Feature Request: Combat Results (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> WarPlan



Message

Hoyt Burrass -> Feature Request: Combat Results (12/6/2019 8:59:52 PM)

Would it be possible to have an option where the combat results stay visible until clicked to dismiss...I must be getting old, because the 3 second delay (maximum) isn't always long enough for me to see what I want to see.



AlvaroSousa -> RE: Feature Request: Combat Results (12/6/2019 9:05:16 PM)

The BATTLE toggle is just that. Toggle it on.



Hoyt Burrass -> RE: Feature Request: Combat Results (12/7/2019 12:42:53 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Alvaro Sousa

The BATTLE toggle is just that. Toggle it on.


Cool....I guess I should RTFM...thank you



AlvaroSousa -> RE: Feature Request: Combat Results (12/7/2019 5:08:33 PM)

Just click the "?" on the right side and it helps a lot.

Didn't you get a big START HERE with a huge arrow pointing to the question mark when you 1st started the game?



Hoyt Burrass -> RE: Feature Request: Combat Results (12/7/2019 5:55:08 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Alvaro Sousa

Didn't you get a big START HERE with a huge arrow pointing to the question mark when you 1st started the game?


I'm sure I did, but real wargamers don't read rules...[:D]



Beatrix Kiddo -> RE: Feature Request: Combat Results (12/8/2019 3:22:43 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Hoyt Burrass


quote:

ORIGINAL: Alvaro Sousa

Didn't you get a big START HERE with a huge arrow pointing to the question mark when you 1st started the game?


I'm sure I did, but real wargamers don't read rules...[:D]


I predict you are a real PC wargamer! If you are a board gaming wargamer, then you are an incredibly rare one who doesn't read the rules! 8 )



AlvaroSousa -> RE: Feature Request: Combat Results (12/8/2019 4:45:52 PM)

Modern PC wargamer. If you played wargames in the 1980s reading the rules was a MUST or you were completely lost.



mroyer -> RE: Feature Request: Combat Results (12/8/2019 5:25:37 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Alvaro Sousa

Modern PC wargamer. If you played wargames in the 1980s reading the rules was a MUST or you were completely lost.


This is an irony for me.

"Back in the day" we were forced to spend hours studying every nuance of a rules book until we could play and nearly recite them off the cuff as a face-to-face game progressed. We dreamed of the day computers lifted all that oppressive overhead from our shoulders.

Now that computers have done that I find I'm always wondering exactly what's going on behind the scenes, rules wise, and often not quite sure how the computer will handle some nuance of a rule. I'd say we're still FAR better off with the computer doing the heavy lifting and letting the human focus on game level (vs. rules level) play.

Gone is the "rules lawyer"! 1970's and '80 boardgamers know of what I speak. [;)]

-Mark R.



AlvaroSousa -> RE: Feature Request: Combat Results (12/8/2019 5:44:36 PM)

Go play WIF the board game. You will see constant arguments about rules interpretations.



Hoyt Burrass -> RE: Feature Request: Combat Results (12/8/2019 6:04:05 PM)

It was an inside joke aimed at my old FtF gaming buddies...we always joked (when someone missed an obvious rule) that real wargamers don't read rules...we also maintained that real wargamers don't play scenarios...only the campaign!!



gw15 -> RE: Feature Request: Combat Results (12/10/2019 1:14:43 AM)

Yes about WIF. One of my opponents in the old days had a memory where he could recite the rule as written. It made it easy for us to just ask him what the rule said. However, interpretation was a whole different issue.

Matrix WIF gets rid of the interpretation. The rule is, as coded.



abulbulian -> RE: Feature Request: Combat Results (12/10/2019 1:19:02 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: gw15

Yes about WIF. One of my opponents in the old days had a memory where he could recite the rule as written. It made it easy for us to just ask him what the rule said. However, interpretation was a whole different issue.

Matrix WIF gets rid of the interpretation. The rule is, as coded.


Was this me? [;)]



AlvaroSousa -> RE: Feature Request: Combat Results (12/10/2019 2:37:22 PM)

There is always interpretation problems. In my last game a player almost walked out in the middle of the game because another player was being an asshole about a wording of the rule like a lawyer when clearly that interpretation made no logical sense. Usually this happens once a game. And these are 40-50 year old men having this middle school tantrum. I had to play therapist and calm them both down.

Ahhh wargamers.



Uxbridge -> RE: Feature Request: Combat Results (12/10/2019 3:43:14 PM)

We had a multitude of such arguments too. One of the more memorable was wether British destroyers could fly. One camp argued that it shouldn't be allowed; the other side showing strong emotional opposition to this appeal to logic – it was in the rules, and therefore it should be doable. Can't remember the outcome, but apparently it doesn't matter where you were, the people who strictly followed even the most ridicious rule rules – when it was to their advantage, of course – was always there in certain numbers. In English they are called "Rules Lawyers", aren't they? In Sweden they are "Paragraph Riders".



AlvaroSousa -> RE: Feature Request: Combat Results (12/10/2019 5:04:21 PM)

Now I am curious. In which rules set does it say destroyers can fly? Which game?



Uxbridge -> RE: Feature Request: Combat Results (12/10/2019 7:00:51 PM)

With reservation, I think it was in one of the earlier versions of European Theatre of Operations. I recall that there were escort boxes that one could move in and out of and you could "land" anywhere on the map from any box. Gibraltar had fallen, but the Brits argued that they should be able to rebase naval units from UK to Alexandria using the escort boxes. Technically, it was valid, but it stretched the violence on realism more than some Axis players could bear.

A splendid game, nevertheless.



AlvaroSousa -> RE: Feature Request: Combat Results (12/10/2019 10:02:09 PM)

I would have given them a look too lol.



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
4.015625