Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: Manus von Olie

Resumed:
-staff and engineers, if necessary
-Armored Cars for speed, reconnaissance and firepower,
-horses/trucks for transport-rifle as backbone

In games where you must pay for research, i go straight for light tanks, skipping armoured cars. saves a few pp's

Well, you're right, eventually you'll have to research tanks in such a game, but then they're twice as expensive to produce as armored cars, have the same firepower against infantry and have less reconnaissance value, which is a handicap in the beginning of a game, especially in games that are shrouded.

There is a way, by making an assessment of how much of a certain type of arms you plan to build to see if it is worthwhile to research it: a formula in which you compare the costs with the firepower and amount of production and probably even the supply needed to sustain units (upgraded units have more firepower, but use the same amount of supply as 'type I' units). This formula is possible, since all factors mentioned can be expressed in political points, the money of the game. I think such a formula will be a key point of research. Somebody wants to give this a try?

ORIGINAL: Manus von Olie

I'm interested: what do you think about the PBEM Code of Honor?



Arditi: I think it is good...a bit self-serving...and meant as a back handed response.

I used things that happened to reflect upon how it would be best for the PBEM experience. Sometimes I had to correct myself too: like in the game I was playing against you I gave all units the same name to deceive you. Then later I noticed this was too childish and unsportive, so I made the 'rule' about changing names.

It's cool that way, because unpleasant experiences can be turned into the general good like that. And now that you acknowledge it too the reconciliation is complete , thanks, Arditi.

[:)]  Cheers to you!
        Regards, Arditi[:)]

And I will depoliticise (?) the introduction of the academy in version 1.1 and also what you called 'condescending' remarks will be left out...

  Many thanks my friend.[:)]
    Best Regards, Arditi[:)]

PBEM code of honor is great. In fact, I guess Vic should later place it in the Briefing within the game. [;)]

Good idea in general, (PBEM CoH) but, as with all 'morality' type issues, there is always someone who has an opposite viewpoint.
 
 

Mavnb wrote:

ORIGINAL: I read your academy and I think you should not give
too concrete example. I am afraid that now, all we will
see when playing opponent (in the russia 41 scen near
Lenningrad) is what you explained. Gone are the trial and error
way of winning. General tactics, yes. Precise perfect way of
playing the game, no.

you got a point there, Marc Andre, I didn't think about that, but I won't completely spoil this awesome scenario: after the explanation of the key points and the rest, I'll leave it. There is still room for different tactics though: if everybody starts to play the same way, that will turn against itself too, I noticed.

thanks for the feedback,

Herman.

Herman: Where, specifically, is your "magnum Opus?" I would love to go through it but don't know what you mean by "AT" section? Thanks T

Hi Tagwyn, you can find the academy on: http://www.advancedtactics.org/ there's a link on the first page. At present I'm busy with the second part. I redid a lot of the PBEM ethics, after some feedback and there will be also more on key points. In the third and probably 'definitive' version I'll try to rewrite the key points on tactics in a way that is comprehensible for everybody and then there will be no more replays.