Question on tactics: Assault, assault and assault

[Pax25]

I just have to put my two cents in here:

I have been wargaming for many years now and I always see these same debates. So many great games have been ruined because someone thinks it's "unfair" or "not historical". The bottom line is, these are GAMES based on historical events. That's all. At times they can be very realistic, but at other times they are about as realistic as flying queens and bishops are in a chess match. After seeing this discussion so often, I usually find that the people who think the game is "unfair" or "not historical" have usually lost the majority of their games. The fun of wargaming is not thinking of ways to implement new rules to limit play, but trying to think of ways to out smart your opponent. With that said, I'm glad this club has not engaged in all sorts of "house rules". I will no longer tolerate playing my wargames with a computer printout of house rules 20 pages long telling me where, when, and how I should attack (reading the game manual should be enough). I've been there, done that. I used to enjoy playing Hearts of Iron II (Paradox) until the multiplayer house rules got so long that I couldn't even understand them, and following them was more challenging than my law practice since they changed on a day to day basis and differed from game to game.

At the same time I support the concept of two people agreeing upon rules of engagement (although personally I think this will ultimately cause more problems as people will interpret them differently) and I always follow a scenerio designers house rules, especially in the TOAW.

Just my two cents.:soap: