|
PaladinSix -> RE: Talonsoft VS MCS: Indirect Artillery Fire (7/16/2008 10:15:38 AM)
|
Not to jump on the bandwagon, but I think I have to agree with Borst50 on this issue. We can debate whether or not 2% or 5% or whatever is the correct odds for indirect artillery vs. armor, but that misses the more basic point.
A tank that is "killed" during a scenario by IF fire (or any other means) is not necessarily a burning wreck. It is simply out of commission for the duration of the scenario and possibly longer. In the context of a single mission, having a track blown off is essentially the same thing as a total kill. Either way, that tank is not useful anymore during the mission.
But....here's the problem. Many people (myself included) do not play the single-mission scenarios. We play campaign games. And in the course of a large campaign game (like the DCG Road to Germany), those "disabled" tanks are effectively the same as "killed" tanks, because there is no mechanism to repair or refit armor in between missions.
Yes, I know, there are replacement points, but those are designed and calculated to model the larger supply and reinforcement picture, rather than a unit's inherent ability to repair minor damage to its own equipment. I'm not arguing for a regimental motor pool unit, but perhaps some recognition of the concept that not all "kills" are total is in order.
Otherwise, we're stuck with a situation in which individual scenarios may be well-balanced and properly designed, but dont' fit together into a more comprehensive yet still accurate picture of an actual campaign.
Personally, this sort of thing makes the longer DCGs very difficult to enjoy, which for me removes a great deal of the utility of the entire game.
PaladinSix
|
|
|
|
