rhinobones
Posts: 1540
Joined: 2/17/2002
Status: offline
|
quote:
By force variability, do you mean variable arrival times or more variety in the composition of the forces? I added some new units in the latest version, though variable arrival times does sound like it could make the scenario more interesting.
In a hypothetical scenario, such as this, some doubt about arrival times always seems to add "replay" value. My thought is that instead of having the same-o-same-o forces and positions every time, which leads to a same-o-same-o battle every time, a little uncertainty is in order. To me this is the beauty of hypothetical scenarios.
In my post I was thinking more along the lines of adding variability to the placement and composition of the forces. The main line units could remain the same, but some variability in the composition and placement of follow on forces could be varied to add that "interesting" bit of uncertainty to the scenario. Make five or six corps or divisions variable where ever they deploy and/or the area. Make this 1 to 5 turns into the scenario and you'll really create a true life military headache for the players.
Another feature that I like is making the starting Force variable. To do this I use events to do:
1. Side 1 Turn 1 opens the scenario. The event immediately cycles to Side 2 Turn 1 so that Side 1 has no opportunity to move.
2. Side 2 Turn 1 has a 50% event to start the game and make the first move.
3. Side 1 Turn 2 plays the turn as either the first to move or the second to move.
I've played the scenario Blitzkrieg a number of times ( this is the excellent remake of the board game) but I've found that the game experiences the "same-o" effect in that forces always end up face to face in the usual places. As a result Blitzkrieg has none of the variability that makes the scenario a "must" to play multiple times.
I've always felt that the true value of TOAW is the ability to model hypothetical situations in all historical eras and require players to solve military problems. With the current crew of designers, even thought the preponderance of scenarios use WW II as the baseline, there is still plenty of room for scenarios other than WW II. There is room for the hypothetical and I recommend that it be used.
I appreciate the work of the WW II scenario writers, but I think it's time to move on. Find something other than "Panzer" and "massive scenario" to turn you on.
As a final thought, if you want to transport this scenario to a large map that provides unlimited boundaries, feel free to use my Revisionist War map. My thought is that Deep Battle should really be played on a map that has no artificial boundaries.
My thoughts, my opinions . . . take it as you will.
Regards, RhinoBones
_____________________________
Colin Wright:
Comprehensive Wishlist Forum #467 . . . The Norm (blessed be His name, genuflect three times and accept all values in the program as revealed truth)
Pre Combat Air Strikes # 64 . . . I need have no concern about keeping it civil
|
Printable Version
Deep Battle v3 Playtest - 
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