HT optional rule

[PawelM]

Before I get to the point, I get a polite request. This thread is not intended to discuss right or wrong of HT usage. Therefore I would like to ask all members not to sideline or hijack the thread for that. If you think you can do that please read below.



Since i joined up Blitz few months ago i have found that usage of HTs can be a touchy issue. I personally do not have to strong a bias on that. I treat it as another optional rule. As a result I play games restricting HT use and one where HTs can be use as one sees fit. And here is my point, I need to remember and be very careful not to accidentaly 'over-use' HTs to avoid upsetting my opponent. However one cannot avoid mistakes and habbits to kick in.

This is why I think an optional rule could be the way to go for people playing both ways. I know it is not straight forward but at least it should be considered.

I think the main effects of this ' extreme halftrack' :) rule could be:

1. Empty HT assault is non-zero only when other units are in attack, i.e. Adds to the assaulting unit prohibiting HT only assaults.
2. Empty HT cannot spot enemy units unless it attempts to enter a hex with the unit, limiting their usage as reckons
3. More detailed OppFire allowing to split tank and non tank hard targets, to avoid HTs usage as a bait.

In this way a possibilty of upsetting my opponent (not on purpose) could be minimised and A person like me would not have to remember what HT arrangementd were set for a given game especially when one has a lot of games going on.

[Crossroads]

I am not the greatest fan of personal rules of engagement. Having said that, I often do agree to them if someone mentions them clearly to me before a game starting.

These I could live with, I guess, although with no1 and no2 I do not have strong feelings for or against. If you live a unit at a risk for being assaulted by HTs, well you shouldn't.

However with no3 I could see this even as a potential 1.05 change request. Either class HTs as soft vehicles, leaving only tanks TDs SPAs as hard targets? Or create a class of their own for that?

I do agree a use of HTs to continuosly trigger op fire feels a bit 'gamey'. Anyway, one of those things I guess where I would simply request in an email that I would appreciate if my opponent would not do it anymore.

As I said I do not appreciate extra ROEs but would prefer to stick to my own interpretation of 'realistic' (now there's a touchy word as well) use of given unit in given situation.

[PawelM]

I am not the greatest fan of personal rules of engagement. Having said that, I often do agree to them if someone mentions them clearly to me before a game starting.

These I could live with, I guess, although with no1 and no2 I do not have strong feelings for or against. If you live a unit at a risk for being assaulted by HTs, well you shouldn't.

However with no3 I could see this even as a potential 1.05 change request. Either class HTs as soft vehicles, leaving only tanks TDs SPAs as hard targets? Or create a class of their own for that?

I do agree a use of HTs to continuosly trigger op fire feels a bit 'gamey'. Anyway, one of those things I guess where I would simply request in an email that I would appreciate if my opponent would not do it anymore.

As I said I do not appreciate extra ROEs but would prefer to stick to my own interpretation of 'realistic' (now there's a touchy word as well) use of given unit in given situation.

In general my attitude towards peronal rules of engagement are that i do not bring it up and assume the units can bes used as the player sees fit. There are pplayers who request it and usually I agree as I do not mind and enjoy playing them.somet

I have a habit to use all the units as I see fit. Sometimes out of habbit one can break the agreed rule. I thought there was enough gamers here restricting HT use that it might be sensible making it an optional rule as say extreme assault.

from my personal perspective there is only one advantage: I would not have to curb my habbits when using HT and would not need to remember which game I agreed for that :)
One might say I should stick to playing one way or another. But I think I would loose out on not playing some good and fun to play gamers.

[von Manstein]

1. Empty HT assault is non-zero only when other units are in attack, i.e. Adds to the assaulting unit prohibiting HT only assaults.
2. Empty HT cannot spot enemy units unless it attempts to enter a hex with the unit, limiting their usage as reckons
3. More detailed OppFire allowing to split tank and non tank hard targets, to avoid HTs usage as a bait.

