RE: Gamey or no?

RE: Gamey or no? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition

Message

ckammp -> RE: Gamey or no? (1/6/2010 7:48:34 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: treespider quote: ORIGINAL: ckammp quote: ORIGINAL: treespider quote: ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns quote: ORIGINAL: treespider I still don't see the issue... The issue is he would have lost the battle sooner rather than later had he “simply detailed a reaction”. I guess the forces involved in this particular battle aren’t large enough to press home the problem, so for arguments sake let’s assume it is a large battle in China where numbers are very close but very large (100,000+ on a side) and moving even a single unit out of the hex causes the battle to be lost. Comparatively speaking the tiny recon units aren’t even a pimple on the rear end of the large units involved in our hypothetical, but because of the game mechanic a player is forced to either remove an entire division+ sized unit to react to the tiny pimples or get surrounded. That’s the issue. So the tiny recon units become these super powered force magnifiers that they never were historically. In the OP the forces were pretty evenly matched trying to counter the move would have caused him to lose the base for sure. A base he probably didn’t want to lose and thought he had a chance to hold, thus he stayed to try and hold it. But in a larger ‘close call’ fight where taking out even one unit causes you to lose, it’s totally out of whack that a tiny recon unit or two can block anything, but they still do and just as effectively as they did in the OP’s battle. Jim I still don't see the issue...happens all the time in history...one side gets outflanked by the other...which simply reinforces the concept of maintaining a viable reserve to react to such a situation... The issue is whether or not the defender was actually outflanked. The attacker sent recon units to a hex to establish a ZOC to block the defender's line of retreat, a perfectly legitimate tactic. However, the units did not stay in the hex, but continued on and returned to the main attacking force. Thus, the hex itself was not controlled, just the hexside, which within the rules prevents the defender from moving into the hex. But what if the recon units had stayed in the hex? According to the manual, page 191: "A side will maintain control of a hex side until an LCU of the opposing side crosses that hex side to enter a hex. Control of that hex side will then revert to the opposing side. Units may only LEAVE a hex across hex sides that their side controls". I know how it works...I designed it. When the Recon Units reentered the hex from the Opposite side they didn't magically "rejoin" the other units perse ...They re-entered the battlefield in a different "area" hence why they maintain control of the hexside they crossed entering the battlefield but still participate in the whole battle. Think of the hexsides as ethereal "areas" as opposed to lines in the sand....A hex would have essentially 7 ethereal areas, 6 for each of its hexsides and the 7th roughly being the center of the hex. When you enter the hex...you enter the "area" corresponding to the hexside you crossed to enter the hex...thus controlling the "area" or "hexside". quote: In other words, had the recon units stayed in the hex, the defender would have been free to move into the hex, but because the recon units simply moved thru the hex, the defender could not move into a now-vacant hex. Given the size of the defender's force, I find it doubtful that two recon units could effectively prevent the defenders from breaking out. Were the blocking units of a larger size, I could certainly see them encircling the defenders, but in this case, it seems, however unintentional, to be gamey. What was the size of the defending force? ....2 Bdes and some supporting battalions...Including Gull and Sparrow Battalions... I'd say 1 recon regt would be sufficent to set up a roadblock to cause routed and retreated units to choose a diiferent path. In this case there were two recon regiments.... Again why didn't the defender manuever Gull and Sparrow to parry the outflanking maneuver? At the least the attacker would have had to move the recon regt's two hexes before being able to reenter the encircled hex. While the attacker is performing this maneuver why didn't the defender move the 2 battalions SE to counter? [image]local://upfiles/15342/1AAEF37265734F2B9263386D93758D37.jpg[/image] Why the defender didn't send units to block the recon units is irrelevant. The issue is whether a force the size of a recon regt can block a force the size of a division (15,000 men- 2 Bdes, 2 Bns, plus other forces) simply by moving thru a hex. I don't believe this should be allowed, unless the division-sized force is heavily disrupted. I don't believe the attacker moved the recon units the way he did in a deliberate attempt to be gamey, but I do believe this example could be used as justification for other, more overtly gamey tactics by players lacking the integrity of the OP. Why not prevent this from happening later by changing the rule now?

