ROE

[Otto von Blotto]

And what about VV? Real soldiers would play with it also?

The idea behind VV was ok, but it is lost by not being the same in the same time frame for both sides in any given turn, how opposing sides could see different ranges in the same six minuets is beyond me and is a farce.

Well this is the version for the Mädels or "arcade mode". Real soldiers would play with Extreme Assault on.

And only a old maid with nothing better to do will try to belittle how others play a game.

EA and all the other options have a place in certain games (even if limited) I have played with them all on or off as to what seemed to suit the scenario and opponent the best, none of the rules should be set in stone or a default standard it's like saying "I'm only playing that way no matter if it suits the scenario or not." that can't be right. ?

[Herr Straße Laufer]

Good points Earl. Especially that you do not put others down with your opinion.
As you know, I still do not like the new EA rule. I will play with it on if my opponents want to. I find the game gets boring with it on.
VV is a bane and an ill thought out option. Sorry it was ever considered to be added into the system.



HSL

[Kool Kat]

Gents:

Isn't it refreshing that the stated development direction for the inclusion of future CS optional rules is to keep such rules "optional?"

Players are free to play CS games with the desired optional rules... and not be forced into game play that is deemed "correct" by a few.

IMHO, all of the CS optional rules (exception being VV) have applicability to many of the scenarios. In the end, it's up to the players to agree on a set of optional rules to use in any given scenario.