|
Curtis Lemay -> RE: Why not just separate rounds? (12/12/2007 5:18:16 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Heldenkaiser
However, there still remain a number of unrealistic artificialities, such as units using all their MP to surround an enemy unit, but not participate in the combat that leads to the subsequent elimination of the unit because it has no retreat path open. If that combat is executed by a unit that has not moved before, this can occur in the first combat round, even though the units blocking the retreat would not have been there before the end of the turn. How can they block the retreat if they are not even there at the time the combat occurs?
There are other ideas on how to deal with that that don't require a full redesign of the system. See items 7.18 and 7.19 in the wishlist.
quote:
Wouldn't it be a lot simpler, I've been wondering, if the turn were simply broken down in so many rounds as it can now have combat rounds? So that movement in each round would only be about 10% of the turn? So that units could only move to where they can get in that 10% of the turn? Yes, it would increase the effort for completing each round, but would it not also increase realism a lot? Has this ever been considered? Or are there other solutions to the problem? Or is this not considered a problem? Thanks. [:)]
You would still have early turn ending due to force proficiency check failures, and under this system their impact would be much more severe. Every unit's movement would be cut short by the failure, even units moving in the rear without plans for combat during the turn at all. Forces with very low Force Proficency would have no means to avoid those consequences as they do now (not trying to get 9 rounds per turn, for example). They would have to try to function just like very high proficiency forces, no matter how inappropriate that was. So they would tend to suffer the loss of much of their turn regularly.
|
|
|
|
