what to do about CAG counterstrike? (check 3 boxes, for items 1,2,3)

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

what to do about CAG counterstrike? (check 3 boxes, for items 1,2,3)

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] >> Gary Grigsby's World at War: A World Divided >> what to do about CAG counterstrike? (check 3 boxes, for items 1,2,3)

Page: [1]

[Poll]

what to do about CAG counterstrike? (check 3 boxes, for items 1,2,3)

1(a) (no change) don't prevent ctr-strike

11% (3)

1(b) prevent ctr-strike if offensive CV has any land based CAP

0% (0)

1(c) prevent ctr-strike if offensive CV has >= air cover numbers

3% (1)

1(d) prevent ctr-strike if offensive CV has >= ftr+CAG numbers

11% (3)

2(a) (no change) allow all air units to participate in counter-strike

19% (5)

2(b) only allow carrier based CAGs to participate in counter-strike

3% (1)

3(a) (no change) allow unrestricted range to counter-strike

0% (0)

3(b) limit the range of the counters-strike to the air unit's "speed"

38% (10)

other (describe in thread)

11% (3)

Total Votes : 26

(last vote on : 4/27/2007 4:29:08 PM)
(Poll ended: 4/30/2007 7:00:00 AM)

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

what to do about CAG counterstrike? (check 3 boxes, fo... - 4/21/2007 7:28:04 AM

WanderingHead

Posts: 2134
Joined: 9/22/2004
From: GMT-8
Status: offline

OK, Christian posted (here) about the dirty little trap you can set for CAG counterstrike.

IMO, it is not suitable to define house rules against this. But at the same time, the existing situation does allow for tactics that make you feel a little dirty.

(1) The issue: the active Player can set a large fighter CAP over a CV, launch a single CAG from the CV against opposing CV fleets, thereby drawing a CAG counterstrike, where the defending Player's CAGs are drawn into the trap set by the fighter CAP.

(2) Related detail: all air units on CAP over the defending CVs will also participate in the counterstrike.

(3) Related detail: air unit range ("speed") is not considered in the counterstrike. They can counterstrike as far as it takes to get to the CV that launched the offensive CAG.

Considering the implications of (1) and (2), it means that land based air cover is very important. You can't get your CVs too close to the oppositions land based fighters unless you have your own land based cover, or you may get sucked into this trap. So in some sense, it emphasizes land based air, which is a good thing. But it still doesn't feel right.

solution (a): leave it alone!
solution (b): the CAG counterstrike will occur only if the strike zone has no land based air cover.
solution (c): the CAG counterstrike will occur only if the air units in the counter strike would outnumber the air in the strike zone.
solution (d): the CAG counterstrike will occur only if the air units in the counter strike would outnumber the fighters+CAGs in the strike zone.

For any of these, we must recognize that the active player will be capable of establishing CAP to avoid counter-strike, doing his CAG strike, then undoing his CAP move. Unfortunately, a better way won't be possible.

other tweak: (change detail (2)) we could exclude air units that are not CV based CAGs from counter striking. This seems more natural. The reason it stayed this way is actually because of the Issue, since it helps defend against the Trap. But why not fix both.

other tweak: (change detail (3)) we could restrict the counter strike to the range ("speed") of the defending players air units.

So, what would you all think should be done?

Go and vote for all 3 changes (numbered 1-3) individually, picking a, b, c or d.

So as to bias the process, I'll start by saying my vote is:
1d
2b
3b

**NOTE** you should end up checking THREE boxes, in order to vote on all three issues.

< Message edited by WanderingHead -- 4/21/2007 5:12:02 PM >

Post #: 1

RE: what to do about CAG counterstrike? (check 3 boxes,... - 4/22/2007 5:44:35 PM

BoerWar

Posts: 506
Joined: 6/12/2004
From: Arlington, VA
Status: offline

I would lean toward 1(c) or 1(d) with the caveat that intel levels should be taken into account. If the defending CV force's Nation is outmatched at Sigint then I think there should be a good chance that it's units can be lured into a trap.

My other votes would be 2(a) and 3(b).

< Message edited by BoerWar -- 4/22/2007 5:47:07 PM >

(in reply to WanderingHead)

Post #: 2

RE: what to do about CAG counterstrike? (check 3 boxes,... - 4/23/2007 9:36:59 PM

GKar

Posts: 617
Joined: 5/18/2005
Status: offline

Just to take a stand, I'm a 1(c) - 2(a) - 3(b) guy.

