 |
|
Opinions about "Game rules as used by players" - Printable Version +- Forums (https://www.theblitz.club/message_boards) +-- Forum: The Firing Line (https://www.theblitz.club/message_boards/forumdisplay.php?fid=1) +--- Forum: Steel Panthers Series (https://www.theblitz.club/message_boards/forumdisplay.php?fid=14) +--- Thread: Opinions about "Game rules as used by players" (/showthread.php?tid=68770) |
RE: Opinions about "Game rules as used by players" - Weasel - 12-04-2015 Easy way to stop Z fire? Bring back the old days where every shot you fired in your active turn took away from the number of shots available in your defensive turn, and every shot fired in your defensive turn took away from your active turn. Too bad they got rid of it. RE: Opinions about "Game rules as used by players" - Percy - 12-04-2015 Its easy to fix just ban z fire altogether. RE: Opinions about "Game rules as used by players" - Weasel - 12-04-2015 Not everyone likes that, and Z fire does have its uses, like when an infantry unit shoots at you until out of ammo, then pops smoke to prevent you from shoot back. Only Z fire has a chance against him. The deal is to limit it. The Cav in Vietnam were well known to drive down the roads blasting away at the tree lines on both sides "just in case". RE: Opinions about "Game rules as used by players" - BigDuke66 - 12-04-2015 @Percy Your rules seem too drastic to be used as general house rules, they may work for a specific scenario but not in general, there is no reason to ban planes or helicopters or narrow the possibility of suppression fire so far down. Banning suppression fire seems to achieve the opposite of what we have now, now you can use suppression fire unhistorical but baning it would still leave it unhistorical and only shifts the gameplay. http://www.dererstezug.com/TacticalPhilosophies.htm @Walrus I doubt that any house rule can speedup the gameplay, maybe if these replaces some function or rules in the game but even then I doubt that a speedup can occur. Anyway I use house rules only to fill the gaps that are in the game, and as you said it add realism and if that comes with the price of taking a bit more time to do a turn I don't mind at all. @Weasel Limiting shoots sounds good but it still wouldn't stop from shooting were the typical MG unit would never fire. I would prefer to see the density value of a terrain effect more than only LOS,firing deep into the woods with high density would unlikely achieve anything as the bullets simply couldn't reach the hex that the player aimed at, that itself would stop player from wasting ammo for a small if any effect. RE: Opinions about "Game rules as used by players" - Percy - 12-04-2015 (12-04-2015, 09:15 AM)Weasel Wrote: Not everyone likes that, and Z fire does have its uses, like when an infantry unit shoots at you until out of ammo, then pops smoke to prevent you from shoot back. Only Z fire has a chance against him. The deal is to limit it. The Cav in Vietnam were well known to drive down the roads blasting away at the tree lines on both sides "just in case". Well it may have its uses but I am only really concerned with what is realistic. In game z fire is applied unrealistically way way way more often than realistically, I think you will agree. It doesn't equate to suppressive fire because all units magically know where to apply z fire and often suppressive fire would suppress exactly nothing because it is off target, but in game it's always on target. I think it is much simpler to ban it than make largely unenforceable rules to try to force realistic use. Thanks Percy. RE: Opinions about "Game rules as used by players" - Percy - 12-04-2015 (12-04-2015, 09:24 AM)BigDuke66 Wrote: @Percy Hi BigDuke My rules work fine in all the games I am currently playing, I'm not sure if that equates to generally, The big difference my rule set makes is that the defender has an equal chance of winning. As the game is shipped the defender has no chance especially if he is not elite troops. The reason to ban planes is because they spot the defenders positions and immediately telegraph the information to all the other units which is clearly impossible and makes a defensive position useless in the sense that the enemy knows where your positions are. For suppressive fire the reason to ban it is that it dumbs the game down massively. Once the offending unit is located units out of LOS begin suppressing it, then when you magically know its just suppressed enough (ie retreating), someone walks up and nukes it, its just too easy and incredibly unrealistic. Because of this whoever has the most units (attacker) always wins. Yes removing suppressive fire is unhistorical but you can't have it both ways. You do lose a small piece of realism, but I think it is a very very small price to pay for getting rid of the massive z fire bogey. helicopters I ban simply because they are a big advantage for whoever has them. They are great to grab victory hexes with on the last turn. I'm still working on my rule set. It currently doesn't allow para drops witch is wrong, you should try playing it, see what you think. Percy. RE: Opinions about "Game rules as used by players" - Percy - 12-04-2015 By the way after inviting you to use them there different now, they are, No ammo resupply. No Z fire(except for pillboxes, HMG and MMG when defending and mortars(for mortars one z fire per turn which is considered a ranging shot.). No aircraft including helicopters. No allies, foreign, captured, experimental or prototype kit. No zero sized Scouts, Snipers or LMG groups except those included in companies or platoons, unless defending. One demolition per engineer section. No Direct support or General support Artillery. Artillery effectiveness 50%. Searching 40%. Rout/Rally 200%. RE: Opinions about "Game rules as used by players" - Scorpio_Rocks - 12-04-2015 (12-04-2015, 04:15 PM)Percy Wrote: My rules work fine in all the games I am currently playing, I'm not sure if that equates to generally, The big difference my rule set makes is that the defender has an equal chance of winning. As the game is shipped the defender has no chance especially if he is not elite troops. A modern army does have the capabilities to share troop locations, etc pretty much simultaneously with all friendlies. http://gizmodo.com/how-the-army-of-the-future-will-share-battlefield-intel-601950993?utm_expid=66866090-71.ZDl_b8uGQgG7HBI5sxDRgQ.0&utm_referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.co.uk This doesnt even take into consideration satellites, high flying drones, etc that saw you move into those positions days ago and whilst your rules do stop some very "gamey" tactics - I would say don't play with those kind of people rather than lose out to many facets of modern warfare (helicopters, aircraft, etc). - (I don't think anyone would accept someone saying they had "captured" a VP with a helo in the last turn!) The house rules put forward by Weasel et al do enough to stop the gamey use of Z fire, etc rather than banning a tactic used in the real world. In my, allbeit limited, experience of playing humans folks tend to not abuse the "gamey" aspects and use realistic tactics without having too many artificial "rules" - A few "force-building" guidelines and the understanding that VP cant be captured by size 0 units or in last turn seem to work for me. RE: Opinions about "Game rules as used by players" - Percy - 12-04-2015 Hi Scorpio I am talking about winspww2 I don't play MBT. I think that for winspww2 my comments are correct. RE: Opinions about "Game rules as used by players" - BigDuke66 - 12-05-2015 AFAIk the Germans started very early(France) in the war to connect the ground troops to the CAS by UHF. So of course while it is rather silly to uncover all the units in the backyard it doesn't seem impossible that a pilot would radio troop concentrations back to the ground. In game it maybe be a matter of setting the filter to block AA-fire none AA units like APCs, tanks, etc. and so to not uncover their positions. |
){kind=link}