rhinobones -> RE: Critics on TOAW (3/22/2007 3:19:40 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: JAMiAM My use of obliquely staggered objective points . . . would be completely incapacitated When used in a defensive posture as you describe, I just do not see a negative impact. You can "Oblique" defensively to your heart's content. quote:
. . . paint-by-numbers approach . . . I guess this is intended to mean that if I want formations move as I intend, then my approach is acceptable. I could even have them move obliquely . . . or on the bias if you prefer. When I want formations to cross a river at a certain point, or move through a particular mountain pass, I would rather not leave the navigation to AOwPI. This is particularly important when reserves are introduced to the battlefield. Also, it ensures that the reserves move directly to a particular point of the battlefield. For the PO controlled force, this would help reconstituted units move to their parent formation. quote:
ORIGINAL: . . . movement through rear areas would be greatly impeded . . . Can you quantify this impediment or is this just an assumption you have made for argument sake? Does this great impediment take into account that the direct route from 1 to 6 might include enemy controlled areas, or a major river, mountains, heavy forest? As for my original suggestion, I actually was hoping to hear from the more experienced designers; the historical scenario designers in particular. Zig-zag, oblique or otherwise. Regards, RhinoBones
|
|
|
|