It was constructive critisism and no offence meant! and I very much doubt that anybody would continually flick through the pages in-game to find a vehicles or weapons stats and therefore duplicating is a waste of space. Are you going to tell me that having a full profile for a Sdkfz 251 and then duplicate it for one with a bridge that does not even have rules for its use is a good use of the limited space available? Really?rvrratt said:
Sighs & Portents: Soviets need Tank buster plane variant
- Thread starter JayRaider
- Start date
I think your criticism of his criticism is a bit strong, snce I got the feeling it was aimed the significant amount of duplication in the stats rather than the inclusion of pictures. It is a fact that these days glossy pictures (or "wargames porn" as one of my work colleagues describes it) will do an awful lot to sell a set of rules - and in some cases will do more than the quality of the rules themselves where the set in question are somewhat mediocre (not that, I hasten to add, I'm saying that about WaW (the pcs aren't glossy after all) but there are some pretty naff sets out there that sell well as a result of the apparent kudos of sexy glossy photos.
So it would have been nice to have seen its full potential realised in the rulebook rather than having to shell out for a supplement. A bit like the lack of HE rules. I think on reflection the decision to go down the route followed might have been in error, since it leaves MGP open to criticism of "supplement syndrome". I can imagine the reaction we'd have got with "Victory at Sea" if we'd included stats for ships main guns but said "thats all folks, torpedo and secondary gun stats coming in the supplement".
lastbesthope
Mongoose
JayRaider said:
Indeed they were, I made laminated double sided colour copies of all the stat cards.
LBH
Agis, I suspect this is a langauge thing. I think the tone of the vast majority of the comments here are actually the opposite, or are at least intended to be the opposite, of the way you perceive them. I think instead its a measure of the interest and support for the rules that has people making honest criticisms. To be certain, if I were the author I'd welcome the feedback (i've had a couple of rough rides with one or two of my published rules over the years but its all served to improve the quality of the next in line)
DM said:
You are implying that I do NOT welcome the feedback (at least that is like it sounds to me) - honestly the opposite is true.
There are many post that really keeps me re-thinking a lot of design decisions - but demands that start with "this sucks" and "that is overpowered" (without saying why) are not of my liking.
Agis said:
Well, part of the problem here I think is that whenever I've seen criticism posted on this forum it's resulted in very defensive posts from the authors, or outright removal of threads.
The intention of people in disputing rules is not to ridicule the authors but to try and come to some sort of workable system.
We had a 10 page discussion of move/shoot rules where people were putting forward measured discussions of the system and we had matt saying 'you just don't like the rule'. Without seeming to appreciate that someone could not like a rule based on it not making sense in the game system
Entering into a dialogue would have been far more productive and engendered more of a positive response than just saying 'whatever' and walking away.I think there are issues with some of the rules - mainly legacy issues from SST which don't really translate, some added rules that feel 'tacked on' and some points balance issues that have to do with the fundamental 'points' concept and how the authors seem to have interpreted it.
All I can say is, if someone says 'this is overpowered' - don't ridicule them or get angry, ask them to explain their POV and address their concerns if/when they put together a reasoned argument.
Cards are an ideal system when playing multi-player games when you want to divi-up an army between players especially if they don't have the rules themselves. But I had my first one-on-one the other week and it was a nightmare shuffleing around a dozen or so cards trying to find the one you want, a rosta style spreadsheet is probably better if you have numerous different units to control. Cards are also great when sorting out victory points as you can just discard the dead units (or give to opponant if required) add them up and you are done.Mr Evil said:
PS sorry if I upset any members its not my intention, I love the game and sometimes am just to enthusiastic which can be taken the wrong way on the forums. And just to show how enthusiastic I am (and don't tell the missus) I have spent over £350 on WW2 stuff since the games release - oops
:shock:hithero said:PS sorry if I upset any members its not my intention, I love the game and sometimes am just to enthusiastic which can be taken the wrong way on the forums. And just to show how enthusiastic I am (and don't tell the missus) I have spent over £350 on WW2 stuff since the games release - oops
She'll kill you!
:lol:
I think i'm asking for a tank buster variant because i've been looking at my T-34-43 tanks stats, (i just finished 4 today, armourfast) then looking at the Tiger 1 stats.
Ouch, why did i pick the Soviets to play? :lol:
JayRaider said:
They are just so much cooler
rvrratt said:
I would agree with you completely on this - until someone puts a price tag on it and tries to sell it (as we have). Then the customer can make pretty much whatever comments he wishes
its the hollywood tiger stats..unfortunatly.... russians used t34 85s against tigers with great results evan germans captured them to try see why,, basicly the tiger was extreemly vulnerable to track damage due to a suspension sytem not suitable to the eastern front.
read years ago a russian prverb from ww2 about why kill a tiger or poke its eyes if you can tickle its paws to kill it..... ok bad memory and translation, but russians puished enemy tank track system evan with small caliber weapons once tank was imobalised it was easy pickings for other types of ordinance. another tactic russians did was swamp a road with water in the summer by the time the 4th or 5th armoured vehicle had passed by a bog had formed and the panic was on to free the tank befor the summer set the earth around it ultimatly taking a tank out of action.... slowing an entire section down..... russian tanks had wider tracks for the most part, and used this to thier advantage, russian tank battles where often won by the imobalisation of tigers and evan panthers.
russian tanks were hated by the way by german crews as there was no padding inside the hot and stuffy tanks, this was due to the fact the russians pilot wore the padding instead of lining the tanks with padding like other nations.
back to topic though.... will we also get new rounds for tanks as time goese on ?
read years ago a russian prverb from ww2 about why kill a tiger or poke its eyes if you can tickle its paws to kill it..... ok bad memory and translation, but russians puished enemy tank track system evan with small caliber weapons once tank was imobalised it was easy pickings for other types of ordinance. another tactic russians did was swamp a road with water in the summer by the time the 4th or 5th armoured vehicle had passed by a bog had formed and the panic was on to free the tank befor the summer set the earth around it ultimatly taking a tank out of action.... slowing an entire section down..... russian tanks had wider tracks for the most part, and used this to thier advantage, russian tank battles where often won by the imobalisation of tigers and evan panthers.
russian tanks were hated by the way by german crews as there was no padding inside the hot and stuffy tanks, this was due to the fact the russians pilot wore the padding instead of lining the tanks with padding like other nations.
back to topic though.... will we also get new rounds for tanks as time goese on ?
Agis said:
I would read it as more ammo - greater availability of various kinds of more advanced anti-tank ammunition was one of the logistic advantages that the allies did have at their disposal.
But again, coming back to the points value issue - don't try and cost them according to their availability. That should be year/theatre/unit type limited in game scenarios, not in points based play.
DM said:
Sorry - not at all.
I am very busy writing the Vehicle Compendiums to be ready as soon as the Logo License for Evo is there.
80+ new or (slightly) reworked vehicles for Germans (in layout already), 40+ for Soviets (written, but before layout), British not counted (only drafted, same for US). New traits as Zimmerit, Unreliable, Recon, Double Suppression etc etc.
After that Italians and maybe Desert War.
That keeps me busy enough.... :wink:
