Strela Wrote:1) Bunker building (already mentioned) by engineers (only)
While it is beyond what the originally designers wanted - there does seem to be enough support for this that we may have to give it some serious thought. I guess the concern is that players making Bunkers would be able to create strnger defnese lines in compaigns where that wasn't possible.
The allies might never brea out of Normandy with such rules for instance.
Quote:2) More settings in the PDT file. For example, company vs battalion fatigue etc. This is key for some of the later war Germans vs the hordes. Currently it is very difficult for a German company to go toe to toe with a battalion.
I raised this pint with John Tiller during the designof the MinskGame and it resulted in the new Optional Rule - Quality Fatigue Modifier
Quote:3) Hidden combat results (extreme FOW) - In many cases the player knows too much from ranged fire - currently you can fire your artillery until a unit disrupts then move to the next target unit etc, etc. Imagine having to fire your art / air with no idea whether it has been effective. The actual status of an enemy unit would only be obvious if it was assaulted / reconned (or possibly if a land unit moves/is adjacent).
While I like this sorta rule idea myself I think we have found most of the players are control freaks and loss of control is not something they enjoy. As anexample see thesuggetions to offset the road allowance in the games, or the number of posts over the years where people coplain about stepping on friendly mines as if mines once set cared who stepped on them.
Ricky mentioned an idea I had to make the amount of movement varied for every unit every turn based on QUallity. I love this idea but it too is loss of control.
Glenn