About encirclement and soldiers on the field

I have no problem with the 10 soldiers on the field max for the encircled AG, but I am completely against letting the other team field more than a max of 20.

This is already the case in unbalanced battles and that should be a max of 20 also.

EDIT: Side note for Werner, in your allowed equipment list (not AVAILABLE equipement), you put the -98k with scope, but not the MN/30 with scope.

Im not sure if your trying to discuss a new rule or rant.
J/K
So what your saying is maybe a rule in place for a maximum 20 per side no matter how many of the otherside shows?

although many on the axis side might think a max of 16 on a 32, 20 on a 40, and 25 on a 50 is outrageous I find it more realistic then letting us fill the empty russian spots (usally 6+) with more germans making the game a one sided affair from the start.

I would support this rule for all battles. others' thoughts?

Agreed

I would also agree with this.

Sounds good.

I think limiting the Axis to only 1.5 times the guys the Allies can commit is a better Idea.

Even as it is, 2 to 1 odds in the Axis favour is still a guaranteed win for the Axis. At least of they brought ten, and we could have a max of 15, that seems more reasonable.

As much as we like to act otherwise, the campaign in the North is a farce.
The other theatres seem to be more well balanced, but North isn't, and something needs to be done about it.

That means men might be left out of battles on the Axis side, then so be it. Because as it is now, the current battles.....

Well, I try to have fun but I know it will be a Steam roller, and all hangups for the Axis have been mostly due to our own fault. Not because of a good battle.

I agree with Jugmann on this, 1.5 times our force is a lot fairer, and I guess could produce a much more interesting, close battle... Instead of us getting 'steam rolled' by twice our size.

I guess I should lighten up my comments a little bit.

I do have fun during the battle, but I think with giving EITHER SIDE, a max of 1.5 times that of the other will make for more fairer, hard faught battles. Battle that are more fun. And in the end that is what I wan't. A better battle is preferable to a slaughter any day, if only for the real satisfaction that you really had to fight it out to win it.

I'm not in favour of your proposal Jungmann, I however don't mind Werners.
For most battles, no less then 20 guys will train and keep a clear scedule for
the battledate. I don't want to be dismissing guys because the enemy does not show up
in sufficient numbers. I do not want our guys to suffer the consequences of the enemies
shortcomings.

Quote :

Even as it is, 2 to 1 odds in the Axis favour is still a guaranteed win for the Axis. At least of they brought ten, and we could have a max of 15, that seems more reasonable.

That means men might be left out of battles on the Axis side, then so be it. Because as it is now, the current battles.....

And if it comes to this, I fear I'll have to vote you to step aside.

Then I would step aside. We have alot of new members in our unit who would lvoe to see some battles, and If that means that me and others have to be choosen not to participate, be it through turns or from what I am getting from your post, voting, then so be it. It's not fun, but it has to be done, and we have to look past the fact that we have so many men.

The way I see it, the enemies shortcomings are the shortcomings of the RO realism community in General. Not enough men on the Allied side, and not enough Axis willing to accept that and to make concessions so the battles we fight are still fair, and FUN for both sides.

Maybe if we had each side say how many they will be bringing to the battle, and then the other side could plan on 1.5 times that, then if the Allies or whoever only show up with howmany guys the Axis still get to bring the 1.5 times the Allies signed up in their roster for that battle. If the Allies fail to specify how many they will be bringing the Axis can bring as many as they wan't.

I appreciate your good intent Jungmann, but I think Werner's idea would be more stable and predictable.

As much as I'd like us to play more like ORC with a team inbalance of no more than 2 and 5 minute respawn waves, I know you all won't want that. This is better for compromise with the community.

LOL it is good intent, but i also respect my foe to the fullest. I know Staroi has some new recruits coming along. I also am not getting this "Steam" rolled feeling he is either.Werner's idea is solid.

The problem is some of you want a good fight and some of you want to just win.

Well, all the battles have been fun except maybe the last one. You chose to win that one by whatever means, which was artillery.

If you wanted to have fun, you would hold the artillery until there was no alternative to winning.

So if you guys want to keep winning by whatever means neccessary, then expect battles to get more and more boring. The further down this road to realism you go, the more dull this will get.

lol wtf? I have been on both sides of the coin. I dont care, hell limit to just us spahtruppen if ya want, but i disagree with what your saying about the use of artillery. The idea is to win, and use all material that you have at your disposal.

yea the purpose of realism is to survive and win the battle... i would do whatever is necessary. I would avoid giving the enemy chances to strike.

Well, the fact is that we're a realism unit. We don't do clan matches or whatever on the side. So these short battles aren't very fufilling. We may have found a good solution with the 2.SS though. Many thanks for your cooperation.

Staroi - Any more info on this? I would really love a middle of the week scrim or whatever.