Calsir wrote:
I beg your pardon. I did not express myself correctly. What I meant is that while you spend fuel points each turn until you reach zero, nobody compels you to shoot at your enemy.
My point is that it is possible that ammo stops a game while it is necessary that fuel brings an end.
I don't know whether it is going to be statistically relevant or not. I actually like the idea of limited ammo for the obvious added realism. The only real problem lies in the choice that a player has about ammo conservation, as in "don't shoot" which is unimplemented by the current ruleset.
I see your point, and agree. I believe my confusion was that I thought you had already dismissed fuel limitation as a method for controlling game length, and now you seem to be relying upon it.
It seems to me that neither ammunition nor fuel is an adequate nor guaranteed method for limiting the length of a game. I agree that an ammunition limitation will not insure a game's end (and I also agree that its use would improve realism). However, looking back at the previous posts in this topic, it doesn't seem to me that fuel, applied in any manner even vaguely resembling the historical reality, would ever be an effective limitation either. Clearly, aircraft had sufficient fuel to engage in combat for significantly longer than the current game system permits.
Should ammunition rules be added, additional game options for the control of the ammunition expenditure would, obviously, be required and implemented. We should note that the board game allowed a player to not shoot, and defined a "short" burst; neither of which is implemented here.
|
Donate
Leagues
Gonzaga
Blue Max
Cartagena
Wooden Ships...
King Me!
VampiRing
