 |
|
Armor Facing Rule - Printable Version +- Forums (https://www.theblitz.club/message_boards) +-- Forum: The Firing Line (https://www.theblitz.club/message_boards/forumdisplay.php?fid=1) +--- Forum: Campaign Series (https://www.theblitz.club/message_boards/forumdisplay.php?fid=8) +--- Thread: Armor Facing Rule (/showthread.php?tid=58543) |
RE: Armor Facing Rule - Crossroads - 04-10-2011 :soap: (04-10-2011, 12:02 AM)Herr Straßen Läufer Wrote: Especially those who want visibility to change 250 m every three to six minutes, There seems to be a glitch as affirmed by Jason. It is being fixed if and when the next patch comes along. (04-10-2011, 12:02 AM)Herr Straßen Läufer Wrote: engineers to clear wrecks, plant and remove minefields every six minutes, build bridges in six minutes, I am not sure about wrecks, but as for mines and bridges there's a die roll included in the process. It is not like it is automatically done in six minutes. How else would you implement a time consuming process in a six minute engine than using die rolls? (04-10-2011, 12:02 AM)Herr Straßen Läufer Wrote: and disrupted, overwhelmed, units to hold out for hours, This was discussed earlier. Exception to a rule as far as what I have seen with EA. Definitively not the standard how EA works. I did a lot of examples on another thread on EA, so this is not just my opinion. (04-10-2011, 12:02 AM)Herr Straßen Läufer Wrote: and armor to fail in attempts to overrun empty wagons because they are in a town, or I have not tried this, but I give you this one. Seems to be a consequence of making built up areas more difficult for tanks. (04-10-2011, 12:02 AM)Herr Straßen Läufer Wrote: using armor facing because "they" believe it is more realistic. Topic of the thread. Good discussion, many good points I had not considered before. But, who is "they". If you have a point please be clear about it. I certainly do not mind playing using many of the features you went on this tirade for, and thus intepret your post in a similar manner as Von Manstein. (04-10-2011, 12:02 AM)Herr Straßen Läufer Wrote: Added to the game because the new developers think they know it all ... and better than anyone else. Many new features are only possible with new types of units. Many features are made available as optional rules. Then there's the opportunity to set up ROEs with players who think alike. I for one am glad the game engine keeps evolving. I would like to see the old engine preserved, so I am with you in hoping new features come via optional rules. (04-10-2011, 12:02 AM)Herr Straßen Läufer Wrote: If a scenario designer likes AF they should indicate that in their write up so that players should use it for their designs? Why try to force it upon others because they "believe" it is "realistic"? Good for you. There's still plenty of us enjoying features you dislike. I mainly posted to support Von Manstein in his reply as I am not clear on who you have on your crosshair either. If you refer to other players, enjoying these features, with "they", I am definitively on Von Manstein's camp. (04-10-2011, 07:51 AM)Herr Straßen Läufer Wrote: In the future attack my position and not my person. :smoke: This was my intention, Sir :smoke: (04-10-2011, 12:21 PM)Scud Wrote: Let's cut out the flames please boys. Stick to the subject or don't post. And this. Plenty of good discussion so far, let us keep it this way 
RE: Armor Facing Rule - Herr Straße Laufer - 04-10-2011 Verrückte Katze wrote: A)I am not sure about wrecks, but as for mines and bridges there's a die roll included in the process. It is not like it is automatically done in six minutes. How else would you implement a time consuming process in a six minute engine than using die rolls? B)This was discussed earlier. Exception to a rule as far as what I have seen with EA. Definitively not the standard how EA works. I did a lot of examples on another thread on EA, so this is not just my opinion. C)I have not tried this, but I give you this one. Seems to be a consequence of making built up areas more difficult for tanks. D)Topic of the thread. Good discussion, many good points I had not considered before. But, who is "they". If you have a point please be clear about it. E)I certainly do not mind playing using many of the features you went on this tirade for, and thus intepret your post in a similar manner as Von Manstein. F)Many new features are only possible with new types of units. Many features are made available as optional rules. Then there's the opportunity to set up ROEs with players who think alike. I for one am glad the game engine keeps evolving. I would like to see the old engine preserved, so I am with you in hoping new features come via optional rules. G)Good for you. There's still plenty of us enjoying features you dislike. I mainly posted to support Von Manstein in his reply as I am not clear on who you have on your crosshair either. If you refer to other players, enjoying these features, with "they", I am definitively on Von Manstein's camp. _______ A)Mines, wrecks, and bridges take hours to construct or clear. In the game it takes a minimum of six minutes to a maximum of an eternity based on a die roll. In the original version I tolerated the way it worked with mine field clearing. The new units are doing things out of scale, IMO. They, the development team, are the ones to have done that. B) My experiences are different from yours. They, the development team, first injected EA without full beta testing and it was full of bugs and not optional. It is as artificial as the disrupt overrun of the original. My opinion and I'll keep it. C) Russian scout cars are most likely to experience this. But, I have seen it happen with light and medium tank types too. D) Thanks. They are the development team. I have reservations about