marc420
Posts: 224
Joined: 9/23/2002
From: Terrapin Station
Status: offline
|
Is there a table anywhere of the firepower of units at various ranges?
If we could see that the musket fire really has effect at range 1, with limited effect at range 2, and its almost only divisional/brigade artillery beyond that, then this would be easier to make sense of.
Is there anyway to slow down the messages during battle? Particularly when an ally is involved, I see long stretches of lots of messages going by too quickly for me to make any sense of. Battles like that can be a bit of a blur. I do like the idea of color coding the casualtie numbers that float up off the units. But I'd make it national colors instead of attacker/defender. That way, if I'm French I know the blue numbers are me.
Personally, I'd like to see the sides start a bit further apart. To me it would add some tactical interest as you could develop your battle plans more instead of finding yourself in instant melee. Lt Cavalry could become more useful if it serves as a scouting/screening force in the early parts of a battle. Personally, I'd gladly trade the extra time a battle takes for that. Maybe make it an option players can select? When setting up a game, players could chose "close battle start" or something like that to get the current system. The alternative would have almost all troops entering the battle map from a map edge as reinforcements. Maybe it could be different if the defender is stationary, or if both sides are moving into a region as a meeting engagement.
I don't mind if battles last longer than 3 days, and I'd hate to see an arbitrary rule forcing that. I view the "battle" as the coming together of the armies in a big region. For example, I'd view the whole sequence of Quatra Bras, Ligny and Waterloo all as one "battle" where armies all meet in a region. I'd like maps big enough and battles long enough for what would essentially be a series of engagements in a region like that to play out. I'd even say you might want to make the tactical battle maps bigger to handle cases like that.
As for objectives, about the only things I can see would be river crossings, cities and retreat hexes. If I'm attacking across a river, then as the attacker I should have to secure a river crossing to get to the enemy, and if I don't that should be an automatic retreat back to the side of the river I came from on the strategic map. Cities are already in the game, and you should be able to assault a city as part of the tactical battle. Gaining certain hexes in the city should count as capturing the city on the strategic map. And for retreats a player should have to get to certain hexes to retreat in certain directions on the strategic map. An attacking player that lets a defender get behind him and take his retreat hexes should now be forced to have any retreats go a direction he doesn't want to go on the stratgic map.
But for most tactical size battle games, the "objectives" are really just forcing the players to follow the historical battle. Ie, a village or hill became important in the historical battle, so its an objective in the game. But for CoG, just let the opposing generals decide which villages and hills they want to fight over. Just generally say the attacker has to push the defender out of the way, or else the attacker is the one retreating at the end.
_____________________________
Guard against the impostures of pretended patriotism. ~George Washington
|
Printable Version
Battles observations - 
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