RE: Combined Arms

RE: Combined Arms (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Norm Koger's The Operational Art Of War III

Message

golden delicious -> RE: Combined Arms (8/14/2006 10:19:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JAMiAM when I look at a bunch of deleted posts, and spend too much time wandering what it was that they might have said in the first place...[;)] Sure. So it's better that they be removed outright than just left blank. nine out of ten times when I delete a post it's because what I have just realised that what I said is redundant.

PaladinSix -> RE: Combined Arms (8/15/2006 2:21:58 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay Players have learned to exploit this via "ant attacks", using relatively tiny, throwaway units just to get the artillery bonus and suck supply from defenders. Fixing this is a current programming priority. Wonderful. There goes the only effective tactic that I had. PaladinSix

golden delicious -> RE: Combined Arms (8/15/2006 2:34:05 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PaladinSix Wonderful. There goes the only effective tactic that I had. Well, it's an operational game. If you're having problems tactically, it's probably because you're not doing the right thing operationally.

LewFisher -> RE: Combined Arms (8/15/2006 3:46:44 AM)
Putting a bicycle unit in a town by itself and digging in won't last long, but add a few SPGs and some engineers to help you dig and there you still have it- an impregnable strongpoint. In one game I am currently playing, I have hit an entrenched armored Ant-itank platoon in open ground several times with several infantry batts and it is still there.

golden delicious -> RE: Combined Arms (8/15/2006 5:34:12 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LewFisher In one game I am currently playing, I have hit an entrenched armored Ant-itank platoon in open ground several times with several infantry batts and it is still there. Well that would be the designer's fault. One shouldn't get platoons in a battalion level scenario.

LewFisher -> RE: Combined Arms (8/15/2006 7:40:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: golden delicious quote: ORIGINAL: LewFisher In one game I am currently playing, I have hit an entrenched armored Ant-itank platoon in open ground several times with several infantry batts and it is still there. Well that would be the designer's fault. One shouldn't get platoons in a battalion level scenario. Actually, I was misleading. The scenario is Plan Martin and Dan Mc Bride has a number of btn. sized units labeled as platoons so they can't be broken-down. So, it actually is a btn. sized unit. [&:]

golden delicious -> RE: Combined Arms (8/15/2006 8:07:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LewFisher Actually, I was misleading. The scenario is Plan Martin and Dan Mc Bride has a number of btn. sized units labeled as platoons so they can't be broken-down. So, it actually is a btn. sized unit. [&:] Right. Not so bad then (n.b. the indivisible size icon is section, not platoon). Note that "open" doesn't necessarily mean one gigantic 2.5km wide lawn. In Western Europe there will be hedges, fences, the odd tree line and a couple of barns or farmhouses.

PaladinSix -> RE: Combined Arms (8/15/2006 11:09:01 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: golden delicious quote: ORIGINAL: PaladinSix Wonderful. There goes the only effective tactic that I had. Well, it's an operational game. If you're having problems tactically, it's probably because you're not doing the right thing operationally. Oh, its an operational game? Thanks for pointing that out. "Effective tactic" was a figure of speech, GD. PaladinSix

golden delicious -> RE: Combined Arms (8/16/2006 1:39:06 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PaladinSix Oh, its an operational game? Thanks for pointing that out. "Effective tactic" was a figure of speech, GD. PaladinSix What you described was a tactic, though.

PaladinSix -> RE: Combined Arms (8/16/2006 2:58:54 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: golden delicious What you described was a tactic, though. And a "trick" that I'm glad the designers will be trying to remove. Although it is effective, it isn't particularly realistic. My original post was not intended to be serious, although I admit that I have used that tactic against the PO with great success.

a white rabbit -> RE: Combined Arms (8/16/2006 4:37:13 AM)
..yeah but ant-capacity isn't a program fault so there's nothing to change, it's a scenario-designer fault, and one that's easy to avoid, ..4 solutions a) don't put the bits in in the first place ( leave out the 217th Bath Tub Company and friends) b) divide units in the editor c) use the smallest icon size d) restrict unit division by using larger base unit sizes, 1 division, not 3 regts ..oh and e) trepanning bad designers, mmmmm, my favourite..... ..the real programming priority should be Elmer the Elephant..

golden delicious -> RE: Combined Arms (8/16/2006 4:50:30 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PaladinSix And a "trick" that I'm glad the designers will be trying to remove. Although it is effective, it isn't particularly realistic. My original post was not intended to be serious, although I admit that I have used that tactic against the PO with great success. There you go. There are people who would seriously mean what you said. Glad you're not one of them.

golden delicious -> RE: Combined Arms (8/16/2006 4:52:55 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: a white rabbit ..yeah but ant-capacity isn't a program fault so there's nothing to change, it's a scenario-designer fault, and one that's easy to avoid, Well, yes and no. The designer can compensate to a certain extent, but this isn't ideal. Hopefully, in the future it will be possible to have small but significant units in a scenario without breaking it. quote: ..the real programming priority should be Elmer the Elephant.. I just checked the TOAD forums. The next version of TOAW III will automatically wipe your hard drive if the words "Roman" "Carthage" or "Hannibal" are used.

a white rabbit -> RE: Combined Arms (8/17/2006 6:37:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: golden delicious quote: ORIGINAL: a white rabbit ..yeah but ant-capacity isn't a program fault so there's nothing to change, it's a scenario-designer fault, and one that's easy to avoid, Well, yes and no. The designer can compensate to a certain extent, but this isn't ideal. Hopefully, in the future it will be possible to have small but significant units in a scenario without breaking it. ..oh come on, there's some designers just want to show how clever they are, look at my complete TOE, isn't it a big one,? which isn't good design, ants don't happen if they aren't there in the first place, knowing what to put in, and at what level is a very essential part of good design.. quote: ORIGINAL: golden delicious quote: ..the real programming priority should be Elmer the Elephant.. I just checked the TOAD forums. The next version of TOAW III will automatically wipe your hard drive if the words "Roman" "Carthage" or "Hannibal" are used. ..mmm but Elmer, the Nearly-Third-Player Intervention is just sooo clumsy, you all get your non player controlled Allies and stuff, and coincidently it also does my elephants... ..damn there goes my hard drive..

golden delicious -> RE: Combined Arms (8/18/2006 5:26:53 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: a white rabbit ..oh come on, there's some designers just want to show how clever they are, look at my complete TOE, isn't it a big one,? which isn't good design, ants don't happen if they aren't there in the first place, knowing what to put in, and at what level is a very essential part of good design.. At present, one has to make compromises for good design. This shouldn't be necessary. The designer should be able to have that infantry gun company in as a separate unit and let the player decide what to do with it, rather than fixing it irrevocably into place.

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.59375