Matrix Games Forums

Originally posted by Belisarius
There's the essence of it all.

With much different force/frontage ratios than is the "norm" today, I won't have a problem with 'unlimited' artillery. Then excessive artillery would indeed hamper your ability to locate/fight the enemy, all that units vs. artillery priorities.

if you want to play more "historic" than
the german late war player mostly would have a problem, because on all fronts the enemies had air + arty suppority ranging from 1:3 up to 1:10 ( see perhaps the last eastern front battles and the d-day - here the support from ships makes quite a difference, too ). while i can only think of a german suppority in arty at the beginning of the ardennes offensive..

Originally posted by Belisarius
There's the essence of it all.

With much different force/frontage ratios than is the "norm" today, I won't have a problem with 'unlimited' artillery. Then excessive artillery would indeed hamper your ability to locate/fight the enemy, all that units vs. artillery priorities.

I agree with you mostly, if that isn't clear already. But since we usually play with huge (5-8000p) armies in cramped areas, too much artillery will ruin the gameplay. I'm not saying this is ideal, I'd rather fight with less on more surface, but this is the norm and this is why we have experimented to find that a 10%-15% limit doesn't upset the game too much yet allows for effective fire support. This isn't perfect either, but most is happy with it at the moment. And again you're right in that it is sort of a 'straightjacket' for developing your tactical skills but hey, the limitation isn't carved in rock, I'd be happy to try something different.

Exactly and the whole reason it is the "norm" to fight large groups on small battlefields is because the ONLY example of tactics most players have is the AI , You cram up the battlefield with units and whine about limiting stuff you don't understand and you never have to even learn tactics .,.. you just use first person shooter concepts and hope for the best .. it is really sad .
Folks who don't even understand frontage ( other than "frontage" means their are 5 victory hex groups instead of three duh ) much less study actual tactics and think Historical means tanks in every battle are the ones running the game development with their toadying syncophant BS among the clic that does the OB's .. it's a crying shame.
Frank W there is not a right or wrong way to do arty .. there is NOTHING in any rule book that says 10% or 81mm are in or out or ammo trucks count or don't count , all that stuff only favors the Germans , and if you ain't playing the Germans and are falling for the limit BS you are getting screwed by the more experienced players who are talking advantage of the newbies with this nonsense .. pure and simple

Sure, but I've never used it. I'll have to find the link and install it when I get home from work.

I've promised Dwayne I'd do this for a week, and have been unusually busy.

I've got 7.1 installed now, but H2H is fine, want to make a scenario up?

If it operates like 7.1 (the play mechanics), I should be fine.

I really like the idea of upgraded OOBs. Are there any that are "broken" in H2H on the GE side? Just like to know prior to purchase, so I don't by 50 of them .

Look forward to it. Let me know when you're ready. I'm playing 5 games right now, but seem to get them played quickly (even forgot to watch the VCR in the latest with Wombat , that one's a bloodbath).

Originally posted by Vathailos
I really like the idea of upgraded OOBs. Are there any that are "broken" in H2H on the GE side? Just like to know prior to purchase, so I don't by 50 of them .

Look forward to it. Let me know when you're ready. I'm playing 5 games right now, but seem to get them played quickly (even forgot to watch the VCR in the latest with Wombat , that one's a bloodbath). [/B]

we can play normal SPWAW , too.

your choice . i don´t mind.

we can wait till we play, too.

i have 4 games in the moment in 2
i´m not very good ( or better my units suck ) these 2 are against viking + rbrunsman as german

while my russian game goes okay ( will be a draw i think ) i wonder how much 85mm side hits tigers + panthers can take from near distance in H2H before blowing up

How about this. I'll make a battle in H2H.fr with the following (assuming I can manage)

ME: GE

YOU: US

Points: 8000

Map: Random

Weather: Random

Visibility: Random

Restrictions: None (muwahahaha!)

Historical Controls: All except "C&C" and "Rarity" turned ON

Date: some time after say OCT 1944?

If this is OK, please let me know.

See you on what promises to be one ugly battlefield

~Vath

Frank in H2H take a good look at your tanks ammo load out, so far I have found some of my Russian tanks have very limited amounts of AP and Heat rounds.


And if you figure out how to kill Tigers, in H2H let me know

ammo sgt, I think, in your enthusiasm, you forget that, first and foremost, this is a GAME. The object is to make it fun to play. To me, it is merely a fancy game of chess.

