12-30-2011, 06:49 PM
1. "Civil War Ironclads" was, as I remember it, a game also written by Dave but never published.
2. I think that the attack value versus defense value (which was also the main combat system behind most Avalon Hill and SPI wargames of the era) is much more efficient than what later RPGs put together in the name of "realism." Adding in parry or dodge or armor absorption rules simply slows the whole process down.
3. As to AC, I still have frustration that low is better and this is a rule I "fixed" decades ago in my own game. I can see where it comes from, however, when "First Line" or "First Class" ships were the best ones, "Second Line" were second best, and so on. Logical in context, perhaps, but illogical in a RPG, unless...
4. ...my personal theory is that one of the early combat systems goes back to 2d6 and trying to roll under AC to hit. This also explains why the best AC in the original game was 2 instead of 1. So, to hit an unarmored foe (AC9) you would have to roll 9-12 on 2d6, but to hit someone in plate and shield (AC2) you would have to roll 2 on 2d6. I would still have reversed it (let plate & shield be AC12 and unarmored be AC5, for example) so you would roll under, but that's just one guy's preference.
2. I think that the attack value versus defense value (which was also the main combat system behind most Avalon Hill and SPI wargames of the era) is much more efficient than what later RPGs put together in the name of "realism." Adding in parry or dodge or armor absorption rules simply slows the whole process down.
3. As to AC, I still have frustration that low is better and this is a rule I "fixed" decades ago in my own game. I can see where it comes from, however, when "First Line" or "First Class" ships were the best ones, "Second Line" were second best, and so on. Logical in context, perhaps, but illogical in a RPG, unless...
4. ...my personal theory is that one of the early combat systems goes back to 2d6 and trying to roll under AC to hit. This also explains why the best AC in the original game was 2 instead of 1. So, to hit an unarmored foe (AC9) you would have to roll 9-12 on 2d6, but to hit someone in plate and shield (AC2) you would have to roll 2 on 2d6. I would still have reversed it (let plate & shield be AC12 and unarmored be AC5, for example) so you would roll under, but that's just one guy's preference.
Marv / Finarvyn
Member of The Regency Council
Visit my Blackmoor OD&D board
OD&D since 1975
"Don't ask me what you need to hit. Just roll the die and I will let you know!"
- Dave Arneson
![[Image: Giladan.png]](http://rizak.info/PIX/Giladan.png)
Member of The Regency Council
Visit my Blackmoor OD&D board
OD&D since 1975
"Don't ask me what you need to hit. Just roll the die and I will let you know!"
- Dave Arneson