(in reply to BoerWar)

Post #: 3

RE: what to do about CAG counterstrike? (check 3 boxes,... - 4/23/2007 9:41:33 PM

WanderingHead

Posts: 2134
Joined: 9/22/2004
From: GMT-8
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: BoerWar
I would lean toward 1(c) or 1(d) with the caveat that intel levels should be taken into account. If the defending CV force's Nation is outmatched at Sigint then I think there should be a good chance that it's units can be lured into a trap.

We could consider something like making the active Player's CAG+Fighter cover count appear inaccurate by a random number from -X to +X added to the actual CAG+ftr count, where X is determined as

	round_up(die(3*active_Player_security)/inactive_Player_SigInt)

Note that with this definition the minimum realization of X is essentially 1, so there would always be some uncertainty as to what would actually happen.

One thing I still don't like is that as I envision it the active Player can establish CAP to deter counter-strike, do the action, then undo the CAP with no cost (the move would be 100% undoable, all it is is flying units out and then undoing it like normal). At least it requires being close to enough landbased air to do it, and with any uncertainty as to whether a counterstrike will occur you would not be certain that you'd be able to undo the movement (if the counter strike occurs, the active Player air on CAP is logged as having done combat and the move can't be undone).

As it stands, this would really be similar to other things you can do, like move a naval unit to prevent the opponent from retreating to a given seazone, doing a naval battle, then undoing the move of the unit that blocked the retreat.

< Message edited by WanderingHead -- 4/23/2007 9:43:56 PM >

(in reply to BoerWar)

Post #: 4

RE: what to do about CAG counterstrike? (check 3 boxes,... - 4/23/2007 9:48:01 PM

WanderingHead

Posts: 2134
Joined: 9/22/2004
From: GMT-8
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: GKar
Just to take a stand, I'm a 1(c) - 2(a) - 3(b) guy.�

2(a) interests me, since it seems popular (I seem to be the only 2(b) kind of guy so far).

I always found it weird that if a HB is on CAP over an inactive Player friendly fleet (with no CAGs) and the friendly fleet is hit by CAGs, then the HB cannot counter-strike.

But if that inactive Player friendly fleet has CAGs, all of a sudden the HB on CAP can take part in the counter-strike!

I suppose it could be justified by saying that the CAGs are "leading the way", and only the CAGs superior naval reconnaisance capabilities make it possible for the HB to take part.

(in reply to GKar)

Post #: 5

RE: what to do about CAG counterstrike? (check 3 boxes,... - 4/23/2007 10:11:59 PM

kondor

Posts: 714
Joined: 5/27/2004
From: Croatia
Status: offline

3b is the wright choice IMO. It�s all part of the tactic (why should not CAGs be ambushed with FT-s?), but they should limit the reach of the CAG-s counter strikes to the point of no return...

(in reply to WanderingHead)

Post #: 6

RE: what to do about CAG counterstrike? (check 3 boxes,... - 4/23/2007 11:21:31 PM

MrQuiet

Posts: 805
Joined: 4/2/2005
Status: offline

1(a) No change
2(a) No change
3(b) limit to speed

(in reply to WanderingHead)

Post #: 7

RE: what to do about CAG counterstrike? (check 3 boxes,... - 4/25/2007 9:51:15 PM

BenTaylor

Posts: 125
Joined: 9/3/2005
Status: offline

What would be the most accurate reflection of real air to air encounters in WWII?

(in reply to MrQuiet)

Post #: 8

RE: what to do about CAG counterstrike? (check 3 boxes,... - 4/26/2007 4:01:22 AM

GalacticOrigins

Posts: 220
Joined: 3/22/2007
From: Wolf 359
Status: offline

Implementing 1b would cause some serious play balance issues and even abuse. Consider, USN 2 CV+2 CAG enter close to IJN 4 CV+4 CAG. USN has 1 FTR on CAP. USN launches a full strike of 2 CAG. Whatever the outcome over the IJN CV group, the IJN cannot launch a conterstrike. USN then retreats the CV group and pulls the FTR back onto an atoll, possibly with Flak+Arty to help keep IJN away on the next turn. This would be a safe way for the USN to attrit the IJN, and there is not much the IJN can do about it. They could, on their counterturn, move ships to chase the US group, but that may not be what they want to do�(perhaps the IJN does not want to move that far away from -their- land based air.)

