Armor Facing Rule

[Crossroads]

:soap:

Especially those who want visibility to change 250 m every three to six minutes,

There seems to be a glitch as affirmed by Jason. It is being fixed if and when the next patch comes along.

engineers to clear wrecks, plant and remove minefields every six minutes, build bridges in six minutes,

I am not sure about wrecks, but as for mines and bridges there's a die roll included in the process. It is not like it is automatically done in six minutes. How else would you implement a time consuming process in a six minute engine than using die rolls?

and disrupted, overwhelmed, units to hold out for hours,

This was discussed earlier. Exception to a rule as far as what I have seen with EA. Definitively not the standard how EA works.

I did a lot of examples on another thread on EA, so this is not just my opinion.

and armor to fail in attempts to overrun empty wagons because they are in a town, or

I have not tried this, but I give you this one. Seems to be a consequence of making built up areas more difficult for tanks.

using armor facing because "they" believe it is more realistic.

Topic of the thread. Good discussion, many good points I had not considered before.

But, who is "they". If you have a point please be clear about it.

I certainly do not mind playing using many of the features you went on this tirade for, and thus intepret your post in a similar manner as Von Manstein.

Added to the game because the new developers think they know it all ... and better than anyone else.

Many new features are only possible with new types of units. Many features are made available as optional rules. Then there's the opportunity to set up ROEs with players who think alike.

I for one am glad the game engine keeps evolving. I would like to see the old engine preserved, so I am with you in hoping new features come via optional rules.

If a scenario designer likes AF they should indicate that in their write up so that players should use it for their designs? Why try to force it upon others because they "believe" it is "realistic"?

Believe me, I will play pretty much any way my opponent wants, except using AF, VV, or EA when they are not called for by a specific designer in their scenarios.



HSL

Good for you. There's still plenty of us enjoying features you dislike. I mainly posted to support Von Manstein in his reply as I am not clear on who you have on your crosshair either. If you refer to other players, enjoying these features, with "they", I am definitively on Von Manstein's camp.

---

In the future attack my position and not my person. :smoke:

This was my intention, Sir :smoke:

---

Let's cut out the flames please boys. Stick to the subject or don't post.

Thanks,
Dave

And this. Plenty of good discussion so far, let us keep it this way