Request for an Important Thread: "Rules of Engagement for PBEM Games"

[PawelM]

The bottom line is all units in CS are simply intended as a
representation of RL units and their organisational structure. As
often happens this representation is not perfect. I feel many ROE
aimed to cut gamey-ness ( is there such a word at all :) ) are simply
subject to how an indivudual interpretes what a given CS unit
represents. Lets take my favourite halftracks example... They have
assault factor >0 (I think it is 1 for any HT in the game if I am
right). Many Blitz member do not wish to play them as solitary assualt
units.... Fair enough assuming that 6 SP HT bit in the game represents
6 vehicles and say 6 drivers. They would not have a chance to carry
out an assault- no question about that. But what if the designer
actually though of it as 6 vehicle 6 drivers and a platoon section (
or Winnie the Pooh and his friends:) ) and based on that or other
composure decided there is enough people to have a limited assault
strength of 1. Then using HT bit for an assault does not appear gamey
at all to me.... If you think the 1SP (out of 6SP infantry platoon)
which was decimated in combat will still have an assault factor higher
than any HT!!!!

I could provide more examples. And I am not trying to convert anyone.
I am just saying that the gamey and simulation sides might not be as
clear a cut on all ROE ( some of them are really purely gamey still).
In many cases it will be down to what an individual sees the CS unit
represents compared to what the designer had in mind...

This is why I do not feel so strongly against playing some gamey
tactics if my opponent wishes. In the cases like above it is to me
just down to a subjecive picture what we see sits behind this HT icon
(or any other unit icon) in a hex......................