|
ColinWright -> RE: Ant Units (11/10/2007 1:31:20 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: rhinobones
quote:
ORIGINAL: ColinWright
As matters stand, players have every reason to engage in utterly ahistorical behavior and to completely ignore the actual function of any small specialty units they might have.
In a few scenarios I have tried to adjust for such behavior by editing out the AP/AT value of bridge engineers and AA equipment. Of course this does not prohibit using these units as ant attack or blocking units, but in a scenario where bridge and AA units are needed to perform their primary duties, the motive to use them as ant attack units is reduced.
Haven’t tried it, but I would think that the same could be done with AT units, MP units and as a way of distinguishing between logistic engineer and combat engineer units.
Think the real trick is to design the scenario so that these units have real value when performing their primary mission rather than just being another form of infantry.
Regards, RhinoBones
That'll help: I remember one scenario with motorized but otherwise utterly useless corps HQ's: light cavalry!
However, for purposes of just braining supply, it's just too easy to make ants. Take Seelowe: battalion/regiment level, with stacks of up to about half a division fairly common. Now, there is just no reasonable design device that will make it an unattractive option for the Brit to a battered, subdivided remnant of a battalion of territorials and have that company drain the supply and readiness from half a division of fresh German infantry. Moreover, the mental picture it conjures up is totally surreal. One hundred British heroes, unfed, unarmed, and unshaven, seriously weakening a force of seven thousand fully equipped, rested Germans.
The ant unit problem, for combat purposes, is not a design issue. It's a programming issue.
|
|
|
|
