Louie the Toad

Finally convinced my brother to go for it. Now he wants to know how long of a wait between ordering and receiving the game. In the USA.

How about this: Everyone try a company sized scenario using just this much of the Iron Man rules, then come back and renew this discussion: All units use level 1 view only, except when on second story buildings, level 2. Steeples level 3. Level 5 only for placing in buildings, and only for that specific building. Level 7 for map view. Make a screen shot at set up then dont use it again. Size of units at #1 or #2 setting. Zoom only at power 2 for HQs. Power 4 for FO and tank or gunsights. No zoom otherwise. Views done only from a unit not beyond, not allowed to fly across the battlefield at any level. Not allowed to click on an enemy unit. Can use LoS tool to check out enemy units. Hit reports turned off. Not allowed to adjust terrain in any way in order to see better. Except for blowing up a building of course. This is a double dog dare. Try a company sized or smaller QB using just this much of Franko's Rules. Then lets discuss fog of war. "Go and see what that is!" -- Oliver Hardy

In my original post I simply asked if anyone thought crews of knocked out tanks should be able to OBSERVE for their comrades. With no attached infantry would they be ordered to sneak up and take a peek over the next hill? Would this be teamwork or team spirit.

Oh yes this really makes sense: "Ok lads, we've got to hold the crossroads for exactly 16 minutes." (Maybe in the warmovie world of Telly Savalas,Clint Eastwood or Donald Sutherland) I agree that the flagrush is a problem, but the solution presented in posts above is worse. Isn't it more sensible to say: "We have to take and hold the crossroads by 1300 hours, and be ready for whatever the enemy throws at us." The problem is that the VLs are out of context due to the fact that CM is a tactical game. If there were an operational or strategic context, tactical commanders would be given orders such as: probe the enemy; maintain contact with the enemy; take that hill at all costs; fall back fighting to position X; or hold that hill to the last man. In a strategic or operational context, any of the orders above could be the best thing to do. But, for example, 'falling back fighting', in CM it would cost you the game. Randomizing the end in a tactical game may not be the best solution, but it is the best so far.

Tom, When you say the maps are mirrored do you mean that each side of the map has the same terrain? I also agree than company sized battles are great. Not ready yet to try anything larger. Having too much FUN !

Bump. Anyone else playing Iron Man rules. How do you like it?

Dear Triumvir, My aim was poor. I meant to put this on the General Forum....BUT The Peng pile is on this forum. If you have criticized them I apologize to you. If you have not criticized them, you should apologize to me.

I am getting a bit weary of PC Gamer and the games they cover. Not much there for wargamers, even Trotter seems to be only a voice in the wilderness. I do think their ratings of games are near perfection, so I am hesitating to let my subscription run out because I dont know of anything better. What else is out there? :confused:

The Wiltz Scenario by Wild Bill is great for beginners. Different types of battles raging on the same battlefield. A good thing in a small package.

My cousin and I often play on the same side vs the AI. We would both like to see the results of a game turn. Right now we each take turns doing the GO and then tell the other person what happened. Is there a way (after the green and the blue bars have run their course) to halt and save the game before starting the VCR ? Then send the saved VCR to the other player so we can both view the turn? Your help is appreciated. Thanks.

Starting 1000 pt QB now vs AI. Playing partners as the US with my cousin as we often do, but first time using Iron Man. :eek:

" since real world recon was made by dismounted crews that left their vehicle behind and later" - Redwolf This would be a great feature to have in the game. Would certainly make recon units more effective and less vulnerable.

Thanks for the info.

Originally posted just before the crash. If a unit acts as a team, wouldnt spare crews be used to sneak a peak over the next rise to help out the unit? Lets not talk about using infantry here. "Go see what that is..." - Oliver Hardy

Too much stuff on a too small map. Not a good thing.

Too much stuff on a too small map. Not a good thing.

I think the autopsy was done in a pyramid in Brazil by a small team of "immigrant physicians" when Hitler died of a heart attack on November 22, 1962.

This kind of gaming leads to very interesting matchups: Infantry w/o armor support attacked by armor w/o infantry support; supply columns attacked by probing or scouting forces just to name two. It also gives a reason to fight for or withdraw from an objective town or bridge. Just imagine: A fighting withdrawal in order to fall back to a stronger position, then launch a counter attack. :cool:

A Desert Rat!! Try using the QB or scenario design options to buy as many jeeps as you want.

From your description of the battle I dont think it was gamey at all. In fact it sounds quite reasonable that Jag was moving through the town with supporting forces. Probably moving to join the rest of its unit. From the german perspective, their plan to reinforce their anti tank capability was ambushed by your light force. Hey, you were the Desert Rats or Robin Hood or the Swamp Fox or Jeb Stuart!

I used to do this with board games. The operational or strategic game objectives would give meaning to the tactical objectives. If you are gaming this way, what other computer game do you recommend? :cool: