Mr Evil said:do you wish for it to be gold plated with dancing girls as well ?![]()
tneva82 said:Did you notice the part of with terrain being more of limit? So basicly in that case range is of no concern and if you can see it you can shoot it would rule. Not that interesting either...
There would be then no range issues whatsoever in any situation...Well. Atleast it would simplify unit cards since no mention of ranges would be needed.
Turtle said:Except that this is a game not a simulation. You're pushing little toy soldiers around on a table and rolling dice. This is not a simulation, nor has BFE ever tried to be a simulation. If you want a simulation, there's plenty of other more realism oriented moderns out there. I like the emphasis of gameplay more than realism, and overall it works.
Those of you who are complaining about ranges have you even played the game yet? I have, it works just fine and does as intended.
weasel_fierce said:The idea that in modern combat troops can see each other but somehow be unable to fire upon each other is as absurd as it would be to have infantry move faster than jetplanes.
weasel_fierce said:Any wargame is a simulation of warfare. The "just a game" argument fails to realize that noone is calling for big complex calculations. Only a game model that actually seems semi-plausible.
We are talking about rifles and other infantry weapons. None of the units shown so far carry pistols, or even SMG's where range would be a factortneva82 said:Okay so this pistol here fires unlimited range...Hmmmm...
But in the end it's about dynamic game. Unlimited ranges do not support that. And add also extra burden for starting players. Imagine starting BF:Evo players who start game and learn that first thing they need is HUGE amount of terrain...
We are talking about GAME here. Not simulator...
tneva82 said:Game needs more than simple enough rules to grasp. It needs to be DYNAMIC and INTERESTING as well. Easy enough to start with(not like: Buy models, make huge amount of terrain, THEN play...) doesn't hurt either.
What works in simulation does not automaticly work in game.
weasel_fierce said:We are talking about rifles and other infantry weapons. None of the units shown so far carry pistols, or even SMG's where range would be a factor
Again, unsupported bullhockey. Unrestricted range encourages dynamic play,
tneva82 said:It support "let's sit here and shoot with both actions" play.
weasel_fierce said:Your statement is not supported by actual evidence. Go out there and try it out, on a decently set up table. You'll be surprised.
tneva82 said:weasel_fierce said:Your statement is not supported by actual evidence. Go out there and try it out, on a decently set up table. You'll be surprised.
I have tried out games where weapon ranges were not an issue. What do you think most of times units did? Yup. Shoot. Why bother moving when there's shooting to be done...
I have tried out games where weapon ranges were not an issue. What do you think most of times units did? Yup. Shoot. Why bother moving when there's shooting to be done...
MaxSteiner said:But what about terrain blocking LOS? Wouldn't that offer an incentive to move, irrrespective of ranges?
MaxSteiner said:But isn't that what Weasel_Fierce was proposing?
Actually that is one of the things I like about AT-43, how weapons have different effective ranges, without there being a max range.