1. and 2. BIG 'NO' (I think HT was armoured combat unit with MG)
3. VERY BIG 'YES' (HT is not a tank)

[Otto von Blotto]

1 and 2, I'm not really fussed if people want to use them like this I could always use the points that destroying them brings but I do think that use by themselves in assault isn't how they should be used so I will not use them that way myself, with support yes by themselves no but I wouldn't force anyone to do the same.

3. I think does have some legs but again if my opponent wants to give me free points by using them in this way, I will take them they will soon run out of them.

[PawelM]

Hi guys,
Thanks for sharing you thoughts. I think I was misunderstood :). First of all I meant there are people like me who do not mind HT usage to whatever extent the game allows. The points 1, 2 and 3 are not my ideas but some people prefer to play with informal rules somewhere along these lines. If this is agreed I do not mind playing such rules.

and here is my point re-iterqated: as I play opponnents in both camps I sometimes confuse the game and forget about the restricted HT rules I agreed to. So I thought if there was an optional rule in the game as outlined in my first post I would not have to worry about remembering :)
I think of it as a nice to have option for some rules many players enforce informaly when they play :)

[PawelM]

To clarify I am talking about an optional rule which as extreme assault could be switched on or off in the game rather then informal agreements. And the 1;2 and 3 point I listed were proposal what enabling the rule would achieve :)

[Otto von Blotto]

Yes I can see what you mean, and optional rules on it would make ROE for an individual easier to enforce, but I do also see the advantage of fewer written in stone rules, and there are enough players that if you feel really strongly about a rule you can still find enough quality games and use the rules you want.

You I know (as I have played you a few times) are like me and will go with the flow so would normally be defaulting to as few restricting rules as possible. :smoke:

If we are going to add more general rules and I would say I would hate to see CS to descend into the amount of optional rules as say HPS, we must first discuss what has gone before to see if it is still suitable before we add to it.

Indirect fire, command control and Fog of war are fine broad reaching and in my opinion should always be on by default anyway.

VV is an IMHO a mess as it stands and isn't a suitable rule until the same visibility is the same for both sides of a turn.

Half-track rules would make the balance of all the scenarios that have gone before dubious maybe they were made with that use of half-tracks in a offensive or diversionary role in mind.?

Armour facing and EA are debatable and can be added if the scenario designer set the game up for it which brings me onto another point.

Scenarios that were made for a particular rule set should say so, so many games are now played with EA or Armour facing on by default that should never have been, as they were made and balanced before the EA rule was envisioned (less so with AF as it came in long, long ago but I'm sure there are some stock ones that it effects) the emphasis should be on the designer saying what rules are on rather than off that way all that have gone before, that a particular rule was never meant for be easily identifiable. (sorry I broke the not diverting the thread rule and maybe the mods can split it) but it does effect a lot of games and this discussion. :soap:

[PawelM]

You are making a good point about number of optional rules already in the game. I also agree with your analysis of optional rules. Especially I like the idea of fog of war (and extreme fow), indirect fire and CC being made default rules. I do not recall to have ever played a game with those OFF (and I did not encounter a player who requested the disable either). This would reduce number of optional rules to 3 :).

AF and EA again agreed depends on scenario, but at least I use the options as on or off so are usefull to keep them as some scenarios are balnced for their specific settings.

VV seems unneccessary there, I do not use it nearly at all and do no think any of the people I played neither.

so just 2 optional rules would be enough....

Maybe 3 when you add the HTs

my opinion is to use any units to whatever extent the game allows. So if the unithas an assault factor it can assault. If it can movve it can do reckon, etc. But I do not feel strongly about it and if there is a player asking to restrict HT usage prior the game I accept it - but not always remember :)

I agree HT rule could affect some scenarios and hence preference to make it optional.

My main logic is if there is a rule of engagement -like informal one with HT'- used by many players, then it should be made into the gaem option. This way one will achieve what I think should be an ultimate goal being whatever game engine ( with optional rules elected within it ) allows is LEGAL.

[Crossroads]

I would suggest an optional rule that dictates all optional rules would be optional :smoke: