Matrix Games Forums

War in the West gets its first update!Flashpoint Campaigns: Red Storm version 2.08 is now available!Command gets huge update!Order of Battle: Pacific Featured on Weekly Streaming SessionA new fight for Battle Academy!Buzz Aldrin's Space Program Manager is out for Mac!The definitive wargame of the Western Front is out now! War in the West gets teaser trailer and Twitch Stream!New Preview AAR for War in the West!War in the West Manual preview
Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Yet more wish list items

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Advanced Tactics Series >> Yet more wish list items Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Yet more wish list items - 1/10/2010 6:39:48 PM   
springer

 

Posts: 414
Joined: 5/14/2009
Status: offline
Strategic movement is a great option, but I feel like it is easy to abuse. The one example occurred in the classic George vs. Sielle Russia AAR: the use of artillery "helicoptering" out of danger after expending all their AP pounding units strikes me as unfair. If artillery is used to pound a position, I think it fair that it has to remain exposed to whatever counter attacks may come.

It might also reduce strategic movement of units out of a pocket immediately after a relief effort has broken through. (e.g., if a breakthrough to Stalingrad had been in anyway possible, would it have been possible to strategically withdraw the units as soon as communications were opened up again?)

In future ATs, it might be great if strategic movement was limited to units that have not been engaged in other activities during a turn.

I suggest either A) a unit must have full AP to strategically move (this simulates that it takes a great deal of AP to embark and debark from the transport, as well as travel. This strikes me as the easiest to implement.

I know this punishes units that don't have full AP available but haven't moved, but that would seem fair. A unit without full AP, wouldn't have the AP to complete the strategic movement process.

B) An alternative would be that any unit that hasn't moved in a turn could use strategic movement, regardless of it's AP level. I think this is messier, though.
____________________________

Another wish list item related to the issue of "flying artillery": it'd be great if artillery and planes had an "attack dial" on them (like the intercept readiness dial or the retreat dial) that allowed the player to choose how many rounds they'd want artillery or planes to pound a unit. That way, artillery could pound a position for 3 rounds instead of 10 and then pull back. This would be fair way for artillery to "hit and run". Increased artillery mobility could be exchanged for decreased damage. Thus, one could fairly simulate artillery withdrawing after a barrage if players like such an option (Or the guns could choose to strike multiple targets). Since artillery is not directly engaging enemy units, it seems reasonable that it can disengage at will.



The same for aircraft. This would allow players more control over the number of sorties they could launch. (This would be best for a situation of air supremacy. If bombers get tied up by interceptors, they are stuck where they are until the battle is fully resolved.)

To avoid abuse (i.e., players setting artillery barrages at 1 round and then hitting the rounds again and again until they got satisfying results), the dial could be set in increments like the retreat and intercept dials (maybe 3 rounds; 5 rounds; and 7 rounds).



< Message edited by springer -- 1/25/2010 1:49:48 AM >
Post #: 1
RE: Yet more wish list items - 4/5/2010 1:32:59 PM   
Ande

 

Posts: 197
Joined: 7/5/2007
From: Göteborg/Sweden
Status: offline
It sounds fair for artillery but I don't think it will work as desired for air. Giving that ability to air removes all the disadvantages of the superstack relative to a number of smaller stacks: you start off by striking the hard targets(tanks and artillery) that are at the limit of your range for one round at a time until all unwanted elements in that unit are removed and then proceed to closer targets repeating the process thus being able to strike a drastically larger number of units otherwise possible only by dividing your stack but retain all the advantages of the superstack, namely added protection against interception.

(in reply to springer)
Post #: 2
RE: Yet more wish list items - 4/6/2010 7:07:03 AM   
springer

 

Posts: 414
Joined: 5/14/2009
Status: offline
Ande,

Thanks for responding to the post. My original idea was slightly different than the one you described. I don't think I'd want to see a plane be able to strike distant targets 10 times . Rather, the planes would still pay the price in AP for the sortie: The further the sortie, the greater the AP.

For example, a plane bombed a target that was 5 hexes away, as an AP10, it would pay the 50 AP cost for flying to that target. However, if the target proved particularly intractable it wouldn't have to spend all it's AP on the target.

The plane could be dialed to only spend 5 rounds bombing and then return.

This would leave 50 AP available for more sorties. This could be another 5 hex sortie, or perhaps two sorties of 2 hexes and 3 hexes away. However, the AP cost would always be the minimum of the flying distance to the target. If extra bombing rounds were spent on the sortie, the price in AP would climb too.

The idea is that if the target is particularly hard to destroy, the aircraft have the option of abandoning the target and launching a second sortie somewhere else.

I'm imagining a situation such as in Normandy, where USAAF tactical air would drop in on a target of opportunity and briefly wreak havoc, then head back to base for another sortie. The unit wouldn't necessarily keep hovering around a target to ensure that every piece of equipment laying around was destroyed. It would return to base, rearm and strike a new target.

The only time a play could launch 10 sorties would be if it only attacked targets adjacent to the airfield.


I think your point about the superstack is a good one. If a player is committed to a superstack, the only major cost of such a decision is that the superstack is limited to one sortie.

However, I think that allowing multiple sorties could be feasible if the superstack problem could be solved.



< Message edited by springer -- 4/6/2010 7:11:30 AM >

(in reply to Ande)
Post #: 3
RE: Yet more wish list items - 4/18/2010 9:06:45 AM   
Texican

 

Posts: 196
Joined: 10/30/2006
Status: offline
How about full war campaigns?

(in reply to springer)
Post #: 4
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Advanced Tactics Series >> Yet more wish list items Page: [1]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.128