Forums

I have often felt that over the years the list of PzC Optional Rules (OR) has grown to a point that it can present a major headache to a new player who has just digested the main rules folder and wants to PBEM at the club, from the amount a posts and articles we have had about the effects of OR's i think it represents a "grey area" for many players and anything that could trim down the list would be a good move IMO.

I should say that the reason we have this "issue" is due to the fact that HPS, John Tiller and Glenn have been listening to player feedback over the last decade and providing us with excellent new rules to add historical accuracy and variety to these superb titles and I/we thank them for that :bow:, however i feel it is time for a small OR reshuffle.

The OR i would remove are........

• Recon Spotting
  
• Arty Set-up
  
• Night Fatigue
  
• VST
  

The dialogue box would then look like this.....

These four OR would be incorporated into the main rules folder and in the case of VST would replace the default supply rules which i feel are too simplistic and three sets of supply rules is maybe to many.

So why these rules? Well i believe they represent "no brainier" selections for historical accuracy in PBEM games, their effects are easy to understand and they represent the least controversial choices on the existing list IMO.

Anything that makes the whole OR subject a little easier to understand would be a positive move forward, so what do you guys think, should the OR list stay as it is or is there any merit in incorporating any of them into the main rules folder? :chin:

I am sure there are wiser heads than mine on this forum who have a different opinion!

I'm a new Panzer Campaigns player and I'm still in the process of coming to grips with the game system and it's rules. Unfortunately, I don't completely understand the full impact of the proposal.

My understanding is that these 4 optional rules would be removed from the Optional Rules Dialogue Box and that they would be incorporated into the main rules folder. The problem is that I don't know where the main rules folder exists within the game nor how to access it. The other issue is that I don't know what the incorporation of these optional rules into the main rules folder accomplishes.

If these optional rules are incorporated into the main rules folder, can they still be selected and invoked? If they are moved, how would one then select and invoke them?

Der Landser Wrote:The problem is that I don't know where the main rules folder exists within the game nor how to access it.

Under Help in the game window. For the optional rules there is a HELP button which brings up the appropriate section of the PzC.hlp or PDF file.

Thanks for the quick response Glenn. I guess I'm being thrown off by the terminology being used. I was aware of the various Help topics that are available under the Help tab of the main game window and also the Optional Rules menu tab selection and Help button that are available under the Settings tab. I'm still trying to understand how these 4 optional rules would be incorporated into the main rules folder and what effect this has on a player's ability to select and invoke these optional rules once they are incorporated.

He means remove the ability to choose them as an optional rule, and in effect make them permanently on...

I kind of like Low Visibility Air Effects. It mitigates the destructive abuse heaped on units from airstrikes on the map. As well..it is intuitive. If the weather is crap, you have less firepower from planes.

I also like Counterbattery fire. Gives you an option on what to shoot at with your artillery and gives you a reason to keep your artillery back from the front lines...and forces the rocket artillery to shoot and scoot.

I also like Limited Air Recon. So your not calling airstrikes/artillery down unless you can spot the hex with a land unit...unless you like having your fixed units pummelled.


Rules I would never want to see made permanent:

Quality Fatigue Modifier....this is a good 'play balance' rule. Unless both sides have quality/crap (like Normandy) one side will always benefit more then the other...

Indirect Fire and Air Strikes by the Map. This rule was made to be abused. Lots of scenerios start with fixed units and units in Travel mode for the 2nd side. Besides...if you want one side or the other to take losses behind the lines from airstrikes, use interdiction.

Locking Zones of Control.... well..I just dont like it :)

To change these four OR to become part of the game engine would be fine IMO. I really never played without them. I have been with the series since near the beginning.

The only problem with replacing the default supply rules with VST as the default is that many smaller and medium scenarios in S41, N44, and K42 would have to be edited/patched at the same time as one side or both would start the scenario with no supply points.

I think T41 is ok in this respect. I am sure B44 and all the titles released after B44 would be fine as supply points seem to be part of all scenarios in these game titles.

Dog Soldier

Yes i know that VST might cause some issues in titles i don't own, but the other three are OR's no player looking for enhanced historical accuracy would not choose IMO.

The whole idea is to make the OR list look less intimidating to new players by removing the OR's we always use. ;)

I'm a slave to historical accuracy myself, however it bears pointing out that the "default optional rules" are how the games get tested. So when you say make something like artillery set up mandatory, and then you realize that a game like K42 was tested without it and the Russian set up numbers are pretty bad, you are likely to be impacting the way a lot of scenarios play out.

I'm just saying, your mileage may vary. I'm a conservative by nature.

steel god Wrote:I'm a slave to historical accuracy myself, however it bears pointing out that the "default optional rules" are how the games get tested. So when you say make something like artillery set up mandatory, and then you realize that a game like K42 was tested without it and the Russian set up numbers are pretty bad, you are likely to be impacting the way a lot of scenarios play out.

I'm just saying, your mileage may vary. I'm a conservative by nature.

Good point Paul, you have a much better knowledge of the evolution of the early titles than i have as i didn't join in until S43 time, with so many titles there would of course be winners and losers.

Thanks for your input, i was looking to start a good debate going. :)

As a relative newcomer to PzC, I agree that there are a lot of optional rules and it makes your head dizzy at first. I now know all of them, although I can't say for sure I really understand to the fullest extent the impact they can have on any given scenario.

That's one reason I like to play alternate scenarios from Volcano. The list of optional rules proposed is clearly outlined and have a rationale for, so you don't spend time deciding which or which other rule you should enact.

But making some permanent to reduce the number of them seems appealing to me, if there is a way to do this without unbalancing all previously created scenarios. The four suggested by Foul seem like no brainers indeed. I always have them on, since to me this is how it worked in real life.