Have default optional rules changed?

[rocketman]

Could it be possible, in the optional rule selection screen, to have a mouse over feature that describes that rule and how it affects gameplay? It would make it easier to make an informed selection.

[Xerxes77]

Could it be possible, in the optional rule selection screen, to have a mouse over feature that describes that rule and how it affects gameplay? It would make it easier to make an informed selection.

That would be sweet. Better rule feedback is the single aspect of the series I wish would get more love-- way before graphics enhancements. Not only for rule selection; imagine having tooltips/status bar/contextual info like fire value/loss calculation on-screen when you hover the target cursor on a hex, maybe a breakdown of applicable modifiers along with essential parameter data (like weapon ranges for the ACW games). Of course I have no idea how difficult it would be to implement something like that.

[Kool Kat]

Could it be possible, in the optional rule selection screen, to have a mouse over feature that describes that rule and how it affects gameplay? It would make it easier to make an informed selection.

That would be sweet. Better rule feedback is the single aspect of the series I wish would get more love-- way before graphics enhancements. Not only for rule selection; imagine having tooltips/status bar/contextual info like fire value/loss calculation on-screen when you hover the target cursor on a hex, maybe a breakdown of applicable modifiers along with essential parameter data (like weapon ranges for the ACW games). Of course I have no idea how difficult it would be to implement something like that.

Gents: 

Anything is possible given the right game engine, programming time, money, and prioritization?

The real question you should ask developers is how probable any of these suggestions - mouse roll overs and on-screen tooltips "are" possible and "will" be implemented?

[CountryBoy]

Christmas cards - virtual or real - are terrible for the environment - you're better off doing without them, David. From someone who I trust is part of the silent majority you reference, I can only scratch my head in mild puzzlement when I see this discussion (because the number of optional rules, the explication of them [which might take some searching for] and so on, has never even got near my horizon of 'issues'...I have other pet hates, of course [hexes...], and to each his own, as Mr Grumpy says...) I would just say have a great holiday period, you're doing a great job with these titles. You're unwaveringly polite and helpful, an example to anyone posting, or indeed, managing updates and upgrades to someone else's series of games!! The recent PC graphics updates, plus one of the best engineered set of scenarios so far, I think (comprising Schedlt '44) have been an excellent seasonal gift for me. Have a good break!

Peter

My sentiments exactly. I couldn't be bothered if I am not playing with the 'perfect' mix of optional rules. It's not like I play these games for a living, or you know, I'm in the Australian JTS Wargaming team at the Olympics and a gold medal is at stake. So what if the scenario plays differently because you didn't click on a particular box? Stressing about TOO many optional rules = First World problems.

[Kool Kat]

Christmas cards - virtual or real - are terrible for the environment - you're better off doing without them, David. From someone who I trust is part of the silent majority you reference, I can only scratch my head in mild puzzlement when I see this discussion (because the number of optional rules, the explication of them [which might take some searching for] and so on, has never even got near my horizon of 'issues'...I have other pet hates, of course [hexes...], and to each his own, as Mr Grumpy says...) I would just say have a great holiday period, you're doing a great job with these titles. You're unwaveringly polite and helpful, an example to anyone posting, or indeed, managing updates and upgrades to someone else's series of games!! The recent PC graphics updates, plus one of the best engineered set of scenarios so far, I think (comprising Schedlt '44) have been an excellent seasonal gift for me. Have a good break!

Peter

My sentiments exactly. I couldn't be bothered if I am not playing with the 'perfect' mix of optional rules. It's not like I play these games for a living, or you know, I'm in the Australian JTS Wargaming team at the Olympics and a gold medal is at stake. So what if the scenario plays differently because you didn't click on a particular box? Stressing about TOO many optional rules = First World problems.

Gent:

Playing exclusively against the AI is not the same as a PBeM match now is it?

Optional Rules selection can and may impact enjoyment and the "fun factor" when playing against human opponents - not so much against the AI.

AI play - just restart it. Human opponent - you have a greater investment in time and effort.

[CountryBoy]

No not really, be it a PBEM or against the AI, the optional rules are just not high up on my list of concerns.

[Kool Kat]

"My sentiments exactly. I couldn't be bothered if I am not playing with the 'perfect' mix of optional rules. It's not like I play these games for a living, or you know, I'm in the Australian JTS Wargaming team at the Olympics and a gold medal is at stake. So what if the scenario plays differently because you didn't click on a particular box? Stressing about TOO many optional rules = First World problems." - CountryBoy

Gent: 

Players approach the PzC Series differently.

There are gamers who don't want to understand the nuances and game play impact of optional rules and who play exclusively against the AI. I suspect you fit in that category.

There are other players who play exclusively against human opponents and wish their PBeM experience to be optimized by a careful use of appropriate and tested optional rules for a specific scenario. I fall into this category. 

Why disparage players who don't approach the PzC Series as you believe? 

