• Havoc
  • Caius
  • redboot
  • Rules
  • Chain of Command
  • Members
  • Supported Ladders & Games
  • Downloads


Thread Rating:
  • 1 Vote(s) - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Armor Facing Rule
04-09-2011, 06:57 PM,
#31
RE: Armor Facing Rule
Some folks always prefer version 1.0 over anything. I work in functional application support and I wish everybody would say "works as designed" equals "is perfect".

Working with software development every day, I know however that Talonsoft did not think it through as well as some believe.
The game is and certainly was full of glitches, that most have learn to live with or work around, some like them to be corrected, and a few even idolize them, think the faults must have been intended, and exclaim the manual a holy writing.

Personally I only look at history, and at the 250 metre hex platoon based game at hand and then use my own intelligence to determine how to develop such a game further to get the best out of it.
The other developers are no different, perhaps that's why Modern Wars was built from scratch. We set higher standards than Talonsoft did in 1995.

Huib
Quote this message in a reply
04-10-2011, 12:02 AM,
#32
RE: Armor Facing Rule
(04-09-2011, 06:03 PM)RD_DeathDealer Wrote: I prefer the AF rule- I think it adds another aspect of strategy to the game.

In many cases it gives hope to the player commanding inferior armor formations.

The nice thing about it is that it can be turned on or off as desired by players. :soap:

Definitely, another strategy is called for. Isn't that the job of the scenario designer when achieving balance? :chin:

Off the :soap:Whip and into the fire ... again.
(...I'm just glad that I have a couple of posters in my ignore list so I don't have to look at what is coming. :cheeky: Violin ...)
Especially those who want visibility to change 250 m every three to six minutes, engineers to clear wrecks, plant and remove minefields every six minutes, build bridges in six minutes, and disrupted, overwhelmed, units to hold out for hours, and armor to fail in attempts to overrun empty wagons because they are in a town, or using armor facing because "they" believe it is more realistic. Added to the game because the new developers think they know it all ... and better than anyone else.

If a scenario designer likes AF they should indicate that in their write up so that players should use it for their designs? Why try to force it upon others because they "believe" it is "realistic"?

Believe me, I will play pretty much any way my opponent wants, except using AF, VV, or EA when they are not called for by a specific designer in their scenarios.

cheers

HSL
Quote this message in a reply
04-10-2011, 01:38 AM,
#33
RE: Armor Facing Rule
(04-10-2011, 12:02 AM)Herr Straßen Läufer Wrote: Especially those who want visibility to change 250 m every three to six minutes, engineers to clear wrecks, plant and remove minefields every six minutes, build bridges in six minutes, and disrupted, overwhelmed, units to hold out for hours, and armor to fail in attempts to overrun empty wagons because they are in a town, or using armor facing because "they" believe it is more realistic. Added to the game because the new developers think they know it all ... and better than anyone else.

You wrote everything in scale 6 min (because it feats to your way of thinking) but when is about EA and disrupted units you change time scale to hours. Few turns is definitely not "...for hours...". You're not consequent.

And why I have a feeling after reading your post that you think if someone 'like' those things in game, which you don't like, is wrong (or just stupid)?

And why do you think that 'THEY' know it all and better than anyone else??? (they didn't listen your opinion or what?) They had an idea and add something new to the game and made it optional so what is the fuss about???
Quote this message in a reply
04-10-2011, 03:12 AM, (This post was last modified: 04-10-2011, 03:24 AM by Otto von Blotto.)
#34
RE: Armor Facing Rule
(04-10-2011, 01:38 AM)von Manstein Wrote: You wrote everything in scale 6 min (because it feats to your way of thinking) but when is about EA and disrupted units you change time scale to hours. Few turns is definitely not "...for hours...". You're not consequent.
Maybe because 6 mins is the scale of the game and HSL I know has had my units hold out against him for over 10 turns in a game should have wiped out in under 24 mins.?

(04-10-2011, 01:38 AM)von Manstein Wrote: And why I have a feeling after reading your post that you think if someone 'like' those things in game, which you don't like, is wrong (or just stupid)?
And this wasn't ?
Quote:The game is and certainly was full of glitches, that most have learn to live with or work around, some like them to be corrected, and a few even idolize them, think the faults must have been intended, and exclaim the manual a holy writing.
and
Quote:The other developers are no different, perhaps that's why Modern Wars was built from scratch. We set higher standards than Talonsoft did in 1995.

Sorry VM not trying to start a flame over it (I enjoyed our game very much) and I probably shouldn't post this but a couple of glasses of wine has the better of me so set me straight or forgive my impetuousness, it's only a game after all. I do hate the politicking that goes on as I play to get over the stresses of the day not cause new ones but some topics are very loaded and contentious. more wine cheers
Quote this message in a reply
04-10-2011, 03:28 AM,
#35
RE: Armor Facing Rule
(04-08-2011, 06:38 AM)Scud Wrote:
(04-08-2011, 03:11 AM)RADO Wrote: Just exactly what is the "retreat bug" you refer to?

