Kokoda
Posts: 137
Joined: 2/20/2001 From: Melbourne,Australia Status: offline
|
I missed the action in the second game, but thought I sent you all a commentary on the first. I haven't had any response, so maybe I didn't send it. I wrote commentary for the second game, to the point I left (turn 6 I think). I can send this if you like, and I'll add the next turns to it if you're interested. For my two bob's worth... As a general comment, I was struck by the very different tactics and 'styles' of play in the match. Tactically, pbhawkins had a more dispersed defence in depth along the likely line of attack, but was relatively open in the south, until the boundaries of the village. MOTHER's defence had a static infantry element concentrated in the village, and a 'counterattack' force. pbhawkins attack was broader, while MOTHER had a very concentrated axis of attack, strongly supported by heavy artillery. I thought MOTHER's HUGE artillery would crush the German defence in the first game - but I think we were all surprised by the result. In the second game, pbhawkins attack became very extended, with the armour pushing ahead of the infantry. It seemed as though it wasn't meeting the defence in depth that it appeared to be expecting...The 'short' game didn't really allow the cautious approach of the infantry. Interestingly, at one stage both of pbhawkins HQs were routed at the same time - one by artillery, and one by an air strike! Watching a mirrored game was interesting too - I thought each player had a defence that suited the tactics they had themselves used in attack. pbhawkins attack would deal well with his own dispersed defence in depth, while MOTHER's counterattack force would pin a concentrated attack against strong resistance from the infantry in the village. As a general comment, I thought that the style pbhawkins used in the Grand Final had a more realistic 'military/historical' feel to it, while MOTHER used the advantages of the game mechanics a little more.
_____________________________
CHRIS
|