treespider -> RE: Gamey or no? (1/6/2010 7:57:58 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ckammp Why the defender didn't send units to block the recon units is irrelevant. I disagree...in WitP the defender would have pinned and had no oppurtunity to react to the maneuvering attacker...now they do. quote: The issue is whether a force the size of a recon regt can block a force the size of a division (15,000 men- 2 Bdes, 2 Bns, plus other forces) simply by moving thru a hex. I don't believe this should be allowed, unless the division-sized force is heavily disrupted. And the OP indicated the defender was retreated...which in AE equates to heavily disrupted. The defender should initiate the movement sooner to prevent the outflanking. quote: I don't believe the attacker moved the recon units the way he did in a deliberate attempt to be gamey, but I do believe this example could be used as justification for other, more overtly gamey tactics by players lacking the integrity of the OP. Why not prevent this from happening later by changing the rule now? And what rule do you propose? Should I not be able to block a retreat if I move in two Infantry Regt's supported by a couple of Artillery battalions and an Engineer Regt? None of those units are "divisional" sized units... Shouldn't two recon Regts be allowed to block the retreat of a routed Brigade or even two Brigades? In WitP we had bizarre Zoc rules...in some cases you could move directly through your opponents lines...in others you could be surrounded and pinned simply because your opponent passed through hexes 6 months prior...

bradfordkay -> RE: Gamey or no? (1/6/2010 8:50:47 PM)
Treespider wrote: "When the Recon Units reentered the hex from the Opposite side they didn't magically "rejoin" the other units perse ...They re-entered the battlefield in a different "area" hence why they maintain control of the hexside they crossed entering the battlefield but still participate in the whole battle. " On the whole, I can understand where you are coming from. However, one little detail about this: if IRL the two battalions had done this, they could be attacked by the surrounded troops without having to engage the main Japanese force - thus a breakthrough might possibly occur. In the game system, the surrounded troops have to attack all the Japanes troops, and have no chance to breakthrough the blocking force. This is a slight weakness in the system, IMO. However, from this thread I have learned a lesson about the game - do not allow the enemy to flank you. In WITP this wasn't that big a worry - combat occurred between large stacks of troops in a similar manner to the old Avalon Hill game 1776. In AE the flanking maneuver can work, so it is important to watch out for it and/or keep a reserve maneuver force.

Jim D Burns -> RE: Gamey or no? (1/6/2010 8:54:09 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: treespider Shouldn't two recon Regts be allowed to block the retreat of a routed Brigade or even two Brigades? Absolutely not, we’re not trying to justify a reasonable amount of needed troops to cover a hexside, that would require tens of thousands of men. What we’re trying to correct is a problem in the rules set with a less problematic rule than the current one. The problem is it’s a 40 mile hex, doesn’t matter if the unit in the hex is 5 guys on bicycles or 10,000 foot troops, they all have 40 miles of terrain at their disposal, or at least they should but the current rule set takes it away from them if 2 guys walk across a hexside. I don’t care how well intentioned the tactical considerations that prompted the rules change were when you designed the changes. The unintended consequence is a very exploitable and non-historic result because it’s a strategic level combat sim, not a tactical one. Recon units may have been able to occasionally block retreat paths in a tactical situation with like sized units during the war, but they had no capability whatsoever to cut off and isolate army level organizations across 30+ miles of terrain. Even 10 recon units would be hard pressed just to get eyes on all the terrain across a 30 mile front, let alone be able to do anything about a hundred thousand enemy troops determined to move across that line of terrain. quote: ORIGINAL: treespider In WitP we had bizarre Zoc rules...in some cases you could move directly through your opponents lines...in others you could be surrounded and pinned simply because your opponent passed through hexes 6 months prior... I totally agree, WitP was even worse. But what we have now has no basis in reality at all. I understand you’ve got a little bit of authors pride going on here which is probably why you’re defending it so hard, but the rule has serious problems in its current form. There is no possible justification to say a tiny ant unit or 10 tiny ant units can block 30+ miles of terrain if someone wants to move across it. Especially if that someone is 100,000 armed men. Even a division would have trouble trying to stop anything but a broken rabble trying to run past them when you’re talking 30 miles, but at least there are enough troops in a division to make it believable that they had at least a chance to do it. Personally I think if it were tied to the AV of the defenders it would be better, so the larger the defending force the more force you need to isolate it. It would also work well for smaller forces like the OP’s battle. Two regiments of recon might actually be able to cause trouble for 10,000 guys, but the problem is the system allows them to cause the exact same amount of trouble for 10,000,000 guys or pick any huge number to emphasize my point. Jim

