Chuck10mtn Wrote:I think the old assult rules favored the attacker way too much. I think the new assult rules favor the defender way too much.
I think it may be a bit to early to determine if the assault rules aren't any good. It has been a week. As an aside these are very similar to the assault rules that game out with the original EF game in 1997. I think the complaints may be more of "shock of change" rather than saying the rule sucks. I know I am one of the biggest users of disrupt, surround and capture. This will effect me greatly. But I have an open mind on the subject (that and I seem to be on defense in all my games so I have not tried many assaults).
Quote:If we make it so you cannot see anything about the other sides unit other than its there whats wrong with that??
If you think is is tough to assault now, It would be nearly impossible if the "D" was taken away. I think troops have a decent idea if the opponents are cowering, butting up, not firing effectively, not behaving in a customary way, etc (ie disrupted). I am against making the "D" invisible.
Quote: Lets make the varible weather come into play every 10 turns that would be 1 hr game time. And we all know the weather can change in a hour.
The assumption that the visibility is exactly the same over the course of the battle is a bit off in my opinion. Its not just about the weather. It covers a myriad of situations like, dust kicked up from tanks, explosions, smoke on the battlefield, etc all can have a varying effect on visibility. I don't think a minor varience of a hex or two under most weather conditions is a big deal.
Quote:I would like to see people trying to be posative and find a solution to what seems to have some people up in arms.
All we can do is constructively make our concerns known to Matrix.
Like it or not there is no solution. Its Matrix's game and they will do with it as they see fit.
I think everyone really needs to remember that.
Thanx!
Archived Forums
Help
Calendar
Member List
Search
){kind=link}
