I've had a chance to look at Frank's response to my article, and it looks like it's my turn again. The pressure of time and the limitation of space precludes a full discussion of my reaction, so I'll address myself to generalities rather than specifies.

Yes, there is a difficulty in the abstractions of battles into rigid increments of proportion, a difficulty in the translation of real life events into cardboard and ink simulations. That's something most gainers are willing to accept. Likewise, I'm willing to accept Frank's AEC system as a quantum jump over other (or the lack of other) armor effects systems. Good as it is, though, it doesn't prevent more "factor-fussing" as a gaming quirk; nor does it mitigate the simulation of (debatably) ahistorical tactics. The question is what, if anything, can mitigate these quirks.

I admire and respect Frank's credentials as historian and designer. Nevertheless, I think the attitude in his response to the points I raised is one of laissez-faire, rather than an examination of the arguments for new directions of revision and innovation in dealing with what he considers inherent problems. Surely he has been through this reasoning before, and perhaps his system is the most viable.

But I think I have demonstrated that there are some difficulties - inherent or not - in the present AEC rules. I'm not so sure Frank has demonstrated that they are an acceptable side-effect of an otherwise optimal system.

Let's be thankful that GDW, Frank, and the Europa system have advanced the art this far. We can agree to disagree on details.

More DNO/UNT Armor Effects

Armor Effects in DNO/UNT
My Turn: Designer Rebuttal
The Last Word: Rebuttal's Rebuttal