K K Rossokolski Wrote:Therefore the question mark idea has a lot of merit...and I believe it more truly represents the real thing. Salient features of combat include doubt and confusion. Fear dulls the mind more often than it sharpens.
Of course, the issue is that the Assault is now too difficult, so alteration of the D will make it more so.I think there still remains confusion about what is a bug and what isn't.
Hi Rod,
This is a misconception when I read what others have written about my comments.
It's not that the new assault rules are too difficult. Heck, ya just need to jump through different hoops to succeed. Trouble with them is that they "out of balance" games.
They just simply change the game. Like "new coke", it looks like coke, comes in bottles and cans that say coke on the label, pours into a glass like coke, and fizzes like coke. It was, quite simply, not coke.
I don't want to use a battalion of infantry, the better part of a battalion of armor, and artillery that all could be used elsewhere to take out a 2 strength disrupted engineer over the course of five turns in a ten or twelve turn game.
Same with the variable visibility rules. The scenario set the visibility for a purpose? It could have been to help balance the game? I am in the middle of one where being able to shoot at long range against the enemy helps. The enemy has numerous tank platoons and you need to keep them at "arms length".
"Arms length" is determined by terrain and visibility?
I'm playing this opponent in mirror. First with the new visibility rules and then with both rules.
My opponent benefitted from visibility in the first game as I had the numerous armor platoons. Visibility increased and never returned to what was originally programmed.
Now the opposite has been happening with visibility. And, I have only armor to fight with and it is my turn to move into and assault. LOL!
There's no way to see beyond what the scenario should have been set at? ;)
Archived Forums
Help
Calendar
Member List
Search
){kind=link}
