From: Dusty town, somewhere inside central valley of CA
ORIGINAL: Adam Rinkleff
I would reccomend you start with the smallest map size. If you do that, and you pick 15 squads (around one company of infantry, with a couple of mortars, machine-guns, tanks, etc), you already have the basic setup seen in Close Combat. You could go smaller and limit yourself to a platoon, or even a squad. Anything larger than that is just as much complication as you can handle. Consider it a rank system, where you can be anything from a Sergeant to a Brigadier. Honestly, 50'000 points worth of infantry might be enough for an entire division.
I thought about doing an AAR on this one, but mostly I just wanted to try it out, but perhaps on the next one.
I think 'meeting engagement' battles should be avoided, in a real war you almost never have two armies approaching the same location for some random reason. You generally have one side already in defensive positions, and the other attacking. If you find yourself winning, just give the AI more troops. Like in a real war, your opponent may not have your skills, but they may have more troops. I also think its best to play without pausing, especially if you are winning.
I also try to set the objectives to logical locations (hill, crossroads), but I set the dummy objectives setting to the maximum. This gives common sense objectives on the map like you might expect to receive in your orders (ie: in my battle, objective 7 is a prominent hill), but because it's a dummy objective the AI might have a different plan than you expect and no two battles with the same map/force/objective will be the same because of random dummy objectives.
Actually, that "battle of Bad Hersfeld" was my second try for "huge game" during beta version. I think I still need to learn more about scenario making, and that's why waiting for dev's manual for scenario design. Thanks for all those suggestions.
Good point about meeting engagement. But I prefer to play meeting engagement, just to enjoy the feeling of "maneuver vs maneuver", feeling the sense of "tug of war", flanking vs flanking, charge vs charge. I agree that 99% of real battle would be assault vs defense, but who knows? By rare chance, that would've been possible during hypothetical hot cold war.
One other reason is that I don't want to watch game flows to artillery battle, and this game doesn't have counter battery option yet. (I suggested counter battery in beta, and devs like it, so I wish they have some good idea about CB to introduce in this game for future.) Right now, if I spam recon infantry and infiltrate them as much as possible and prepare good amount of artillery, than I could snipe any tanks or ATGM vehicles in defensive position without casualty, one by one, section by section, during assault/defense scenario. And it seems AI cannot react against my "sniping by artillery". AI do this too. So my defense always become maneuvering defense, not static defense.
Things are different in 1960~70 game when there is no DPICM neither FASCAM in game, but HE shelling is still annoying XD.
< Message edited by exsonic01 -- 11/20/2018 5:01:10 PM >