Surely there is room for both types of players and a whole plethora of other players too?      

[phoenix]

Well, I for one wasn't disparaging anyone, Kool Kat - is that what you're saying? I think, however, that when discussions start to take place designed to influence what the designer will work on and where (as is the case here) the designer has said that those discussions relate to a vocal minority, it's sometimes important - if you're therefore part of the silent majority - that you represent your views in the discussion, because there's always an economy of effort involved in the design process and I for one would rather the designer did not spend his time fixing things which, for me, are not broken. And in the case of special rules that's because, as I said, they don't even get near cropping up as an issue for me. And I NEVER play against the AI, always either PBEM or hot seat (for practice). At the moment I have 3 PBEM games on the go (and many more hs) and there has been zero discussion about optional rules (true, one of them is a PB game where the optional rules aren't so numerous, maybe). In the past playing these games, or the Nappy games, I've never had any issues about selecting optional rules with opponents, just a simple starting discussion. So I'd rather David worked on other things if it came to a choice, which it usually does. I realise, of course, that others feel differently (and are vocal about that), but it's good to also know that there is a difference of opinion, good for the devs, I mean, and good maybe to know that I didn't think David in his reply said anything that should have caused offence, which was a little how reaction to it looked. Presenting my own opinion is not disparaging people. Or were you addressing only Country Boy's comments? About those I would say playing wargames with counters is a 'first world' phenomenon, period. Obviously. But here we are doing it, so it's hard to distinguish, for me, between levels of 'taking it too seriously'. I'm sure I take it as seriously as those worried about too many optional rules, it's just that's not the issue I worry about.

[Kool Kat]

Well, I for one wasn't disparaging anyone, Kool Kat - is that what you're saying? I think, however, that when discussions start to take place designed to influence what the designer will work on and where (as is the case here) the designer has said that those discussions relate to a vocal minority, it's sometimes important - if you're therefore part of the silent majority - that you represent your views in the discussion, because there's always an economy of effort involved in the design process and I for one would rather the designer did not spend his time fixing things which, for me, are not broken. And in the case of special rules that's because, as I said, they don't even get near cropping up as an issue for me. And I NEVER play against the AI, always either PBEM or hot seat (for practice). At the moment I have 3 PBEM games on the go (and many more hs) and there has been zero discussion about optional rules (true, one of them is a PB game where the optional rules aren't so numerous, maybe). In the past playing these games, or the Nappy games, I've never had any issues about selecting optional rules with opponents, just a simple starting discussion. So I'd rather David worked on other things if it came to a choice, which it usually does. I realise, of course, that others feel differently (and are vocal about that), but it's good to also know that there is a difference of opinion, good for the devs, I mean, and good maybe to know that I didn't think David in his reply said anything that should have caused offence, which was a little how reaction to it looked. Presenting my own opinion is not disparaging people. Or were you addressing only Country Boy's comments? About those I would say playing wargames with counters is a 'first world' phenomenon, period. Obviously. But here we are doing it, so it's hard to distinguish, for me, between levels of 'taking it too seriously'. I'm sure I take it as seriously as those worried about too many optional rules, it's just that's not the issue I worry about.

Gent: 

My response was to CountryBoy since I quoted one of his past statements and replied directly to him.

However, since you weighed in, I will respond to your comments too.

The plethora of optional rules is what it is and will remain. I believe that inexperienced and new players may find 26 optional rules, hundreds of possible combinations, different sets of default optional rules, and rules explanations located in manuals and in the forums, to be overwhelming. I suggested that a step-by-step guide on optional rule selection may be needed.

Now, as a veteran player who has played these games for over ten years, I understand the optional rules and there is a set of optional rules I consider essential for PzC and another for MC. I usually will not deviate from these sets.  I periodically have discussions with opponents on "X" optional rule use in a specific scenario, but I always get buy-in from my opponents on the optional rules to use prior to game setup and first turn. So, no, I don't have issues with the selection of optional rules. However, I do take exception and I will call out when designers develop scenarios who do not understand the impact of specific optional rules, and have incorrect parameters set that "break" scenarios such as Japan '45.

Here is one of the Japan '45 threads discussing design decisions: 

https://www.theblitz.club/message_boards...#pid432334

I believe careful thought should be taken on optional rules selection since it will impact game play and enjoyment especially in a PBeM match in which two human players have invested their gaming time in it. The use of inappropriate optional rules can break a scenario and make it unplayable. Why waste players' time?

[-72-]

[quote pid="441631" dateline="1608684938"]

I was lucky enough to have some of my edited versions of standard scenarios included in the Gold updates and I took just this approach with detailing which Opt rules to use in the scenario description as you can see below, simple but effective way of cutting through the Opt rules murk...........

This should be standard for all scenarios in all games.

Michael
[/quote]

I'll go a bit further -it'd be great if an engine change could be made so that the textbox is able to use html or similar formatting to improve legibility such as allowing for spacing and bullet points.