Generals,
Just to let all know. Once I have finished my current games I will no longer play without EA on or with Armor Facing.
I try to accomodate other players but these things are just no fun, and once something becomes no fun I tend to not do it anymore.
VE
I've never played that way. Would you like to play a game? Will see what's the difference, that makes it so fun! :smoke:
Dmitriy
Earl,
Just for clarity, are you saying EA on and Facing off?
LR
Makes sense, VE. I've been playtesting with Huib over the summer with said settings... AF off does seem to cause more sensible results...
Worth a try for those who have not experiented with this combo.
(09-19-2010, 02:56 PM)Larry Reese Wrote: [ -> ]Earl,
Just for clarity, are you saying EA on and Facing off?
LR
Ayuh..........that's Maine lingo for yes.....hick from the sticks talk :-)
(09-19-2010, 01:32 PM)Skryabin Wrote: [ -> ]I've never played that way. Would you like to play a game? Will see what's the difference, that makes it so fun! :smoke:
Dmitriy
Dmitriy,
My plate is quite full right now..........maybe later on this winter we could play a game.
VE
(09-19-2010, 04:21 PM)Sgt K. Kat Wrote: [ -> ]Makes sense, VE. I've been playtesting with Huib over the summer with said settings... AF off does seem to cause more sensible results...
I prefer armor facing on, especially when playing the Russians. Bad enough in the scenarios where the Russians play with T-34's and the good old T-20's versus sizable formations of Tigers and Panthers.
Does anyone have any info on the historical results? I remember reading somewhere that the US Army did a study in which they figured to kill one Tiger or Panther they would lose X Shermans (I think up to 20). Was this the ratio on the EF?
(09-20-2010, 03:18 AM)Cole Wrote: [ -> ]Does anyone have any info on the historical results? I remember reading somewhere that the US Army did a study in which they figured to kill one Tiger or Panther they would lose X Shermans (I think up to 20). Was this the ratio on the EF?
I was pretty sure there was a discussion here somewhere (or was it in the Matrix forum instead?) where someone discussed the AF rule compared to kill ratios in Normandy(?). I tried several searches, could not find it, so maybe I remembered wrong and the discussion was about artillery disables instead:
Artillery disables on armour
https://www.theblitz.club/message_boards...kill+ratio
Here's a couple of good discussions on AF that I bumped into while looking for info:
CS game tanks survival rates
https://www.theblitz.club/message_boards...kill+ratio
How to kill Axis uber tanks
https://www.theblitz.club/message_boards...=tank+loss
But no statistics about AF ON vs AF OFF... :(
Anyone else?
As for EA, we had a very good discussion not long ago. Hawk's
Reader's Digest was especially helpful for me
https://www.theblitz.club/message_boards...me+assault
As for my 0.02 €, I seem to be moving towards really preferring EA ON and AF OFF as well, especially because of the tank retreat "bug", or "feature", depending how you look at it.
While the opposite plays like the classical PB or PL cardboard games, having the rules set up like VE suggested makes this fine game much more like chess, where you really need to plan several turns in advance.
Regarding EA, the key thing for me was to realise that the whole stack needs not to be disrupted, but rather have one or two units take losses, thus bringing the combined morale down, and then to have enough units available for two rounds of assault per turn. It really worked wonders. Proper softening required of course.
Oh well, over to you guys. I propably shoud try to get some work done now, while at the office :smoke:
(09-20-2010, 07:37 PM)Herr Straßen Läufer Wrote: [ -> ]Well, to each their own?
Absolutely! That is the purpose of the optional rules, yes? :thumbs_up:
Just like Cole, I would also be interested to learn about the AF rule vs. actual losses on armored battles. I am sure this has been discussed a many times here during the years... ?