(12-03-2012, 08:02 AM)Ricky B Wrote: Raizer covered it perfectly, and it really doesn't add anything to the game outside of it. Not saying it is even an issue in this specific scenario, but don't see any value added. Burroughs, everything we have suggested is to your team's benefit, to hopefully maintain a better chance of victory. I agree lets play - you asked for comments however, and reasoning and have gotten it, then do your post above. I asked for reasoning and got nothing back. Not sure what triggered your outburst regarding balance, players, experience etc above but looking through this full thread it seems consistent.
One last thought, nobody said we need everything balanced it has all been about scenario balance toward victory for both sides, assuming equal players. We want the players to be the difference not an arcane choice of rules just to have them.
Rick
Geez, I didn't realize that such types are among us - cheating themselves just to gain a dishonest disadvantage over the other guys in order to achieve ... what? Somehow it never occured to me to attempt such a nasty thing myself, I don't even play the scenarios that I peeked into before if that was the other side, that's the principle of the fog of war, isn't it.
Let's just cut the crap - no alternative setup elements, no hits by the map. I'll set it up later in the afternoon.
Did the jerries peeked over our shoulders into our deck of cards? I am asking as those who put forward a certain thing are the ones whom it dawned on ... just in case. We once had a common agreement regarding that with our fellow wargamer here, Fhil - no to those who study the other side dispositions before starting a game.Let's get honest, shall we?
And no - I didn't, I have already stated that before.
Archived Forums
Help
Calendar
Member List
Search
.![[Image: exercise.png]](https://www.tickerfactory.com/ezt/t/wVrvMz3/exercise.png)
){kind=link}