1c and 1d would help stop the trap, but they would also have implications and considerations since the situation could be similar to the above.

Also, 2b and 3b are more attempts to stop any counterattack. Taking into account that the WA production is much higher than the Japanese production, all of these changes would eventually lead to an exploit where the USN group could launch counterattacks and the IJN just takes its licks.

Therefore, I would have to vote either No Change across all three or an Alternate proposal.

So, here is my proposal:�since most of this is supposedly Sea Action, the Land Units on either side may have an Intel-based penalty during the counter. Therefore, the FTR units on both sides may have less attack strength in air-air during the counterattack. Likewise, any CAG not based from a CV may have limited sea attacks when countering (these supposedly chase the attackers along with any ship based CAG or FTR CAP). All limitations based on a SIGINT role.

Example: Although Henderson Field was instrumental in the battles for Guadalcanal, the SBC's stationed there were not able to participate in all of the CV actions of 1942/3. Sometimes they were close enough to help the Allied Forces and sometimes the sea battles were way too far away for the land based air to make a great contribution. Likewise, the 'betty' bombers based on Rabual had similar limitations. Certainly, both sides were wary of the land based air assets, but at times the sea battles were again not close enough for the land based air.

Of course, there are numerous other examples.

Basically, the SIGINT alteration would make the land based units sometimes not effective during counterstrikes. This would apply to both the attackers land-based CAP left behind and the incoming defender land-based FTR/CAG that pursues.

Of course, if one side launches an attack into a sea area with defending land based air, the defenders should be considered defending the area, including the port, if any. Any defending ships are being sought after, and in the end this SIGINT penalty should not apply to attacks, just counters. (This last paragraph just restates the obvious that the change discussed does not apply to normal attacks, just the counterattacks.)

I hope I am clear on this. Thanks, anyway.

Oh, btw, I am not certain if the SIGINT would be based on a comparison between the two sides or a random roll based on each side's SIGINT alone. Open to discussion.

er, of course, this is a lot of change/coding for just this 'trap', so, maybe the IJN should just do what the AI does when I have 6-7 USN CV+CAG and retreat all the way to the China Coast ...

< Message edited by GalacticOrigins -- 4/26/2007 4:06:49 AM >

(in reply to BenTaylor)

Post #: 9

RE: what to do about CAG counterstrike? (check 3 boxes,... - 4/26/2007 9:56:57 AM

WanderingHead

Posts: 2134
Joined: 9/22/2004
From: GMT-8
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: GalacticOrigins
Implementing 1b would cause some serious play balance issues and even abuse. Consider, USN 2 CV+2 CAG enter close to IJN 4 CV+4 CAG. USN has 1 FTR on CAP. USN launches a full strike of 2 CAG. Whatever the outcome over the IJN CV group, the IJN cannot launch a conterstrike. USN then retreats the CV group and pulls the FTR back onto an atoll, possibly with Flak+Arty to help keep IJN away on the next turn. This would be a safe way for the USN to attrit the IJN, and there is not much the IJN can do about it. They could, on their counterturn, move ships to chase the US group, but that may not be what they want to do�(perhaps the IJN does not want to move that far away from -their- land based air.)

1c and 1d would help stop the trap, but they would also have implications and considerations since the situation could be similar to the above.

I agree 1b isn't good since there is no quantitative concept of how many air units there are.

1c or 1d seems reasonable to me. I mean, if you could leave "reaction" orders for you fleets, I imagine them being kind of similar, like "if you are attacked from anywhere near heavy ground based air cover, do not do a CAG counter-strike."

One adder that could be perhaps be done is to mark all air units on CAP over a CV fleet as having done combat, whether the counter-strike occurs or not. Then you can commit them, but there is an operational and supply cost because you can no longer undo the move.

If anything like your proposal were to be implemented, it would be to simply exclude some of the CAP air from the combat altogether based on SigInt, but I expect that even this would be difficult to implement.

(in reply to GalacticOrigins)

Post #: 10

RE: what to do about CAG counterstrike? (check 3 boxes,... - 4/27/2007 1:20:56 AM

GalacticOrigins

Posts: 220
Joined: 3/22/2007
From: Wolf 359
Status: offline

Yeah, my proposal is a (seriously) lot of work. Therefore, I think it is safer to keep No Change.

Or, as WH stated, making the units on CAP committed to combat is a very nice idea. But again, seems like a lot of tricky coding.