That's when you shoot at a tank and force it to retreat, but in doing so the tank always turns around exposing it's rear, and thus, most vulnerable spot with AF=on.

As for it being a "bug" has been open to debate for quite awhile.

Dave

I tend to agree. How else are they to retreat except by turning around? Reverse wasn't probably a high speed option.

:eek1:
Send this user an email
Quote this message in a reply
04-10-2011, 03:39 AM, (This post was last modified: 04-10-2011, 03:41 AM by Battle Kat.)
#36
RE: Armor Facing Rule
(04-10-2011, 03:28 AM)RADO Wrote: I tend to agree. How else are they to retreat except by turning around? Reverse wasn't probably a high speed option.

:eek1:

I am pretty sure the Germans had an armoured car, with driver's seats to both directions. There's an exception to every rule Big Grin

(04-10-2011, 03:12 AM)Otto von Blotto Wrote: [...]
as I play to get over the stresses of the day not cause new ones but some topics are very loaded and contentious. more wine cheers

This. They are optional rules, after all. In a perfect world, Matrix would have resources to add even more variety into game, with additional optional rules.

There's enough players around to find everyone's kindred spirit. If some rules are not to one's liking they can be left alone.

I do not have problems with any of the optional rules, but that's just me and I don't believe that makes me any better or worse to someone who does not like any of them, for an example.

Back to wargaming, generals! :smoke:
[Image: 29F3B1129F294B8EA9F0BA9508F86A6C.jpg]
Visit us at CSLegion.com
Quote this message in a reply
04-10-2011, 07:51 AM,
#37
RE: Armor Facing Rule
(04-10-2011, 01:38 AM)von Manstein Wrote: You wrote everything in scale 6 min (because it feats to your way of thinking) but when is about EA and disrupted units you change time scale to hours. Few turns is definitely not "...for hours...". You're not consequent.

And why I have a feeling after reading your post that you think if someone 'like' those things in game, which you don't like, is wrong (or just stupid)?

And why do you think that 'THEY' know it all and better than anyone else??? (they didn't listen your opinion or what?) They had an idea and add something new to the game and made it optional so what is the fuss about???

Are you kidding me? :eek1:

Six minutes and 250 m is the scale of the game.

Take shots at what I wrote and not at me, and I will be fine. Please!

You got something to say other than personally attacking me I am willing to have a discussion.
In the future attack my position and not my person. :smoke:

Thank you.

HSL
Quote this message in a reply
04-10-2011, 08:52 AM,
#38
RE: Armor Facing Rule
Oh really HSL !
How many times do you have to make yourself the 'ultimate viewpoint' of JTCS and belittle the others point of view?
I fully endorse the views of Von Manstein and yes, it has to be said, you have a superior attitude and belittle anyone else's viewpoint that is opposite to yours.
Damn, haven't you done enough damage in forcing everyone else away from the forum boards? That's why there is so little life in the forum anymore.
Sick and tired over the years of how you relentessly attempt to destroy the members views on this forum and drive many away because, for some unexplicable reason, the moderators allow you to get away with it to the exclusion of others' complaints.
Pitiful, really pitiful that someone with so much experience has to ridicule other's points of view that many find a reasonable one.
My apologies to the mods but, wake up guys, someone has to have the guts to say it.
Never mind the rules, they are protecting the true idiots that wreck the forum.
No doubt I'll get punished for this big time but, what the heck, it's just a game ain't it?
Quote this message in a reply
04-10-2011, 10:59 AM,
#39
RE: Armor Facing Rule
(04-10-2011, 08:52 AM)Trampled Tanker Wrote: Oh really HSL !
How many times do you have to make yourself the 'ultimate viewpoint' of JTCS and belittle the others point of view?
I fully endorse the views of Von Manstein and yes, it has to be said, you have a superior attitude and belittle anyone else's viewpoint that is opposite to yours.
Damn, haven't you done enough damage in forcing everyone else away from the forum boards? That's why there is so little life in the forum anymore.
Sick and tired over the years of how you relentessly attempt to destroy the members views on this forum and drive many away because, for some unexplicable reason, the moderators allow you to get away with it to the exclusion of others' complaints.
Pitiful, really pitiful that someone with so much experience has to ridicule other's points of view that many find a reasonable one.
My apologies to the mods but, wake up guys, someone has to have the guts to say it.
Never mind the rules, they are protecting the true idiots that wreck the forum.
No doubt I'll get punished for this big time but, what the heck, it's just a game ain't it?

Wow chill out and get over yourself. :conf:
Quote this message in a reply
04-10-2011, 12:21 PM,
#40
RE: Armor Facing Rule
Let's cut out the flames please boys. Stick to the subject or don't post.

Thanks,
Dave
Resolve then, that on this very ground, with small flags waving and tinny blast on tiny trumpets, we shall meet the enemy, and not only may he be ours, he may be us. --Walt Kelly
Send this user an email
Quote this message in a reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)