Charles22 -> (9/16/2000 7:19:00 PM)
|
I don't have a preference for either side of the sniper issue, but I must say, that having security details makes sense. If the sniper can take it, then this gives another valuable role to the recon infantry. The recon infantry, even one by itself, may be able to retake the area from the sniper, and is a very good observor to possibly spot the sniper before the objective is even taken. This adds another dimension to those campaigners out there, as it's another reason to keep a recon infantry platoon in core, and to try and get it's experience up along the way.
Imagine, your recon team is stealthily set up to "invite" sniper infiltration. When he's spotted, the recon doesn't react, but will help in the attack once a HT or something is quickly whisked over to eliminate the threat. So, in this sense, the sniper's worst nightmare is being precisely where he thinks he can do the most damage. What better way to eliminate those pesky snipers, than to know precisely what areas he's very likely to be in? As well, even if recon infantry must fight the sniper on their own, because the sniper was particularly sneaky as to wait for the last turn to take the hexes, the recon is a cheaper unit, with more shots. I don't think a previously spotted sniper is likely to hold objectives (they may at least retreat him from the hexes) from two or more recon infantry squads (even the two man variety).
Also, if you're playing with objecitves that only matter as to who possesses it at the end, you could have these recon infantry, and other units as well, TOTALLY involved with the warring at the front, and then later have them get back to their objective duties in still enough time to hold the area from last turn cheapshots. My main point is that there's more than one way to deal with a rat, the objective area is merely our piece of cheese. Here mousey, mousey!
[This message has been edited by Charles22 (edited September 16, 2000).]
|
|
|
|