I don't change my "standard rule set" based on what country I'm playing. I play whatever country my opponent wants me to play and none of my "standard rules" are carved in stone. I freely accept whatever is suggested. So for you to suggest that it's all a big conspiracy against the newbies is B.S. I seldom get the feeling during game setup negotiations that my opponent is trying to box me into a corner so he can win more easily. I certainly don't do it.

To me "Historical" = anything that isn't a clearly game mechanics influenced purchase (e.g. heavy AAA being able to move and shoot when small AAA cannot do so, etc.).

You shouldn't assume that your definition of a word is the one that the writer meant when you read a post. Sometimes a single word is used as a shorthand for a much longer meaning and most people usually understand it as such.:rolleyes:

It is a game after all.

I don't think AmmoSgt is saying that you do it to intentionally box your opponent into a corner, nor your opponent to do the same to you; I think the result is you put yourself in a box. Agreed, some things are a lot more annoying than others. I don't like mines, air power, masses of arty, and I hate infiltrators -- mostly when they're on the other side . They were part of the WW II battlefiled, however, and to adequately portray the tactical situation, I prefer learning to live with them. Variety and surprise add to the game -- otherwise it gets repetitious.

There have been occasions when I've wondered if my opponent bothered to buy any regular infantry -- especially when I see about three companies of armor, lots of those scouts and more bazooka squads than I can count. I don't ask they be limited, I just go about trying to find a way to stop them before I get wiped out. A good challenge is more than just an even match of points/arty/armor/what have you.

IMHO the challenge is defeating any force I come up against -- or at least putting up a decent fight.

I'm not saying others do not feel that way. I'm saying too many limits reduce the options, which reduces the variety, which reduces the need to get creative. To me it's a detriment leading to a sameness of tactics across the board.

As for the AAA thing rbrunsman mentioned: Big guns take longer to set up and the ammo is slower to load. A RR gun can't be dropped and working in the same time as a small field gun. (Extreme example, I know) but the principal is the same.

My apologies for diluting what is otherwise an interesting discussion in-progress.

Quick note to Frank W.

Take a look in the AAR/DAR Forum

Its all too easy to try to compare this game to history and find faults. One of the big attractions for me is its evolving nature. We ALL combine to try to make the game more enjoyable. There are countless versions of it since SP1. Each with its own pluses and faults.

I have been on both sides of 30% plus artillery. You cannot hide from it for long on any size map. You must mass to make an attack and when the mass is found...well... I have tried various limits on all types of units to balance the game and make it more of a challenge. The game , as a game, needs balance. As history? Well, history is always written by the victors and is slanted in its truth as such. The loser is seldom the good guy. But in a game, the loser is often the good guy.

We all pretend to be in command of "real" armies. Gladly, its not real, and then again it is. Its a real game with real limitations not unlike the playing of a trump card in Bridge. You may only do so if certain conditions are met. If you wish to hold all trump cards, you might have trouble finding opponents.

You make for interesting reading, Ammosgt. As it applies to game, if we all wanted "no holds barred" it would be the norm rather than the exception. The players decide, negotiate look for a challenge and it is that which has brought a new dimension to the game. The banter, discussion and brotherhood of the forums, for most of themembers, is as important or more important than the game itself.

It is very correct to say that this does not reflect historical facts. It has, however, history as its base and that is another appeal. We can all look at and many touch and feel the equipment that we purport to command. We can all compare our exploits with those of history as well as our fellow players. You are also correct in that we are missing many challenges of the game. Many of the challenges that you allude to have beed tried. Large Maps , one gun per meter of front. Massed armour, no amour, little armour. Some of this , lots of that. What the experienced players bring to the newbies is just that, experience in what makes an enjoyable game. They are free to set their own limits. There is no conspiracy. If a new player comes along with new tactics and methods that win (or lose) they are discussed for all to decide whether or not they condone or abhor the methods.

I am a proponent of "Gary's rules of engagement". From my experience, this is the most complete list of what makes for an interesting game. I would like to see it or its like incorporated as a standard of play with no restrictions of variations, of course. Even though we have a manual of play we do not have a bill of rights or a constitution, if you like. Something that defines fairplay while allowing for your own ideas to come forth and be welcomed. No one would object to anyone playing under whatever conditions they want and can get an opponent to agree to.

I am still waiting for this challenge from VikingNo2
"Join us next time fight fans, when the only stipulation on the game is that I have to fight with 3 snipers and a Ammo truck with a vis of one. But that will be fair because the other guy only get tanks. ":) :rolleyes:

I think he might win.

Challage is on the Opponents want forum Mr Buzzard, did not want to invade this intresting post