Consider, if you move the CAG to attack the enemy and not fight the combat, -then- launch the FTR CAP from land over the CV group, and later fight the CAG initial strike battle, how would you keep track of whether or not to 'commit' the land based units? Seems unlikely.

(in reply to WanderingHead)

Post #: 11

RE: what to do about CAG counterstrike? (check 3 boxes,... - 4/27/2007 1:39:52 AM

Lebatron

Posts: 2166
Joined: 5/30/2005
From: Upper Michigan
Status: offline

Hey guys, stopping by to see whats new since its been so long. This poll got my attention. I'm a little rusty but let me make this suggestion. All the options I see above are flawed in one reguard, that is the existence of the counter attack battle in the first place. Would it not solve all the problems to just get rid of it and include the attackers CV's into the first main battle. In other words one big battle decides the outcome just like land battles. It seems the most intuitive approach to me. Perhaps I'm missing something.

So basically what I'm saying is change the code so that attacking CAG's bring their attached CV's into the first battle so that defensive air can have their shots at them. No need therefore for the counterattack and the associated loopholes it creates.

_____________________________

Jesse LeBreton, AKA Lebatron
Development team- GG's WAW A World Divided

(in reply to GalacticOrigins)

Post #: 12

RE: what to do about CAG counterstrike? (check 3 boxes,... - 4/27/2007 2:01:27 AM

Lebatron

Posts: 2166
Joined: 5/30/2005
From: Upper Michigan
Status: offline

Chris wrote:

quote:

Hi guys,
A dirty little trick was revealed to me yesterday which I'd like to make sure you have the opportunity to be aware of:

If you send fighters out on CAP over CVs and CAGs, then send out 1 lone CAG versus an opponent's CV fleet, your opponent will automatically send out all his air in the region you attacked in a counterstrike against your CVs. Here is the implication:
You can sacrifice a single CAG in order to lure all your foe's CAGs into battle with your fighters.

Ciao!

What I suggest would prevent this little trick. In this example the attackers CAP would not participate in the battle at all so the defenders air would never get chewed up by this lone CAG. In fact, in my suugestion this lone attacking CAG brings along its attached CV into this battle and its the defender that chews up the attacker instead. What the attacker needs to do in my suggestion is not set his fighters on CAP but send them into the battle along with his CAG's. More intuitive I think. Plus removes the put on CAP then cancel trick as well as others.

_____________________________

Jesse LeBreton, AKA Lebatron
Development team- GG's WAW A World Divided

(in reply to Lebatron)

Post #: 13

RE: what to do about CAG counterstrike? (check 3 boxes,... - 4/29/2007 9:20:01 AM

WanderingHead

Posts: 2134
Joined: 9/22/2004
From: GMT-8
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lebatron
include the attackers CV's into the first main battle. In other words one big battle decides the outcome just like land battles.

It's an interesting idea, but I do think that this raises other issues. Do phasing player surface fleets get included in the battle as well? I think not, but then why doesn't the phasing player get to have the additional defense of the it's surface fleets? Do nonphasing surface fleets get to attack the CVs?

It also seems to go against the most strongly voiced vote, for 3b.

I would be inclined to do the following, given the Will of the People and interpreting 1(c) as very close to a 1(d) vote:
1d - prevent counter-strike if phasing player CV has cover of >= ftr+CAG numbers than those that counterstrike
2a - (no change) allow all air units to participate in counter-strike
3b - 3(b) limit the range of the counters-strike to the air unit's "speed"

But 1d needs more details, based on other things folks have suggested:

* don't use exact the ftr+CAG values, include SigInt in a random formula to incorporate uncertainty.
* mark CAP units that helped guard against the cstrike as having had combat (without having fired), so that they can't simply undo the move.

This looks doable to me, but I wonder if it would have more support in polling if those two add-ons had been included? The support for anything other than 3b is not overwhelming.

