miniatures, but with actual soldiers running around fields pretending to shoot each other. These are listed in Field Manual 105-5.

https://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USA/ref/FM/PDFs/FM105-5.pdf

Inside those rules, on page 14, is a chart of weapon effectiveness for resolving combat.



"Automatic Rifle" is the BAR while the "Light Machine Gun" is the air-cooled M1919 .30 cal which is usually described as Medium Machine Gun in most current day wargame rules such as Bolt Action.

In this chart a rifle get 1 point which, in wargame terms, matches up to 1 shot. So the number of shots in a wargame for various weapons would be:

Rifle: 1
SMG: 3
LMG: 3-4
MMG: 6
HMG: 10

If you compare these numbers to the shot in Bolt Action, you can see that Bolt Action undervalues machines guns by quite a bit. The only 28mm wargame that uses numbers close to these is Chain of Command. That game is great for infantry vs infantry but their vehicle rules are a bit crap.

Greetings!

Excellent, Hedgehobbit! It is awesome to see the historical roots even within the mechanics of a midern wargame. Yeah, I agree too. Bolt Action seems to nerf machine guns quite a bit. I'm not sure why. Rifles re of course excellent. Assault Rifles, well, they are superior to rifles. Machine guns fucking rule, sorry. Yes, I was a machine gunner in the Marines. I know the SAW very well. Marines get *excited* hearing the SAW going off, you know? The buzz of a SAW by itself is a strong boost to the men's morale. They know that some heavy firepower is there to help them, and bring death to the enemy. And, let us not forget--just hearing an enemy machine gun buzzing, is intimidating. It does bring fear, down inside you. Machine guns are fucking absolutely deadly.

Bolt Action's handling of machine guns is definitely underwhelming! *Laughing*

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: Brad on Today at 11:28:46 AM"My very first experience wanting to play Dungeons & Dragons was back in the '80s," says the 55-year-old Williams, who grew up amid the tobacco fields of North Carolina, "and there were some of my male friends in a basement, and I wanted to play, and they were like: 'No, you can't play. This isn't for girls.' I'm really excited that that is no longer the case."

Why don't I believe a single fucking word of this?

Greetings!

Yeah, Brad. I agree. It's BS. Her entire statement is absolutely fraudulent.

Girls were always welcome at any table I was playing at as a kid. Even more so as an adolescent. The fact is, most girls were not interested. A few girls liked to play. And, there were always a decent number of girls that were undecided about playing--but were very eager to sit right there amongst us, and observe, or cheerlead. They just liked hanging out and listening and following along with all the drama going on. Funny thing, we even see that behavior from girls and women to this day! It is fun and enjoyable to see even when a woman doesn't want to play--they often want to cook, serve drinks, go get snacks for everyone, and hang out together. Participating in such ways provides them--the women--with great joy. It's all good.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: BadApple on Today at 02:22:38 PMAs a kid of the 80s, I can tell you that she would have been welcome at any table I have ever known.  "It's not for girls" was a jock thing, not a nerd thing.

In my experience it was a rest of society thing.  I've mentioned before on the forum that we were always eager to have girls at the table, but it was always somebody else (teachers, librarians, parents, boyfriends, etc) stepping in and shutting it down. I'm not saying we never barred a girl from the table (we did a time or two), but it was always for reasons other than "this isn't for girls".   

Quote from: Trond on Today at 04:12:18 PMTo answer the original question, no, Tolkien was not to the detriment of the hobby. I agree with those who say that wokeists would insert themselves no matter what. Say, if elves were simply handled as spirits by Tolkien, and we used that in gaming, they would complain about why we don't have more African spirits or some such.

I think that's a fair critique. There's thousands and thousands of Middle Earth rip-offs, but only one Nyambe and it's not even supported anymore.

To answer the original question, no, Tolkien was not to the detriment of the hobby. I agree with those who say that wokeists would insert themselves no matter what. Say, if elves were simply handled as spirits by Tolkien, and we used that in gaming, they would complain about why we don't have more African spirits or some such.

Quote from: Domina on April 23, 2024, 06:00:20 PMSo no answer then.

Oh I'm sorry, you're blind and deaf. You're still able to write, though, keep going.

Quote from: oggsmash on April 22, 2024, 05:28:23 PMMy son is rolling strong again.  Did a 300x5 squat yesterday and is on track to have a shot at a 4 plate 1rm DL by the end of May.  I think his goal for squat is 350 1RM by end of May and it looks like he is on track to hit that too.  Not bad at all for a 13 year old (he is not small though, at 5'9" and 167lbs).

13!? Wow, man, congrats on having little Hercules for a son.

I'm off to weep in the corner for not being fit at all when I was that young.

Quote from: BadApple on Today at 02:22:38 PMAs a kid of the 80s, I can tell you that she would have been welcome at any table I have ever known.  "It's not for girls" was a jock thing, not a nerd thing.

Exactly. Young boys, verging on being teenagers, would want a girl playing with them. Especially nerdy boys.

They have Jell-O people from the planet Cosby.

Quote from: Brad on Today at 11:28:46 AMWhy don't I believe a single fucking word of this?

Because you are too based to believe bullshit made up just-so stories?