(06-26-2012, 11:04 AM)Askari19 Wrote: I'm with Earl on EA - prefer it over the silly "disrupt-surround-destroy" business, although it does make a hash of the some of the earlier scenarios.
If you would not have used the word "silly" I might agree with you.
EA does not make "hash" of anything. It fundamentally changes the game.
I may think EA is "silly" but I never describe it that way because it does not define those that play with it on.
And, I do not find myself "silly" for wanting "disrupt-surround-destroy". I'm playing one now with EA off and the fight has been tough all the way.
(06-26-2012, 11:04 AM)Askari19 Wrote: Anybody remember Jack Radey, the founder of People's Wargames? His doctrinaire Marxism was repellant, but at least his research and game designs were brilliant and unbiased, and were a refreshing change to the pro-German bias in the hobby.
Yes to both. That is old school for sure!
HSL
(06-26-2012, 04:36 PM)PawelM Wrote: Oh and another lame thing about AF is that OppFire makes the change direction.
I thought the turrets were revolving?
I wish I could influence facing for OppFire for my units somehow without having to disable OppFire completely.
Yes, opt fire would make the formation change direction. Most armored tactics called for facing your best armor defense in the direction of the enemy?
Turns are a fluid thing. It might be IgoUgo but if you look at turns as being fluid then it makes sense. :capture the flag:
I agree with a multiple opt fire setting. If they could add "no shooting at half tracks" in with the hard target selection. Or, "no shooting at empty trucks" to the soft target selection. That would be a good thing.
But, it has also been asked for by players since the game was first introduced.
HSL