Page 3 of 3

Posted: Wed Mar 23, 2005 8:28 pm
by The Old Soldier
To IL: No amount of words or agruements, can cover up bad manners. Since you clearly do not understand how rude you are, I will not address your comments, which are in many cases when ON TOPIC are quite good.

As my father told me "never agrue with a crazy man".

I believe many here want to turn what is a simple easy to play game into another Europe in Flames, or Rise and Fall with toys. I do not think that would be a wise decision. What I would like to see is a A&AR with a deeper strategy.

No amount of agruement will change mine or others that think the game need not become bogged down in the details. They also make thier points and then leave it with that....

Good form I say, and will do the same, and leave it at that.

Posted: Wed Mar 23, 2005 8:41 pm
by Imperious leader
Ok fine... then lets agree to disagree on this. But we do have to make an effort to convince others so as to move forward. You and I want the same things but come from different directions.. that much is true and i do respect your efforts and ideas. I tried to post like adlertags does (with humor) and met poor results in your case. I hope others saw my real point. Take care OS untill we meet again... soon.

Posted: Thu Mar 24, 2005 5:08 am
by oddman
Imperious leader wrote:
So can you stop with the insults and focus on the game?
there no "insults" in that post just the necessary consequence of what your ideas entail. Namely: the idea to create three additional units would not for the reasons you stated fail to add fun and "something" to the game. They in fact add alot and solve a few problems/issues that have been combined in the adstraction of the other units. For the very same reasons why Larry brought aboard destroyers and artillery, we now propose to add further units so that your forces become more differentiated as they were represented historically. I use Adlertags comic approach to make my point clear, which resulted in your defensive attitude but it was really meant to be read by people on the fence with this issue and who have not made an opinion or stated one. I wasnt really focused on you, but the general group ( griffey, you, drax and too a lessor extent moody) who all form the Anti- Piece block of this forum.
If your ideas entail that in general all the pieces have "other pieces within them", then you can make the case for not having any specific units and dont need artillery or destroyers since both are contained (or were contained in Infantry/battleships) previously. The case you present must then be extrapolated to effect any new tactical variation of units that have been proposed. So now it can argued that we dont need mechanized infantry since they are IN infantry units, and Fortification units are IN the basic defense of Land units, Torpedo bombers/ divebombers are IN fighters, while cruisers are IN battleships. Clearly we can use this form of thinking to minimize the variety of units in any wargame. However, every strategic level wargame nearly has a similiar variety of units that represented except in their case even more units showed up (paratroopers, escort carriers, SS units, partisans, battlecruisers etc.)
why cant the same be in this game? Advanced a/a has to be MORE in all levels not just rules, but components as well.
In case you missed the point, im pointing out that your own arguments to NOT make any new pieces can easilly be used to question why your comfortible with the pieces we allready have. The sarcasm is a good why to point out the problems with this line of thought.
As TOS says: A&AR with more in-depth strategy.

The point is the difference in strategic use of the units.
Armor doesn't represent just tanks; it also includes mechanized infantry.
Infantry doesn't necessarily represent only infantry: it may (or may not, as in the case of most Russian, Japanese and Chinese divisions) include light to medium artillery, mechanized transport and AA-capability.
The difference is in the strategic use. Armor is used to punch through enemy lines and threaten the area beyond. Strategically, armor hits fast and hard. It needs support, too. Strategically.
Infantry, on the other hand, is used strategically to reinforce and support. And that's what it does in the game. A mechanized infantry unit would't add a significant amount of variety to the strategic array. Assuming there's some mechanic that lets units do more NCM, they don't fill any strategic niche infantry and armor don't fill.

Now, on this strategic scale there are some things that I feel do need differentiation.
The alliance system.
The neutral countries.
Global terrain differences.
Tech shouldn't be as dependent on chance as they are.
Naval combat.
Aerial combat.

Posted: Sat Mar 26, 2005 5:32 am
by adlertag
I agree with Oddmans last post.

*Tanks must be the strategigal offansive unit.
Tanks must be more cost-effective in attacks. Lets say Tanks roll two dices in attack (Breakethrough and Exploitation) at a high value (8 or less is hit)
Tanks dont need to cost more than 6 ipc, but face a building limit.

*Infantry must be the strategigal defancive unit.
Infantry must be more cost-effective in defence. It takes 3 attacking infantry units to kill 1 defending infantry unit, and this could be reflected with infantry att. 2 or less/def. 4 or less with D12.

*Artillery too are a defancive unit. Lets say att.4/def 6 (D12) and boost up one matching infantry in both attack and defence.

*Fighters must be able to pick targets. They fligh over the battlefield, and strafe juicy targets.

*Bombers must work by attrition. They carpet-bomb infantry-stacks in the opening fire step. Bombers roll one die for each enemy infantry, every 2 or less is hit.

I am wiking, from Norway. People expects me to be rude.
IL are high society German with advanced manners.

IL, streighten up man. Stop your crazy insults before you are banned.