|
RAF -> RE: Type of scenario (10/26/2006 7:58:56 AM)
|
Jason:
My ideal scenario is this:
I am playing against the computer. (I tend to dislike playing against people because of the gameyness of such games. For example, the use of tactics such as charging a armored car behind enemy lines to take the objective worth 100 points in the last turns of the game.).
The computer is defending, and I am attacking because - let's face it - the computer does a better job of defending and attacks require more player initiative and less mere reaction. I have time to scout the enemy.
My ideal scenario is not any scenario where the computer determines the starting positioin of its units. The computer does such a poor job of this that I cannot tolerate dynamic campaign games or similar scenarios - I will not play them.
I dislike scenarios where, given the objectives and the number of turns, I have no choice but to charge into battle and hope for the best. I want time to send my troops forward, find out some important intelligence, create a plan based on that intelligence, maneuver my forces into position, and then execute the plan.
My ideal scenario would have the computer maneuver units, and not individual pieces. That is to say, if a particular hill seems threatened, the computer will move a company of infantry to reinforce the hill. Enemy units stay near their leaders and there is a certain amount of unit cohesion.
If we are talking about my ideal scenario, this is what I invision: The person who created the scenario not only placed the units on the board in an intelligent manner for defense, but also had the power to 'program' defenses in some way. I invision a program that allows the player to write simple instructions such as, "If Position 1 falls, units at Locations L1 and L2 fall back to Locations L3 and L4 respectively," Or, "Unit U1 will start off at location L5 and move forward to reinforce the first company to lose 40% of its combat strength."
|
|
|
|
