Quote:
Originally Posted by 95th Rifleman
To a point, true
However it adds to the feel and atmosphere if such things are fleshed out properly.
If you want a cold, sterile game then I suppose such details can be left out. I prefer games that have real depth, real history and by having such detals fleshed out and ready they can be incorporated in many different ways into a game. Finding an overun HQ with such details lying around, it's a brief, perhaps useless detail of information. However it adds to the ambience, to the atmosphere as the PCs look at wat they once had, once where part of and the reality of what they have become becomes more manifest.
As a gm I prefer to have as much detail as possible prepared and ready to incorporate. I feel that I'm doing my group a great diservice if the game isn't as deailed as possible for them.
|
Agreed: IN all the games I have run, I have always used the rule of thumb that the units consolidated downwards as manpower and equipment was whittled down throughout the way. So while the 1st Cav might still for all intents and purposes be a full up division in 2000, I have the men and vehicles condensed into a few, but strong, units instead of leaving it where you have a single company with 20 guys and a tank: If anything has been learned from all the wars prior, is that when you penny packet troops, they die a lot faster. Taking that brigade, that has only a dozen tanks, and having it operate as a single company makes a lot more sense. And then I present it to the group of players this way - how over the years as the size of the unit has dropped, more and more other MOS's have been pushed into these ad hoc companies to bring them up to strength, and it gives a reason for why you have such a diverse selection of PC's in a single unit.