Charles22
Posts: 912
Joined: 5/17/2000 From: Dallas, Texas, USA Status: offline
|
RaidR: For the life of me I wish I could determine what size force is the best for the amount of terrain covered, but I definitely don't think 800 pts. covers five objective clusters, than with nothing more than thin battles. If the enemy only had to defend one or two objective clusters, I'm sure 800 pts. would do just fine.
There's two sides to this argument. For example we like to usually think in terms of what we feel comfortable with, but are we getting the most out of what the playing surfaces dictate? Perhaps we should more often think in terms of what the enemy is more comfortable with. Can the surfaces we play on, be countered more successfully by the AI with a minmum or maximum force, having to guard five clusters, all complete with possible 'timed' objective clusters and 'exit' hexes? I say 800 isn't enough to defend. Bear in mind RaidR, that when you attack the AI, he is getting LESS then 800; maybe even as little 200 (assuming assaults have a 4-to-1 ratio [I don't remember]). You can try playing with so small a force, but I don't think you're really getting any real depth from it that way. IMO the game wasn't designed to be played with covering so much territory with so little.
Scenarios are different, because you can make only one objective cluster and I'm sure the AI would do just as well as it might with the 3200 pts. I start out with in campaigns.
On the last question, if you've left the size of the forces at default, your 800 pts. limits the AI. Only when you exceed 800, will it. As you campaign and get more expensive units, the AI will as well, but, since his units are becoming more expensive to buy, you're unlikely to see more tanks unless you run into a nation with really cheap stuff.
_____________________________
|