witpqs -> RE: Gamey or no? (1/6/2010 9:48:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: bradfordkay Treespider wrote: "When the Recon Units reentered the hex from the Opposite side they didn't magically "rejoin" the other units perse ...They re-entered the battlefield in a different "area" hence why they maintain control of the hexside they crossed entering the battlefield but still participate in the whole battle. " On the whole, I can understand where you are coming from. However, one little detail about this: if IRL the two battalions had done this, they could be attacked by the surrounded troops without having to engage the main Japanese force - thus a breakthrough might possibly occur. In the game system, the surrounded troops have to attack all the Japanes troops, and have no chance to breakthrough the blocking force. This is a slight weakness in the system, IMO. This is exactly how I see it too, treespider.

stuman -> RE: Gamey or no? (1/7/2010 12:39:41 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: witpqs quote: ORIGINAL: bradfordkay Treespider wrote: "When the Recon Units reentered the hex from the Opposite side they didn't magically "rejoin" the other units perse ...They re-entered the battlefield in a different "area" hence why they maintain control of the hexside they crossed entering the battlefield but still participate in the whole battle. " On the whole, I can understand where you are coming from. However, one little detail about this: if IRL the two battalions had done this, they could be attacked by the surrounded troops without having to engage the main Japanese force - thus a breakthrough might possibly occur. In the game system, the surrounded troops have to attack all the Japanes troops, and have no chance to breakthrough the blocking force. This is a slight weakness in the system, IMO. This is exactly how I see it too, treespider. Is it worth a HR, or just something to be aware of as a defender ?

witpqs -> RE: Gamey or no? (1/7/2010 12:55:45 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: stuman quote: ORIGINAL: witpqs quote: ORIGINAL: bradfordkay Treespider wrote: "When the Recon Units reentered the hex from the Opposite side they didn't magically "rejoin" the other units perse ...They re-entered the battlefield in a different "area" hence why they maintain control of the hexside they crossed entering the battlefield but still participate in the whole battle. " On the whole, I can understand where you are coming from. However, one little detail about this: if IRL the two battalions had done this, they could be attacked by the surrounded troops without having to engage the main Japanese force - thus a breakthrough might possibly occur. In the game system, the surrounded troops have to attack all the Japanes troops, and have no chance to breakthrough the blocking force. This is a slight weakness in the system, IMO. This is exactly how I see it too, treespider. Is it worth a HR, or just something to be aware of as a defender ? Because it is an issue of a limitation of the game engine, IMO either an HR or a 'personal rule'. A PR meaning that, since I'm now aware of the ramifications of that limitation, I would not do it. I would hold the recce unit(s) in a separate hex so the defenders could attack into them to attempt a breakout if they so chose.

treespider -> RE: Gamey or no? (1/7/2010 1:26:26 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: bradfordkay Treespider wrote: "When the Recon Units reentered the hex from the Opposite side they didn't magically "rejoin" the other units perse ...They re-entered the battlefield in a different "area" hence why they maintain control of the hexside they crossed entering the battlefield but still participate in the whole battle. " On the whole, I can understand where you are coming from. However, one little detail about this: if IRL the two battalions had done this, they could be attacked by the surrounded troops without having to engage the main Japanese force - thus a breakthrough might possibly occur. In the game system, the surrounded troops have to attack all the Japanes troops, and have no chance to breakthrough the blocking force. This is a slight weakness in the system, IMO. Yes it is an acknowledged "weakness"... we originally tried to put in an AV test for hexside control however coding for every possibly contingency proved a nightmare...so we opted for the straightforward you cross it you control it. quote: However, from this thread I have learned a lesson about the game - do not allow the enemy to flank you. In WITP this wasn't that big a worry - combat occurred between large stacks of troops in a similar manner to the old Avalon Hill game 1776. In AE the flanking maneuver can work, so it is important to watch out for it and/or keep a reserve maneuver force. Exactly AE is a very different game than WitP in this regard. If you play with monolithic stacks and fail to maneuver you can be surrounded. Flanking becomes much more important as it was in theaters like Burma and Malaya. Importantly however unlike WitP your monolithic stack is not pinned by the enemy and you have the opportunity to respond to the flanking movement before you get trapped.