them based on what I said in "A", "B", and "C" above. E) One, I have not gone on a "tirade". I wrote out some calm and thoughtful series of opinions based on my experiences. I even stated that I was happy to see things made optional (as with the revision of the original EA intention by the development team. I think some posters would benefit from simply reading my words instead of reading into my words. If von Manstein, Huib, Glint or others want to do that and then take shots at me based on what they think I said, that is their problem and not mine. The old saying is that "if you cannot win the argument" attack the person you are arguing with. I am always ready to discuss the game and give my opinions. I do that for others but seem to not have that same respect given to me. So be it? I will continue to discuss the issues and not the posters. F) Good for you! I do not share all of your "joy" in what they, the Development Team, are doing to the game (not for the game). See "D" above for my reasoning on this. They are the ones who tried to force EA upon the system. They are the ones who added units that are not in scale with the game scale. I just wish they would have done all of that to their stand alone Modern Wars, instead of tinkering with CS. My opinion and clearly not yours? I hope I will be allowed to have it and not be "attacked" by others less tolerant? G) Who is "us"? [joke son] If you are in the Manstein "camp", and think that taking personal shots at posters who want to present a position that is not your own, then I am not in that camp. I also think that your "camp" should refrain from taking personal shots at the posters and stick to commenting on the post (as you have done - so you may not be in their camp anyway). Lastly, I have stated my positions on Huib and Glint [the new Trampled Tanker - who is still in my ignore list]. Since, I ignore them I do not comment on what they say. I do see that Glint has taken an opportunity to once again select me for his "tirade" which you also did not object to as you did, for what you called, mine? All is then fair? I'm for equal justice. I wish to be treated as fairly as I am treated. I have no problems with you, I've stated that before directly to you, except that you wish to be in the "camp" of a person whose contribution to this thread was to attack me and not what I wrote. And, that you can ignore the ranting of another but, take it to me for each an every line I write based on what, as you said, "interpret" as my meaning? I thought the Manstein post was less offensive than the Glint post [which I can hope that the mods would delete from this, almost, fine discussion]. All this wasted effort must drive many of my detractors insane with a desire to post more? HSL RE: Armor Facing Rule - von Manstein - 04-11-2011 (04-10-2011, 11:14 PM)Herr Straßen Läufer Wrote: I think some posters would benefit from simply reading my words instead of reading into my words. If von Manstein, Huib, Glint or others want to do that and then take shots at me based on what they think I said, that is their problem and not mine. The old saying is that "if you cannot win the argument" attack the person you are arguing with. Well, I'm not the one who was pointing someone else in my post. Not my post was saying that others are in wrong and I'm the only one who is right. And actually I didn't arguing with you that's why there wasn't any arguments because I think there is no sense to discuss with you (and I think I'm not the only one in this club thinking like that). I just wanted to express my opinion about your way of discussion. You attack other as first (you just don't see that) but then you complaining that everybody is attacking you. RE: Armor Facing Rule - Scud - 04-11-2011 One last time. No more flames, you've all taken your shots. This specifically goes to HSL, Trampled Tanker and Von Manstein. Stick to the subject or don't post. Pretty simple. Consider this strike two. One more and and someone's going to take a time out. Thanks, Dave RE: Armor Facing Rule - Crossroads - 04-11-2011 OK, let us try to continue... I edited the original quotes a bit to keep into discussing game features. No offense meant by any omissions compared to original postings. (04-10-2011, 11:14 PM)Herr Straßen Läufer Wrote: A)Mines, wrecks, and bridges take hours to construct or clear. In the game it takes a minimum of six minutes to a maximum of an eternity based on a die roll. In the original version I tolerated the way it worked with mine field clearing. The new units are doing things out of scale, IMO. It is 25 years since I did the grunt bootcamp, for what I can recall tank mines were quite simple things, as were the anti-personnel mines, at least the simple ones that were designed to blow you ankle off. I can live with the fact a specific mine engineer unit can lay a level 1 minefield even in six minutes. I agree this is a grey area, but given they would mine the obvious routes it is not impossible. I guess the same goes for clearing minefields. The idea is to clear the obvious route of advance, one level at the time, while not being obstructed by enemy fire (ie being disrupted). I am not familiar with wreck clearing, I assume there are separate wreck clearing units? I believe one would need to use similar logic, as only the obvious routes of advance would be cleared out. As for bridges, normal engineers can only create bridges for footsoldiers, while bridging engineers can create bridges for trucks etc. Right? I agree six minute + a die roll is a bit of a push for a bridge heavy enough for trucks, but they are new units and do not appear in stock scenarios so yes why not. (04-10-2011, 11:14 PM)Herr Straßen Läufer Wrote: B) My experiences are different from yours. Fair enough :) (04-10-2011, 11:14 