[WarInEur] General note on rules changes and suggestions!!

[srm]

Beautifully said, Chuck!



Sergio

--- Chuck Sutherland <csutherland at gamewoodinc.com>
wrote:

> My personal thoughts are simple, if the rule will
> make both sides have 
> to work their arses off for a win then I am for it,
> if it has a 
> historical reason behind it.
> 
> For the record, since many of my suggestions have
> been give a "pro axis" 
> stamp of disapproval, I have played about 75% of WiE
> as the Russian or 
> Allied player.
> 
> I HATE the para terror tactics the Germans HAVE to
> use to try and break 
> a line since their panzers are almost worthless
> after 3 stacking points 
> and later 4 stacking points are reached in the
> second row.
> 
> I also dislike the allies and Russians not being
> able to break open a 
> line, the only time I have EVER broken a German line
> was because my 
> opponent let me waltz into the Hungarian capital and
> cause a surrender 
> during a turn that opened up a large hole and I
> forced marched all my 
> infantry into OOS positions and cut off 30-40 German
> divisions. The 
> Russians blew open the German lines and I have NEVER
> seen the combat 
> system show that, NEVER, only the political system
> has done so one time! 
> Excluding incompetent play that is!
> 
> Other then that its been WWI start to finish!
> 
> So any rule that will allow Guderian, Patton, and
> Zhukov to kick rear 
> and take names and make the defenders have to think
> about defenses in 
> depth, counter attacking forces and generally cause
> you to think instead 
> of the currect 3 unit in a row defense in 41 I am
> all in favor of.
> 
> I also dislike that one major port could fuel the
> entire eastern front 
> if it were cut off, thus I hate the fact that the
> ONLY way germany can 
> go after Moscow in 41 is to  para terror Leningrad
> area to get a port 
> that can then trace to Moscow, while Rostov
> sometimes NEVER is taken 
> until late 42.
> 
> What really needs to be called out is the grognards
> who have their 
> little nitch that allows them to sit back do nothing
> and win a game, 
> that is not historical, is not fun, except if you
> like watching grass 
> grow, but is comfortable because its always worked
> this way.....
> 
> And so we defend our sleepy little cove with yet
> another pro-xxx comment.
> 
> Three questions:
> 
> 1) Is the suggestion historically based?
> 2) Does it break the existing game?
> 3) If so what needs to happen to rebalance things so
> that both sides 
> have times where they can seek a win while still
> staying within 
> historical abilities.
> 
> As long as that process is followed I don't care
> what is changed and 
> what is left alone, as long as it breaks the
> existing WWI style combat 
> system!
> 
> Will I continue to play this game even if not a
> single rule is changed, 
> yes, will I tinker with it till its fixed so it
> plays historical, YES!
> 
> What to have some real fun, play one game where you
> don't use any paras 
> at all and see how the combat system plays out! By
> doing so it will give 
> you some idea of how messed up the actual combat
> system is!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> WarInEur mailing list
> WarInEur at mailman.halisp.net
> http://mailman.halisp.net/mailman/listinfo/warineur
> 


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com