TheWombat_matrixforum
Posts: 469
Joined: 8/2/2003 Status: offline
|
I got a "Contested" result and adequate performance evaluation as the Americans in the "A Time to Dance" scenario, and a marginal victory as the Soviets; I swung a tank battalion north across an undefended bridge and managed to catch the cavalry forces in the central part of the map in a nice (if costly to me, too) crossfire. Both scenarios ended with one side getting whittled down to the point of near destruction, the 70% threshold I think. Very tense stuff. One thing I've wondered about is the decision to go with a rather coarse orders model. Either it's no limits on orders, or a strict limit with no multiple selection/multiple orders. I would think a compromise solution that would have higher fidelity perhaps would be a scaling model, where giving orders to a formation, say a battalion, would cost like two orders, while giving the same order to each unit and the HQ of the battalion separately would cost like four orders. This way, you could do something that isn't really possible now, which is give orders to a higher-echelon formation and have the AI figure out where the sub-units go (a la Command Ops), and you could provide a strong incentive to not micromanage units. But I'm gathering that there are design reasons for the current system? It works, well enough, but I keep wanting to just give an HQ orders and have it figure out the rest!
|