jstanb
Posts: 3
Joined: 4/10/2005 Status: offline
|
Thanks for answering my question 1) You are right. After playing more scenarios, I realize that the PC player randomly chooses to be active or passive. But it would be more realistic if he sent only part of his forces in a "flame-out" defense. I mean, he managed to inflict me heavy losses mostly with his recon and advancing units in the 2 "surprise attack" turns, but after that he received severe punishment. Maybe instead of sending everything after me (including company's HQs), it would be better if he attack with 1/3 of his forces and defend with the rest. 2) "NATO was crushed but stopped the WP from obtaining a complete victory in the result"... The problem is that NATO won a marginal victory... I wouldn't have problems of accepting a minor WP victory, after all, he surprised me. I sent almost all my units on route march assuming he would be digged in the city. That mistake cost me many BTR/ BMPs. However, I managed to turn the tide by attacking with the remanents and my precious tanks. (NATO's APC were no match to my awesome T-80s). I am still convinced I deserved victory. 3) I would try more scenarios. Some days ago I played "Thin blue line". I easily captured the town (I only encountered light oposition, APCs, AT guns, etc). After that, I realized that the main british force (lots of tank platoons) were hidden in the north woods (they were all stacked in 3 hexes... I mean, 6 or 8 units per square). I am almost sure that it was not a strategy, it looked like he forgot to move his reinforcements. Needless to say, killing them was painful (lots of artillery, airstrikes, sending 2 or 3 tank companies in suicide assaults to weaken them, etc). It was really tough, but was it realistic? Cheers Jorge Stanbury
< Message edited by jstanb -- 4/17/2005 9:04:28 PM >
|