Request for an Important Thread: "Rules of Engagement for PBEM Games"

[PawelM]

Bill's view of giving the designer a benefit of the doubt resonates with me. I would like to think their intention was to create a strategy game for blokes like us to enjoy the ww2 as realistically as possible. I appreciate there are some imperfections, but in general they have done a great job. So surely if they for instance have given HTs assault larger than 0 in contrast to say HQ then it must have been informed decision based on logic they have applied for ALL the units.
I am not saying this is right or wrong logic, but nonetheless they decided to give unit non zero assault factor. If they decided HT needed to be accompanied by other unit to attack then they could easily define the assault capabilies of HT as additive to other units, i.e. Exactly as leaders work! Saying that use of HT for solitary assault is gamey might be an exaggeration. I think it is simply proof of different assumptios by the designer and players who wish not to see such a usage.

I have also a question about the rules on assault blocking by 'non combat' unit. I was made to believe that HQ ( assault factor 0, capable of firing ) cannot be use for assault blocking. Fair enough... But at the same time noone seems to have indicated assault blocking by artillery, AT, and russian ATR units. all have assault factor zero
but posses firing capabilities which are sometimes worse than some HQ as assesed by the game designer. I would be interested to hear if HQ restriction is commonly accepted ( I mean by members sharing HSL's and VE expectation) or is it not as commonle 'gamey' regarded. And if it is gamey, what is the logic in favour of other 0 assault factor units over HQs?