PM)Herr Straßen Läufer Wrote: C) Russian scout cars are most likely to experience this. But, I have seen it happen with light and medium tank types too. Overall, I am happy to see how built up areas have become dangerous for armoured units to enter. In the open, they can kill infantry units in hordes, in town hexes, the roles reverse. What I can't recall is whether this new behaviour is only under EA, in which case it is optional and one can choose to either play with it, or not. (04-10-2011, 11:14 PM)Herr Straßen Läufer Wrote: D) Thanks. I certainly believed "the retreat bug" was a bug, but there is enough evidence now it is a "feature" and should be treated as such. I quite like the idea of unit facing, it was the "bug" I was having problems with. O.v.B. gave enough hints as how to survive with it, and I obviously need to be more open minded about it. As I already mentioned but worth repeating, I am addressing your points, not your person. The reason I "disected" (sp?)your post was that you were mentioning a lot of game features in your post, many of which I find interesting to discuss more. I wish not and it is my intention no to get into flame wars or politicking, I have enough of that in my real life. And finally, for the word "tirade". This is what I meant, in a light hearted manner, as I am well aware you dislike anything to do with EA : a speech of violent denunciation wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn However, I am not an english speaker, it seems the word has a darker meaning. (Define: tirade) A tantrum is an emotional outburst of ill humor or a fit of bad temper wherein the 'higher' cognitive functions are unable to stop the emotional expression of the putative 'lower' (emotional and physical) functions. ... en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tirade If it got intepreted as the latter my apologies. I was just making a pointer to your "violent denunciation" for anything EA :chin: It should be possible to discuss mine engineers and even EA in a proper civil manner, yes? :smoke: RE: Armor Facing Rule - Scud - 04-11-2011 Well said Petri, and yes it should and is possible to discuss mine engineers and even EA in a proper civil manner. Dave RE: Armor Facing Rule - Herr Straße Laufer - 04-11-2011 (04-11-2011, 04:24 AM)Verrückte Katze Wrote: It should be possible to discuss mine engineers and even EA in a proper civil manner, yes? :smoke: Yes. :) But, since I have been lumped in with those who post personal attacks I am hesitant to post a response. I thereby cede the field to you and your "camp". :bow:  I will no longer post to this thread. If you want to discuss via e-mail I am all for it. I simply do not want to open myself up to the ad hominem of those who have personal issues with me. Especially when their foul posts are allowed to remain and soil a perfectly good discussion. Thanks to all who wanted to discuss, in a non personal way, the subject at hand. Sorry that a small few decided to get personal. HSL RE: Armor Facing Rule - von Manstein - 04-11-2011 (04-11-2011, 08:01 PM)Herr Straßen Läufer Wrote: Sorry that a small few decided to get personal. I'm sorry for them too.
RE: Armor Facing Rule - Crossroads - 04-12-2011 Mountains and molehills, mountains and molehills. C'mon campers of the world, a B-I-I-I-I-G HUG :group:
RE: Armor Facing Rule - 5 Leichte Div - 04-13-2011 Whoa .... this AF debate is just as touchy ... again ... as the EA stuff was ! I like the EA ... got used to it ... like it just fine now. AF ... ON or OFF . My dislikes are retreats in ON , as well as what I think are faulty def values ( Sherman also had sloped armor ... the base value should have increased just like Panther's did ) Note the Panther = 13 , the Sherman 8 or 9 , and this is a fairly good representation of comparative quality defensively. Gunnery seems omnipotent , but this occurs when numbers are up , namely 5-6 SP platoons . Smaller platoons have a tougher effort to do some damage. AF OFF (default values ) long range gunnery is better for the Allies in some cases , as the Sherman can do something at ranges farther than what was practical. Not so likeable .... yet this was also somewhat the case with AF ON as well . The retreat bug further exasperated things. So ... in sum .. for AF ON ... faulty def values for some units, mostly late war Allied tanks , and the retreat rear-face turnaround - no good ! With AF OFF .... you have better comparison ... but long range shooting is maybe too effective , tho I get the need to have that thrill gamewise. AF OFF seems to encourage more aggressive forward maneuver as the enemy is safer with retreats , could recover if you do not keep up the pressure. It might seem " safer " in close but close quarters is deadly stuff either way anyhow , and the somewhat better all-around DEF VALUE with AF OFF .... is a deadly illusion .... AF OFF ..or ON. The ASDN was very good for the EF2. AF ON was employed , but you still got the frontal benefit in retreat. This restored the need to move aggressively, get in close and around. But .... it still used those faulty DEF values for front, side, rear aspects. [/font][/size] You know what, tho ..... the original EF ... had a nice solution. Remember guys ( ? ) ..... using AF ON option ... gunnery was modified. Front (x.8) ... Side (x1.3) ... Rear (x1.5) of the rated range firepower. The nice thing about this ..... the default comparison values remained intact , you got your positional aspects , and retreats let a unit be safer like they were hoping to do , as it should be so. And ...it worked pretty well. Nobody griped much about then .... until the craze for numbers took over. Hey .... me thinks the old way .... is better. Just another old salt ... mouthin' off. I need a drink .... Tom S. 5 Leichte Div |
){kind=link}