(in reply to Lebatron)

Post #: 14

RE: what to do about CAG counterstrike? (check 3 boxes,... - 5/1/2007 10:27:19 PM

Lebatron

Posts: 2166
Joined: 5/30/2005
From: Upper Michigan
Status: offline

I don't understand why 3b is so popular with you guys. If I understand right you
wish to allow the US to create super long range CAG's(4 speed) that can strike the
Japanese fleet from 2 sea zones away and benefit by preventing the now out of range
counterstrike? First of all, that's a fantasy. There is no way shape or form that
the US could have developed such a carrier strike craft in the war. Speed 4 CAG's
probably didn't appear until the 60's. In WWII US carriers where never out of range
of Jap CAG's no matter what model of strike craft was used. If the Japs could not
strike back it was NEVER a matter of not being able to reach the US carriers, it was
knowing where to find the US carriers and getting through the air cover. But stuff
like that(finding or spotting) is not modeled in this game nor should it be. The way
range works now is abstractly realistic enough to warrant no change. Up to now, US
players avoided increasing CAG's to range 4 because the payoff did not grant
immunity to counterstrikes. But if your going to go ahead and allow the US to
transport 60's technology into WWII then I would suggest to make it cost a whole lot
more. Do so by reducing the WS of CAG speed to 1. Investing to range 3 would be
costly and 4 would be out of most sane players options. At speed 3 the payoff would
be small since speed 3 does not allow strikes over 2 sea zones away in the deep
Pacific, so most would never bother with it. But the option would still be there.

_____________________________

Jesse LeBreton, AKA Lebatron
Development team- GG's WAW A World Divided

(in reply to WanderingHead)

Post #: 15

RE: what to do about CAG counterstrike? (check 3 boxes,... - 5/1/2007 10:47:34 PM

Lebatron

Posts: 2166
Joined: 5/30/2005
From: Upper Michigan
Status: offline

I think you misunderstood me when I said include the attackers CV's into the first main battle and do away with the counterstrike battle. Your impression seems to make me believe that you thought these attacking CV's would get shot at by the defenders surface fleet. No, what I suggested is not that much different from how counterstrike works now. It's just different in the fact that the defending air does not need a separate attack to strike back at the attackers CV's and possibly run into the fighter CAP trap, rather they get to do so immediately. Therefore, we could avoid the phasing player's fighter CAP oddities by making him decide what to send into the battle as a whole. Anything left out will contribute nothing to the battle. This avoids the phasing player's CAP getting to do two things in one turn. My feeling is if the phasing player wishes to attack with his fighters then he should commit them into a battle, not get to indirectly attack by using CAP. That's against the spirit of this games mechanics. Only in this instance do we have this exception. It can be changed to be consistent with the rest of the game.

Combat example with counterstrike(current system)
Phasing player. 4 full carriers along with 4 HF's.
Defending player. Same
First attack. Defenders surface fleet provides suppression, attacker losses 2 CAG and defender loses 2 CAG plus 2 CV's.
Counterstrike. CAG air combat 2 on 2 with no loses, phasing player loses 2 CV's.
Results both sides lost 2 CAG and 2 CV. Assumed all CAG's targeted CV's due to weight adjuster that favors CV's.

Combat example without the counterstrike
Same forces as above. This time the phasing players CV's and protecting warships are included. Defender and phasing players surface fleets only provide suppression. They do not fire at each other because this is an aerial battle with ships as targets. The 4 CAG from both sides do their aerial battle then attack each others fleets. Both sides lose 2 CAG's and 2 CV's. End of combat. Sweet and simple.

If one side had more land based air in this fight then more power to him. The results would be apparent so no need for examples. This alternate method could easily handle them without creating the oddities that come about when the counterstrike is used to return damage to the phasing players fleet.

Another oddity with the current system is how both players air that survived the first air battle can attack again during the counterstrike. If there is any tech difference between the nations CAG this will only be magnified when the leading nation gets to draw the lessors into yet another air battle. This is one of the reasons why a 1 point lead in EV and AA makes some combats totally lopsided. With my suggestion, only one aerial battle takes place reducing the impact of a tech lead.

WH wrote
"I always found it weird that if a HB is on CAP over an inactive Player friendly fleet (with no CAGs) and the friendly fleet is hit by CAGs, then the HB cannot counter-strike. But if that inactive Player friendly fleet has CAGs, all of a sudden the HB on CAP can take part in the counter-strike!"

Yep, and this oddity could be solved too using the method I suggest. The defensive HB, or any kind of air for that matter, would get to fire at the phasing players fleet.

The fundamental concept of my proposal is that the defensive players forces should never have to leave their area to get their shots in. The counterstrike was a mistake to add into this IGOYOUGO turn system because of the traps the phasing player can create. The best thing to do is do away with it rather than try to find some way to remove the traps.

