Shoot & Scoot

[Jason Petho]

I guess the point I was trying to make is that the Campaign Series is so diverse, it is a lot of things to a lot of people.

It is what you make it.

Jason Petho

[Hawk Kriegsman]

I guess the point I was trying to make is that the Campaign Series is so diverse, it is a lot of things to a lot of people.

It is what you make it.

Jason Petho

QFT!

It is what one makes of it. No issues there. I appreciate all the hard work that people have done on the game!

Why Jason was even able to show me that you can succeed with the extreme assault rules. :smoke:


Thanx!

Hawk

[Jason Petho]

Why Jason was even able to show me that you can succeed with the extreme assault rules. :smoke:

And royally!

Jason Petho

[Hawk Kriegsman]

and so It's a game tactic in other words GAMEY

No I do not think shoot and scoot is gamey. There are far worse things that people do.

I really hoped there could be some sensible discussion here, that's indeed why I stared this thread, I seriously thought there were some serious wargamers here who wanted historic wargames, how mistaken one can be.

I humbly disagree that you wanted discussion. It appears by all your posts that you wanted people to fall in line and agree with you.

Again I think you misunderestimate the seriousness of the wargamer here and I think the above cheap shot IMHO is uncalled for.

No further discussion is needed from me, there are more historical games out there.

And I sincerely wish you good luck in those endeavors!

Happy gaming to you what ever the game may be.

Thanx!

Hawk

[Hawk Kriegsman]

Why Jason was even able to show me that you can succeed with the extreme assault rules. :smoke:

And royally!

Jason Petho

I am waiting on the rematch!!

:kill:

Thanx!

Hawk

[Herr Straße Laufer]

I guess the point I was trying to make is that the Campaign Series is so diverse, it is a lot of things to a lot of people.

It is what you make it.

Jason Petho

Jason, that is my point too.
But, I've heard nothing but, "we've got to add "realism" to the game. When someone points out that the "realism" is not real you guys make "noise" like it will have to be done for the good of the game.
It's the same as with extreme assault and variable visibility, where I believe that both did not make things more real (yes, in my opinion, I know).

I appreciate all the work that the Matrix team has been doing to make the game better. I do not agree that all changes have been better for the game. And, I certainly do not feel that some of the new scenarios that came with version 1.04 were all that good either (yes, in my opinion, I know. And, from more than one scenario designer).
The same with spotting for artillery. We'll do this all one way for the game engine and disregard what others might say about individual nation's artillery doctrine. The reality of it all would be an implimentation of a system that would not be "real".

It just lately seems that anyone with a "bubble headed" idea is given serious consideration. Even when faced with those who do have experience, or knowledge, in those areas. Even when others logically lay out counter arguments to the "different" ideas. Still somewhere along the way I fear those "real" ideas will creep into the game.

The game does not need "hammer blows" of fundamental changes that will end up killing it for all but those who are making the changes?

Ed

[Jason Petho]

Jason, that is my point too.
But, I've heard nothing but, "we've got to add "realism" to the game. When someone points out that the "realism" is not real you guys make "noise" like it will have to be done for the good of the game.
It's the same as with extreme assault and variable visibility, where I believe that both did not make things more real (yes, in my opinion, I know).

Yes, I know.

I appreciate all the work that the Matrix team has been doing to make the game better. I do not agree that all changes have been better for the game. And, I certainly do not feel that some of the new scenarios that came with version 1.04 were all that good either (yes, in my opinion, I know. And, from more than one scenario designer).

Duly noted.

The same with spotting for artillery. We'll do this all one way for the game engine and disregard what others might say about individual nation's artillery doctrine. The reality of it all would be an implimentation of a system that would not be "real".

I figured I was handling it pretty good... asking the players for opinions, suggestions, even offering a poll if it woud be worthy to put any effort into it.

We did learn from 1.04, or at least I thought we did.

It just lately seems that anyone with a "bubble headed" idea is given serious consideration.

Consideration, sure. Why not?

Does it mean anything that is given consideration will be implemented? No, not at all.

Even when faced with those who do have experience, or knowledge, in those areas. Even when others logically lay out counter arguments to the "different" ideas. Still somewhere along the way I fear those "real" ideas will creep into the game.

As noted above, we are listening.

The game does not need "hammer blows" of fundamental changes that will end up killing it for all but those who are making the changes?

Seems to be going OK thus far.

Jason Petho

[Jason Petho]

I am waiting on the rematch!!

:kill:

Thanx!

Hawk

Sure! Pick, play and send.

But be gentle this time.

Sheesh.

Jason Petho

[Herr Straße Laufer]

<snip>

Seems to be going OK thus far.

Jason Petho

Once again Jason, a fine and gentlemanly response.
If this discussion has done anything, it forces me back to my library and a further search into artillery tactics.

I'm still hoping upon hope that the game's scale will not be sacrificed to something that may have been added for realism that was not really ... real. :)

Ed

[Gordons HQ]

No further discussion is needed from me, there are more historical games out there.

In all fairness.

While yes, it is a game, there are those of us who do try to make the most of what we have to make it the "best" historical simulation for platoon level tactical combat.

This is apparent in the countless hours that are spent on map making, scenario design and playtesting. Scenarios from such designers as Don Fox, Huib Versloot & our Mr Guberman a ranked high in historical accuracy and playability. I recommend them to anyone and everyone.

Is the game perfect?... No.

Are there flaws?... Yes.

Are there better ways of doing things?... You bet.

Does it matter to those that have spent a decade trying to keep the series alive?.. Not at all!

Like all things, it is what you make it. Some like it as a beer & pretzels game, some like it as a tool to recreate battles they studied or are interested in. Others like a combination of both.

Jason Petho

Jason,
You and your teams work has been really appreciated and I believe the game is much better than it was thanks to your efforts, well done there.

There are flaws and the game is not perfect it is true.

I really did not mean to discredit those who struggle and work many hours, sometimes long into the night. They are producing as historical as is at present possible to produce scenarios. Once again well done there all of you.

They deserve our very best respects.

The sole idea of this discussion no matter what others have insinuated was to point out what some of us believe to be an overused unhistorical tactic. The overuse of this is I believe caused by one of the flaws in the game.
I think that it is up to the Matrix team to evaluate the ideas this discussion has brought forth. If they also find fault here then I am sure they will attempt to remedy it.

From these ideas surely the game can still progress without destroying itself as is often feared here.

I wish you and the Matrix team good luck for the future with all your efforts to improve the game.

Cheers
Gordon