Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Command Ops Series' started by Templer, Oct 28, 2015.
Which do you use?
military symbols, just looks more "wargamey" to me, I dunno.
Because I got socialized with them. Every now and then old ones slip out, because you rarely know every single update when one comes out. So sometimes I use an older one without knowing better.
I don't mind either.
Nato , familiarity is the reason , never tried the alternative .
NATO. Helps me pretend I'm not wasting time playing a game, like a kid, with toys. The non-Nato symbols look like little toy soldiers....
That's an interesting reply Peter
I'm going to throw my toys out the pram and say I don't mind either
I guess its just like some people are bilingual and slip into one language as easy as another.
I use stylized counters in my AAR's so that people that don't understand the NATO ones can get a grasp of what is going on.
I would probably switch to NATO ones in my own games if the counter symbols were larger, but its so hard to see them, especially as I'm getting older, that I am happy to stick with the stylized ones.
I've always preferred to play wargames with NATO symbols, I guess I'm used to them, but I usually find them to be much clearer
I prefer the unit silhouette's because it helps to rapidly distinguish different companies and platoons when units are bunched, this is especially helpful when multiple battles are raging simultaneously and I'm trying to keep a sharp eye on the developing situation.
If there are a limited number of unit types, infantry, cavalry & artillery for instance, silhouettes are fine. However NATO-style symbols can be vey useful as these multiply, in that the icons can distinguish literally dozens of unit-types, one from another, using a tiny graphic. If I'd been born into a world without such icons, I'm afraid that I'd have been forced to invent them.