Alternative resolution optional rules

[Aditia Holdem]

I have searched the forum but found nothing, so I'll start the thread.

Do you guys prefer or dislike the 4 alternative fire/assault resolution rules? Or do you base your use of the rules on the default settings?

I have tried to do some numbers in my head, and figured that balance issues occur mostly with the Indirect Fire and airstrike rules where use of the rules swing the balance to the player that has less of those assets and vice versa.

All in all, I think using them when they are selected as defaults is a good thing, because it seems a more realistic simulation of what happens on the field...

[Ricky B]

I always suggest playing the default whenever this subject comes up. Either set will work, but as Glenn says the results can/will be different with each set and a scenario really needs to be adjusted for the rules. As an example, I played a Kharkov campaign years ago against Scar, who is an excellent attacker. He chose the rules as the first side Soviet player, and picked the alt fire/assault rules. We stopped within 15 turns or so because the Soviets got slaughtered with those rules and all the attacking units were disrupting. With the default rules, however, it is much tougher to stop the Soviets in that battle.

Rick

[Dog Soldier]

RickyB is right on. Play first with the default fire rules. Try smaller scenarios to get a feel for the game design. PzC is more a game based on achieving a certain pace, and feel for the battle than a pure number crunching exercise.
IMHO, That is why this series has such long legs.

Dog Soldier

[Dirk Gross]

I won't play the desert games without the Alternative Assault rule. Without it strong infantry units become effective tank killers in open desert. Probably applies to most of the early games when infantry had few integral AT weapons.