treespider -> RE: Gamey or no? (1/7/2010 1:51:43 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns quote: ORIGINAL: treespider Shouldn't two recon Regts be allowed to block the retreat of a routed Brigade or even two Brigades? Absolutely not, we’re not trying to justify a reasonable amount of needed troops to cover a hexside, that would require tens of thousands of men. What we’re trying to correct is a problem in the rules set with a less problematic rule than the current one. The problem is it’s a 40 mile hex, doesn’t matter if the unit in the hex is 5 guys on bicycles or 10,000 foot troops, they all have 40 miles of terrain at their disposal, or at least they should but the current rule set takes it away from them if 2 guys walk across a hexside. I don’t care how well intentioned the tactical considerations that prompted the rules change were when you designed the changes. The unintended consequence is a very exploitable and non-historic result because it’s a strategic level combat sim, not a tactical one. Recon units may have been able to occasionally block retreat paths in a tactical situation with like sized units during the war, but they had no capability whatsoever to cut off and isolate army level organizations across 30+ miles of terrain. Even 10 recon units would be hard pressed just to get eyes on all the terrain across a 30 mile front, let alone be able to do anything about a hundred thousand enemy troops determined to move across that line of terrain. quote: ORIGINAL: treespider In WitP we had bizarre Zoc rules...in some cases you could move directly through your opponents lines...in others you could be surrounded and pinned simply because your opponent passed through hexes 6 months prior... I totally agree, WitP was even worse. But what we have now has no basis in reality at all. I understand you’ve got a little bit of authors pride going on here which is probably why you’re defending it so hard, but the rule has serious problems in its current form. There is no possible justification to say a tiny ant unit or 10 tiny ant units can block 30+ miles of terrain if someone wants to move across it. Especially if that someone is 100,000 armed men. Even a division would have trouble trying to stop anything but a broken rabble trying to run past them when you’re talking 30 miles, but at least there are enough troops in a division to make it believable that they had at least a chance to do it. Personally I think if it were tied to the AV of the defenders it would be better, so the larger the defending force the more force you need to isolate it. It would also work well for smaller forces like the OP’s battle. Two regiments of recon might actually be able to cause trouble for 10,000 guys, but the problem is the system allows them to cause the exact same amount of trouble for 10,000,000 guys or pick any huge number to emphasize my point. Jim Give us some particulars on how to code it. You suggest tying hexside control to the defenders AV....Ok. The attacker moves in a force that is 30% of the defenders Av this turn...and establishes control...but the next turn the unit is only 20% of the defending AV? Does it retain control? On the flip side - the unit is just below the threshold needed to establish control and moves in and is able to regain strength in subsequent turns bringing it up to the needed threshold to establish control? Does it do so? On the otherhand the attacking unit is too weak to establish control this turn because the defender is too strong...but as the battle wears on the defender loses strength, does the attacker now gain control? And another scenario... I have 20 units all below the threshold needed to establish control. I cross the hexside on different days with different units...at what point do I establish control? Another scenario - I have 20 other units already in the hex and bring in 3 other units each below the needed threshold to establish control...how can we separate them from the 20 already in the hex? What if the 3 aforementioned units in aggregate can establish control but i bring them into a hex separately on different days and the hex has 10 units already present with 5 more coming in from an opposite direction? How do you store that data? How do you track that data? What happens when you send your Recon regt's on flanking moves and enter an enemy's hex but don't establish control of the hexside? Are the recon Regt's now trapped because they do not control the hexside they crossed to enter the hex? The system we currently have is not perfect...IMO it is better than WitP. And you cannot play AE like you did with WiTP...now you actually have flanks you have to be concerned about. But as i pointed out unlike WitP you are not pinned by an attacker. You can still respond to a perceived flanking move. In the OP example the defender could have moved Gull and Sparrow before being flanked. In WitP that maneuver would not have been possible. But I'm all ears if you can come up with a viable system to test AV for hexside control...

Jim D Burns -> RE: Gamey or no? (1/7/2010 8:18:58 AM)
Stop trying to overcomplicate it, it’s not needed. The test should occur at the moment you cross the hex, period. In a perfect world you could test the AV every turn thereafter, but that, as you’ve said, was too hard to code. Just make it a test as you enter the hex and it’s enough. It’ll be far better than what we have now where just 2 guys can grab control. Or just go with division level unit being needed, anything to keep the ants from dominating the world. Jim

Smeulders -> RE: Gamey or no? (1/7/2010 8:38:29 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns Stop trying to overcomplicate it, it’s not needed. The test should occur at the moment you cross the hex, period. In a perfect world you could test the AV every turn thereafter, but that, as you’ve said, was too hard to code. Just make it a test as you enter the hex and it’s enough. It’ll be far better than what we have now where just 2 guys can grab control. Or just go with division level unit being needed, anything to keep the ants from dominating the world. Jim A division against 5 corps ? That's an ant as well, bad rule. What about a division with 5 AV ? An Ant, bad rule. What if there is only battalion in a hex, should my bde not be able to close down a hexside against that ? But what about 20 bn in there ? My bde can't hold all of those back. So we see that the unit 'level' rule can't be implemented properly. We're left with an AV rule, but what about these examples ? I send in a recon unit, or am surprised by the amount of AV in a hex, I don't gain control through the hexside I entered, so my attacking force is instantly surrounded. Not a rule I want to play with. My force goes in split up over several days, each day with too few AV, my attacking force is instantly surrounded as I don't get control of the hexside. Bad Rule. I go in with a divsion against a corps, I don't gain control of the hexside, the corps leaves, but one opposing bn get's left behind, I can't prevent it from going over the hexside I entered through. On top of that all the examples Treespide gave you. It's obvious that with a single day AV rule, even the slightest problem with coordination of units can give improbable results. The rule we have now is only a problem if players start to intentionally abuse it, and then only if you neglect to defend your flanks.

JeffroK -> RE: Gamey or no? (1/7/2010 9:21:48 AM)
From Jim D Burns Even 10 recon units would be hard pressed just to get eyes on all the terrain across a 30 mile front, let alone be able to do anything about a hundred thousand enemy troops determined to move across that line of terrain. An Infantry Company with radios could cover a lot more than 30 miles here, bin there, done that!

Mike Scholl -> RE: Gamey or no? (1/7/2010 11:28:53 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JeffK From Jim D Burns Even 10 recon units would be hard pressed just to get eyes on all the terrain across a 30 mile front, let alone be able to do anything about a hundred thousand enemy troops determined to move across that line of terrain. An Infantry Company with radios could cover a lot more than 30 miles here, bin there, done that! But have you done it in the face of 100,000 enemy troops determined to get through? Or with radios that can't connect you to supporting firepower (because there isn't anyone else from your side in the hex)? "Cover" for intelligence purposes and "cover" for the purpose of combat are two radically different things...

vlcz -> RE: Gamey or no? (1/7/2010 2:32:55 PM)
IMHO an implementation of "retreat overrun" will be a very good modification, something as easy (or hard!) to implement as a group of units about 1:100 (or 1:50 maybe) ratio being ignored for retreat allowance purposes Its not the problem (again IMO) if it is a recon unit or "fragment", a fragment can be a third of a full division and that can be considered more of a blockade than a badly mauled 28AC recon unit (two extreme examples I know!)

Q-Ball -> RE: Gamey or no? (1/7/2010 3:26:27 PM)
Numbers don't tell the whole story either. IIRC, a very small British roadblock effectively bagged 100,000 Italian troops during the first Libyan campaign. Those Italians were of course disorganized, low morale, disrupted, etc., which is the point. If they were 100,000 rested and fresh troops, they would have just run over the roadblock. In my particular example, they were about a Division's worth of Australian Militia. They were completely mauled in combat, so safe to say they were in bad shape as far as disruption, fatigue, etc, probably not dissimilar to those Italians. It's possible a Recon Regt. would prevent their escape in that case. I see everyone's point though, it's tough to model. Certainly, tiny units shouldn't hold up Army Corps.

JeffroK -> RE: Gamey or no? (1/7/2010 8:26:22 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl quote: ORIGINAL: JeffK From Jim D Burns Even 10 recon units would be hard pressed just to get eyes on all the terrain across a 30 mile front, let alone be able to do anything about a hundred thousand enemy troops determined to move across that line of terrain. An Infantry Company with radios could cover a lot more than 30 miles here, bin there, done that! But have you done it in the face of 100,000 enemy troops determined to get through? Or with radios that can't connect you to supporting firepower (because there isn't anyone else from your side in the hex)? "Cover" for intelligence purposes and "cover" for the purpose of combat are two radically different things... I suppose I should have deleted the last part of Jim's sentence. (There was a story where in one exercise a FOO called in an imaginary arc-light type strike, great way to discover if the other side is listening in!) In all of this, (I have to check a japanese Recon Bn TOE,) I would be reasonably confident of holding off approx a Div of Infantry with 2 Mechanized Bns. Beda Fomm springs to mind. I would assume that the defenders could have retreated into 4 hexes, only blocked by the attackers hex in the north and south. After falling back from Darwin the Australian morale & Militia Bdes exp would not be too high, just the right force to be trapped by this tactic. EDIT. I now read QBall's comments, spot on.

JeffroK -> RE: Gamey or no? (1/7/2010 8:32:32 PM)
A possible solution, though I'm buggered if I could programme it. From memory, GDW used a system where certain sized/equipped units did not have ZOC, lookng at their TOE & hex sizes. Is it possible to code LCU so that, say Bn or smaller sized units do not affect hexside control?

treespider -> RE: Gamey or no? (1/8/2010 12:11:52 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JeffK A possible solution, though I'm buggered if I could programme it. From memory, GDW used a system where certain sized/equipped units did not have ZOC, lookng at their TOE & hex sizes. Is it possible to code LCU so that, say Bn or smaller sized units do not affect hexside control? Yes...but...as with Jim's suggestion with Divisions...define Battalion or smaller... Is it the # of devices? Is it AV? Is it unit designation? What if you have multiple battalions in the same hex? What if you have multiple battalions enter a hex but all but one leaves the hex - is it the lone Bn trapped?

JeffroK -> RE: Gamey or no? (1/8/2010 12:18:01 AM)
Easy, one of the attributes in the LCU data relates to the unit "size" This is what appears in the LCU description (and I diont know what else it is used for) Multiple Bns, starts to get wierd, but also gamey if the attacker is splitting/massing Bns. (Some of this goes to your trust and understanding with your opponent, if pushing the envelope of the game engine is your thing, great, luckily the AI isnt that competitive.) After the first months few combat Bns are in play, except all thos US Army Tk Bns[&:] Rather than spend all of your time fixing this, the devs/programmers time would be better spent in looking at Nuc Subs, Nuc Arty & nerfed CD.

treespider -> RE: Gamey or no? (1/8/2010 12:19:53 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JeffK Rather than spend all of your time fixing this, the devs/programmers time would be better spent in looking at Nuc Subs, Nuc Arty & nerfed CD. Fixing what...its WAD.

JeffroK -> RE: Gamey or no? (1/8/2010 1:00:20 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: treespider quote: ORIGINAL: JeffK Rather than spend all of your time fixing this, the devs/programmers time would be better spent in looking at Nuc Subs, Nuc Arty & nerfed CD. Fixing what...its WAD. Not from my, and many others expectations. But I suppose its what you expect from such an investment in time.

el lobo -> RE: Gamey or no? (12/12/2013 11:33:06 AM)
While I was reading Cribtop vs Cuttlefish and came across CT trapping eighteen Chinese LCUs by crossing into all of the hex sides (at Nanyang, post 243), I thought, wow, this is powerful stuff. I have since thought of three other situations (I think as I haven't tried them yet) besides the OP above, where hex side control could be used to give one side, using small units, a huge disproportional advantage over a much larger force. All of which would be gamey. So for my edification please; Why is the hex side control rule in the game, ie, what historical or real life situation does it reproduce or emulate? How would the game be affected if hex side control did not exist? TIA el lobo

Flicker -> RE: Gamey or no? (12/13/2013 2:38:18 PM)
treespider = "In AE the defender can place some units into reserve, effectively pulling them out of the line, and then move them out without suffering any of the ill effects of the bombardment" I didn't know that. It makes sense now, but I haven't explored the use of Reserve as much as I should. Back OT: IMO not gamey - WITPAE is a hex game with hexside complexity.

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.921875