_____________________________

Jesse LeBreton, AKA Lebatron
Development team- GG's WAW A World Divided

(in reply to Lebatron)

Post #: 16

RE: what to do about CAG counterstrike? (check 3 boxes,... - 5/4/2007 11:19:48 PM

Marshall Art

Posts: 566
Joined: 8/6/2005
Status: offline

Hi there, to make it short, here is my vote: 1a / 2a / 3b.

My rationale: I believe there is a place for non-carrier Air units being able to aid in a counter-strike. In fact, often this is the only way the few carriers can be successfully defended. Of course there is the downfall of the so-called "dirty trap" but I think this is neither dirty not a real trap. First time you experienced it you have learned to evade it in the future. At the "Great Marianas Turkey shot" it was the US that lured the Japanese pilots (or carrier fleet in total) into attacking them and shot them to pieces. Granted all carrier air that time, but why exclude the possibility of adding non-carrier planes to the forces that have a similar range (Speed) as accompanying carrier planes?

I do not like options 1c and 1d at all since they make the game so "count-your numbers before you move" like. It should not matter if I have one more unit of a kind or one less to activate some rules or not imo. Because next we are talking about "why do I need exacly as many tank units as the opponent to get combined arms" - Germany rarely had as many tanks fielded as its adversaries and still was victorious for many years. And there are many other topics where everybody has ideas how to tweak things...

Folks, please remember that this game has its strengh to be quite SIMPLE but not perfect and cover-all aspects (like other Gary Grigsby games, which we love him far as well). If you could focus on the things that should have been there according to the manual but were not yet (like repaired units that were elite really remain being veteran) I would be happy enough.

In adding more and more flesh, sub-rules, exceptions, etc. etc. you begin to go down a road where we may end up loosing oversight what really mattered in this game - its quick and easy access and playability. The changes from GGWAW to AWD already added a lot of complexity which imo overloaded the game here and there. Otherwise I can really dig out the War in Russia and War in the Pacific oldies-but-goldies again...

Just my 5ct...

(in reply to Lebatron)

Post #: 17

RE: what to do about CAG counterstrike? (check 3 boxes,... - 5/4/2007 11:38:57 PM

BenTaylor

Posts: 125
Joined: 9/3/2005
Status: offline

Can you allow counterstrike in proportion to what is sent in?

I think the suggestions about sigint are helpful when added to speed.

It is like saying it isn't just the kit that matters, also what the commanders know in order to decide to attack.

So I suppose this is close to 1d. Forces would attack unless they thought they would lose or were deceived by attackers. So 1d looks good but might be partly dependent on sigint and even FOW. This seems most like reality to me, it is also close to what the unphasing player would choose if they were phasing. In other words the more a counterstrike looks like what the unphasing player would play the better that is for the game.

Mind you I understand marshall's point too. The new rule should hopefully be simple and reflect a likely reality.

< Message edited by BenTaylor -- 5/4/2007 11:41:48 PM >

(in reply to Marshall Art)

Post #: 18

RE: what to do about CAG counterstrike? (check 3 boxes,... - 5/5/2007 12:11:50 AM

WanderingHead

Posts: 2134
Joined: 9/22/2004
From: GMT-8
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marshall Art
Just my 5ct...

Quite valid.

I told Joel that if there were something close to concensus I could make a change for this. Honestly, I had expected it to be a slam dunk, but it doesn't seem like there is a strong backing for a real change.

BTW - I am always always counting units ... like 5 militia is exactly what I need to guarentee that 3 armor units can't capture a region ...

(in reply to Marshall Art)

Post #: 19

RE: what to do about CAG counterstrike? (check 3 boxes,... - 6/13/2007 9:13:19 AM

WanderingHead

Posts: 2134
Joined: 9/22/2004
From: GMT-8
Status: offline

I have to admit that the results of this poll surprised me, I thought there would be more support for some kind of fix to the problem (I do think it is a problem).

This has dropped off the radar. It doesn't look likely that anything will change.

I'm unsticking the thread...

(in reply to WanderingHead)

Post #: 20

RE: what to do about CAG counterstrike? (check 3 boxes,... - 6/13/2007 12:13:41 PM

kondor

Posts: 714
Joined: 5/27/2004
From: Croatia
Status: offline

To bad... I liked 1d & 3b...

(in reply to WanderingHead)

Post #: 21

Page: [1]

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's World at War: A World Divided >> what to do about CAG counterstrike? (check 3 boxes, for items 1,2,3)

Page: [1]