Hi guys...Again
i am a few weeks old on this ladder and am now just starting to get a few games together which is great. My question to all those who read this is this.
What level Fog of war do you like to play??
I am of the attitude of go hard or go home!! so i always play iron setting. Didnt think much of it till a new opponent said he thought the default pbem game setting was warrior and didnt feel comfortable playing iron setting. It is my belief that iron setting was more realistic and more historical. No disrespect to my opponent in anyway but do most people play warrior on here when playing a pbem game and if so why??
If everyone who reads this could comment and reply with there preference it would be much appreciated.
regards CaptPoobar.
It doesnt really matter to me to be quite honest.
I normally go with whatever the opponent suggests.
I like "elite" setting for FOW
I usually pick Iron now unless someone specifically requests a lower setting. I also have the mod installed that takes away the red cross from appearing when there is a casualty on either side. It doesn't really put me at that much of a disadvantage. I just don't like knowing if I hit someone when firing into long grass, or when I get penetration on armor and my men wouldn't actually be able to know if they killed anyone.
I have always played warrior, I thought the upper levels made the game much harder (??). I think I will try a higher level for my next game.
Unless i got it wrong the upper levels don't make the game harder,as the game mechanics are unchanged. What's different is how the interface info is presented.
From the manual:
Quote:Elite is identical to Warrior with only one difference:
- Enemy infantry icons are always the plain “soldier” type, regardless of their armament or function
So,for example,on Warrior,if you spot a hmg,you'll see the icon for the hmg. On elite if you spot it,you get the icon of the regular infantry.Of course,if you click on that unit you'll know it's a hmg.
Quote:Iron is an optional setting that goes even one step further than Elite, and introduces special restrictions on what the player can do and when. While even more realistic than the other settings, this option introduces a number of interface limitations which might put off the casual player, so it is strictly an optional choice.
- Friendly units need to be spotted just like enemy units. If you have a friendly unit not in line of sight or in contact with another friendly unit, then the only way to find this unit is by either re-establishing contact with another friendly unit or by clicking through the chain of command in the game interface, jumping from unit to unit.
So,as i see it,the game on Iron it's not harder than on Warrior,it only introduces interface limitations which can be easily overcome,but with more clicking,thus more work.
I prefer Warrior.
I like the idea of Elite (only infantry icon and not HQ, or FO etc) but I do not think it is implemented optimally. I would like the enemy icons to be more generic and to *not* include unit identification information, however if my men spot an AT gun or an MG on a tripod then it is only far that the icon shows this. But Elite does not do this. So in order to be sure my men have not spotted an AT gun I need to click on every infantry icon so I can be sure I am not missing an AT gun. That causes extra clicking around and exposes me to the unit identification information too. Iron is interesting but for the most part it just mean I have more clicking to do as well.
I prefer Warrior for the exact reasons raz_atoth adduces.
The interface limitations could only succeed in enhancing uncertainty and realism in real time games, such as an IP contest which I never have time to play.
I also agree with A Canadian Cat regarding the dysfunction of the spotting limitations imposed with Elite.
I always play "iron" level.