Panzer soldier said:

I have a way of dealing with it. This is a game. For fun. Not war. If my opponent were to field a force that had to win by manipulating the rules, I would chose not to play.

fhaugh said:

So building a legal army and playing it according to the rules is "manipulating the rules"? What if your opponent would "manipulate the rules" by fielding only the units with the longest range, units that deal the most damage or units that roll the most dice? Would you also choose not to play?

I don't agree that this is manipulating the rules or anything like that. It's all perfectly over the table to field whatever you want, within the rules' limitations.

I just don't think it's fun to play against an army whose sole purpose is to wildly out-activate me. I play Dust to have fun, not win wars.

??! said:

If the 4 or 5 observer squad had some other purpose in your force, such as spotting for you 2 or 3 artillery pieces, I wouldn't have a problem with them. But the only purpose they serve is to "out-activate" your opponent so you don't have to "out-think" them. You are not winning by having a better force, strategy, or tactics, but through a by product of the rules. Your "strategy" has no basis in real wolrd factors. Before anyone says "real world? these are walking tanks and zombies…." The tactics and strategies involved in games such as these have real world applicibility. Why do you think wargames are encouraged at military academies. In no real world situation would having a handful of forward observers, with no artillery or aircraft to call on for support, change the course of a battle, let alone win it. It is only the structure of the rules that allow this "strategy" to work at all. If the rules were changed so that I activated all my units, then you used yours, and casualities were removed at the end of the round, your "strategy" would be a waste of points. That is why it is a manipulation of the rules. If the rules were changed it wouldn't work. My balanced force has as chance regardless of how the rules are laid out

My wife routinely faces off against a force with the longest ranges, the most powerful weapons, the most dice. They are called "THE AXIS" but in a well balanced game, no force is overwhelming. Rather than resorting to cheap tricks she has learned how to minimize her weaknesses (short range, less powerful weapons), and capitalize on her strengths (speed, flexability, weapons that deny cover). Every unit has it's limitations and a commander worth facing will make you work to exploit that weakness.

I would chose to to play against your kind of force, not because I couldn't win, but because the game would not be a fun challenge. If I wanted to play against rule lawyers, I'd go play Magic:the gathering.

My army list consists of a Stormkonig, Ludwig, Luther, Lothar, Heinrich, and five Observer Grenadiers.

During the last tournament I only fielded two observer squads. In every game they were slaughtered by my opponents, which lead to me exposing my Lothar to fire.

Also sense the rules force me to take both of the Stormkonig's actions to move it on the board. This in turn allows an opponent with more pieces than me to put something like a Pounder on after I deploy it and get a free shot in. So you see the observers serve two purposes and why yes they will allow me to out maneuver most opponents.
Now I know this isn't a war, but it is a “War Game”. So I should choose to field an inferior force just because you deem it unsporting? Obviously you don't game with the folks that I do. I choose to win by useing every legal means a my disposal.

Panzer, if you play with an extremely competitive group, I have no issue with you using whatever strategies you wish to win. My point was based on my local clubs/stores, that have a high number of non-competitive newer players who aren't looking to win so much as learn the game.

I think you should get some 1/48 scale T34 tanks, they can be picked up for around £8.45 and could support your mech(s) till some more stuff comes out…no need to wait!!

fhaugh said:

Sorry, but these are not valid points. "Your strategy only works because of the structure of the rules"? Of course, but that could be said about any strategy in any game just because the rules of certain games allow for certain strategies and forbid others. A good strategy for a game only has to work well in the given set of rules, and if these rules are changed, the stategies change as well. If the rules for chess were changed, a lot of successful existing chess strategies would certainly be worthless, but does this mean those strategies are cheap, useless or manipulation of rules? No. They are legal and successful in a given set of rules. What you call "manipulation of the rules" and "rules lawyering" is just using a strategy that fits the rules and playing according to the rules.

Let me point this out: It's perfectly acceptable to dislike certain strategies and to tell everyone about it. It is even more acceptable to suggest using certain strategies only in a competitive environment and not against new and inexperienced players (In fact, I'd also suggest that in the given case). But in my opinion, it's simply to much to call a legal strategy "cheating", "manipulation" or "rules lawyering" just because you don't like it. Cheating or manipulation really are different things.

I can even accept that you'd refuse to play against said kind of force, although I somewhat disagree with your reasoning behind it. I'd suggest a different approach: Play against it and win against it, thus showing your opponent that you can adapt to his strategy and your army or strategy is better.

My apologies, I just saw your force build list and I've realized the problem. I enjoy playing the game to it full potential which means playing more than just "kill'em all" scenarios.

I also enjoy the "spirit" of the game. A fun simulation of real-world combat in an alternate history. Your "strategy" has nothing to do with that and is purely a by-product of these particular rules. Again, in no real world situation, even in an alternate history, would a bunch of observers hiding in the bushes trying not to get shot, allow you armor units to get in the first shot.

Chess has no real-world connection, so any comparison between the two is limited at best. You chose to play the game to win. I chose to play to have fun, and share that fun with my friends. Playing agianst that kind of force is not what I, or my friends, would call fun. We would call it annoying and boring.

You also seem to focus a lot on if its legal. How about if it's fun and at all realistic. If I want to play a game that is all about strategy within the rules, I'll play chess.

You seem to have forgotten (or were never taught),

It's not whether or not you win, but how you play the game

I can't believe nobody is up in arms about Command Squads that bring units back to life, and give extra moves. How about goth girl snipers that shoot magic bullets. Notice I have no cheese in my army. How many of you can say that? Yet we get bent about fielding spotters?
Also as far as the chess reference. You really should do a little research about that statement. You will find that chess was very relevant in terms of warfare when it was invented. As a matter of fact the way I use spotters, pones, is mush like the skirmishers they simulate in chess.
Anyway I go in search of a better topic now, Panzer Soldier out.

fhaugh said:

The funny thing about this "discussion" is that I don't own even a single observer and would never play the army that Panzer soldier suggested. Not because I complain about the strategy, mind you, but bcause I'd never spend 60+ Euros for all those observers. I was simply drawn into this topic because of the insults and accusations that were posted here - a thing that in my opinion should never occur between fellow gamers. Now I am the one being insulted just because i dared to have an opinion that differs from yours.

But however, some of your "arguments" really make me chuckle. You refuse to play against opponents using successful strategies and even call them cheating, but claim to "enjoy playing the game to it full potential". You are doing the exact opposite. Your point about the strategy that is just "a by-product of these particular rules" doesn't get more valid by repeating it as strategies in particular games only work in a particular set of rules.

As I said before I have never played the kind of army we are talking about here nor have I any intention to ever play it. But I'd certainly play against it and try to beat it, not calling it "annoying and boring" but a challenge. That is what games should be about, and this is what is fun and exciting about games - not insulting others, refusing to play or talking about cheating and blood doping when legal strategies are used. Your behavior is certainly not "how you play the game".

Anyway, I'll join Panzer soldier in another topic.

Ok back to the topic, we now got almost all the stat cards for SSU units (single comissar unit cards missing?) so let's see some armies equal to revised core set Axies and Alies forces.

Ok, here's a 128AP list that I think should work well against a Revised Set army:

- Red Yana

- Fakyeli

- Ohotniki

- Drakoni

- Natalya

If we had the cards for the individual Drakoni, I might feel tempted to substitute the Drakoni squad for a Frontoviki squad and add some individual Commissars to a couple of those squads.