Disabled Armor-Indirect by the Map-and more about Gardening Later

Hawk Kriegsman · 12-21-2009, 07:06 AM,

K K Rossokolski Wrote:"I would suspect that number being correct in the Brits case and I suspect possibly for the Americans too. It was most likey higher for the Germans and the Russians however."

Why so, Hawk?

Just the impression I get from the years of reading I have done.

Thanx!

Hawk

Hawk Kriegsman · 12-21-2009, 07:09 AM,

Crossroads Wrote:As a separate note for tanks breaking down while in transport. I would politely comment this to be quite harsh, as most scenarios last only 1,5 to 3 hours, and the units represent platoons...

I agree with Crossroads here. Given the more tactical nature of CS units which had suffered breakdowns would not have been in the battle to begin with.

Thanx!

Hawk

K K Rossokolski · 12-21-2009, 07:15 AM,

What about those that break down once battle is joined?...more likely as higher speed and violent manoeuvre is bound to have an effect on machinery.

Hawk Kriegsman · 12-21-2009, 08:22 AM,

K K Rossokolski Wrote:What about those that break down once battle is joined?...more likely as higher speed and violent manoeuvre is bound to have an effect on machinery.

I hear what you are saying Rod, but to me that is an element better left to a more tactical game like Combat Missions.

In theroy you could have no limit to the amount of items you keep track of in the game.

How about water evaporation rules in desert scenarios? Running out of ammo completely? Lowering of morale as you side suffers losses. Capturing and using equipment. Actualy having to escort POWs off the map to get points? Battalion aid stations to retreat to and get an SP back?

I would hate CS to go the way of advanced squad leader. So detailed it became nearly unplayable.

The beauty of CS for me is the perfect blend of tactical and operational.

The fact it has lasted so long says all you need to say about how well the original game was made.

Thanx!

Hawk

K K Rossokolski · 12-21-2009, 10:44 AM,

Hawk Kriegsman Wrote:I would hate CS to go the way of advanced squad leader. So detailed it became nearly unplayable.

Fair enough

Hawk Kriegsman Wrote:The beauty of CS for me is the perfect blend of tactical and operational.

Fully agree.

Hawk Kriegsman Wrote:The fact it has lasted so long says all you need to say about how well the original game was made.

Which does suggest that the present climate of change needs careful management. The introduction of bizarre and/or unrealistic entities and the unjustified tripling of truck values are examples that in my view spoil the game rather than enhance it.

Hawk Kriegsman · (This post was last modified: 12-21-2009, 01:23 PM by Hawk Kriegsman.)

K K Rossokolski Wrote:Which does suggest that the present climate of change needs careful management. The introduction of bizarre and/or unrealistic entities and the unjustified tripling of truck values are examples that in my view spoil the game rather than enhance it.

Yes Rod, I agree 100%. Any little change to the rules, game engine, point values, etc, etc, changes every scenario made prior to the change. These changes will help some scenarios and totaly destroy some others.

That being said I have no issue with any change as long as it is optional.

As an aside I have no problem with the tuck values. They were valuable and should not be squandered.

Thanx!

Hawk

K K Rossokolski · 12-21-2009, 02:18 PM,

Hawk Kriegsman Wrote:Yes Rod, I agree 100%. Any little change to the rules, game engine, point values, etc, etc, changes every scenario made prior to the change. These changes will help some scenarios and totaly destroy some others.

That being said I have no issue with any change as long as it is optional.

As an aside I have no problem with the tuck values. They were valuable and should not be squandered.

Thanx!

Hawk

I agree with optional rules, which are an original feature of Talonsoft. I am becoming a convert to EA, although I think it could be eased up just a teeeensy bit!
I believe that the truck value change can only have a major effect on all legacy scens containing trucks. Trouble is, the VP is not optional, nor as far as I know, can it be made optional. I can accept VP1 is too small, but 3 is too much. Leaves 2. I can live with that.

Hawk Kriegsman · (This post was last modified: 12-21-2009, 02:24 PM by Hawk Kriegsman.)

K K Rossokolski Wrote:I am becoming a convert to EA, although I think it could be eased up just a teeeensy bit!

I am in agreement with just a slight teak as you suggest.

Quote:I believe that the truck value change can only have a major effect on all legacy scens containing trucks. Trouble is, the VP is not optional, nor as far as I know, can it be made optional. I can accept VP1 is too small, but 3 is too much. Leaves 2. I can live with that.

No VPs are not really optional. What I meant is that the scenarios victory conditions may need to be chaged to to the increase in truck values.

2 points? Hmmm....not bad.

I suppose the real question is:

Are 1SP 2.5 ton trucks the same in value to 1SP of a standard infantry platoon?

That is the great debate here.

Thanx!

Hawk

5 Leichte Div · 12-21-2009, 05:28 PM,

Gentlemen all :
After hearing all the information above by many ... yes .. the artillery effects as is .. do work OK with the 1.04 version's 4% chance, and as HAWK Kriegsman points out .. programming could get too sticky to tinker with. At least we have something better than the original setting. I like ... just fine.

Interesting idea about truck VP values .. maybe some should be worth more points than others ... and maybe, too WHEN ... late war years could be more costly for the Axis nad less so for the Allies ( ? ). But .. maybe that's more detail yet one more too many.

Still .. all of these things hardly matter much ... if ya' got BAD DICE !
Just ask me .... ouch !!

Tom S.
5 Leichte Div[/b][/size][/font]

Crossroads · 12-21-2009, 06:57 PM,

Hawk Kriegsman Wrote:
K K Rossokolski Wrote:What about those that break down once battle is joined?...more likely as higher speed and violent manoeuvre is bound to have an effect on machinery.
...
The beauty of CS for me is the perfect blend of tactical and operational.
...

This is an interesting topic, isn't it. :)

In the spirit of Tom Cruise's Valkyrie : "This is a military operation, nothing will go as planned."

I could see a lot of various problems modeled to take effect under one optional rule, to keep things simple.

Thus, in the world of infinite Matrix programming resources, let us introduce the new FUBAR optional rule to solve all issues mentioned here. :smoke:

To model the CS scale better, instead of affecting whole platoons, (whatever the platoon is, to model whatever typically could go wrong with that particular unit), it would take out one or two strength points.

A table attached to each unit would give a date and propability of sh*t hitting the fan for that particular unit, per geographical area as well. Winter near Moscow, heat near Tobruk and sunny France could be modeled.

Panthers would break down more easily when they were first introduced in Kursk timeframe, to become more reliable later on.

Armour road travel would take their toll in break downs, more so when passing throug rougher terrains.

Infantry platoons would lose men lost when marching during night, or when morale is slow. And so on.

What about armour getting stuck in soft ground?

German armour had narrow tracks, it would happen more often to them than to Russians.

I have recently followed the whereabouts of the 303. Sturmgeschutzbrigade in Baltics. During the battle of Narva one tank company lost all their tanks to soft ground, as they were retreating to new positions, Russians in close pursuit.

Perhaps a unit could become fixed for certain time, based on a dice roll, under this rule as well?

By the way, I am not at all saying this should be done. Just thinking in an open manner as how it could be implemented within the scale of the game.

A slow day at the work, again, obviously :whis: