Opinions about "Game rules as used by players"

[Percy]

@Percy
Your rules seem too drastic to be used as general house rules, they may work for a specific scenario but not in general, there is no reason to ban planes or helicopters or narrow the possibility of suppression fire so far down.
Banning suppression fire seems to achieve the opposite of what we have now, now you can use suppression fire unhistorical but baning it would still leave it unhistorical and only shifts the gameplay.
http://www.dererstezug.com/TacticalPhilosophies.htm

Hi BigDuke

My rules work fine in all the games I am currently playing, I'm not sure if that equates to generally, The big difference my rule set makes is that the defender has an equal chance of winning.  As the game is shipped the defender has no chance especially if he is not elite troops.

The reason to ban planes is because they spot the defenders positions and immediately telegraph the information to all the other units which is clearly impossible and makes a defensive position useless in the sense that the enemy knows where your positions are.

For suppressive fire the reason to ban it is that it dumbs the game down massively.
Once the offending unit is located units out of LOS begin suppressing it, then when you magically know its just suppressed enough (ie retreating), someone walks up and nukes it, its just too easy and incredibly unrealistic.
Because of this whoever has the most units (attacker) always wins.

Yes removing suppressive fire is unhistorical but you can't have it both ways. You do lose a small piece of realism, but I think it is a very very small price to pay for getting rid of the massive z fire bogey.

helicopters I ban simply because they are a big advantage for whoever has them. They are great to grab victory hexes with on the last turn.
I'm still working on my rule set. It currently doesn't allow para drops witch is wrong, you should try playing it, see what you think.

Percy.