(Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Steel Panthers World At War & Mega Campaigns



Message

OKW-73 -> (8/20/2002 12:49:21 PM)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by tracer
[B]I think the point alot are missing is that the vast majority of PBEM battles are meeting engagements; both opponents advancing into an area where they currently have *no* forces (as in 'no forces to lay a minefield'!). In a defend/assault or even a delay/advance pre-laid minefields make perfect sense...but to have them show up in a meeting engagement is about as believable as a Chinese redhead. ;)

But, to each his own. [/B][/QUOTE]

Isnt it possible that in meeting engagements that in that area had fights earlier and mines have laid there before ;)



Capt. Pixel -> (8/20/2002 12:55:43 PM)

Maybe the battle generator out to pump out a few random mines around the map to represent previous battlefields or old WW I mine leftovers.

Wouldn't that be wild? :D



Curieus -> (8/20/2002 3:41:51 PM)

quote:

I never found any gaps!
But then you were not looking very hard. Your troops were too busy dodging those 12 cm shells. :D How do you think those troops of mine passed the minefield?



Curieus -> meeting engagement? (8/20/2002 3:47:55 PM)

Btw, we call it a meeting engagement because 2 opposing forces meet. However there is no indication whether they meet after a 100km long advance, or that they spring off from a well entrenched position. This means that use of mines may well be waranted, depending on how you think the engagement starts. Or perhaps those are minefield laid by the previous owner of the area, and the current owner adapted his defenses/initial positions to these existing fields. But i agree that excessive use of mines is not fun. A four row deep minefield the lenght of the map is, shall we say "boring"



Ivan -> (8/20/2002 11:05:03 PM)

i think mines laid during battle by engineers is acceptable and a great tactic.
hehe my friend sure got suprised when he blew his kingtiger on one. ´how the hell did you get mines there, that one blew on my side1´



tracer -> Re: meeting engagement? (8/21/2002 9:45:24 AM)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Curieus
[B]Btw, we call it a meeting engagement because 2 opposing forces meet. However there is no indication whether they meet after a 100km long advance, or that they spring off from a well entrenched position. [/B][/QUOTE]

Entrenchments in SPWAW only appear in assault/defend battles. But like I said before: to each his own...if there are no agreements or restrictions put in place beforehand, 'anything goes'. :) I still feel that the [I]spirit[/I] of a meeting engagement assumes both forces arriving on a 'fresh' map.

[QUOTE] But i agree that excessive use of mines is not fun. A four row deep minefield the lenght of the map is, shall we say "boring" [/QUOTE]

Beer! Even in assault/defend battles I usually place mines in small arcs in front of fortifications or scatter some on a likely approach route....unless its an assault against a historically strong defensive line (something like Omaha Beach).



john g -> Re: meeting engagement? (8/21/2002 9:52:29 AM)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Curieus
[B]
But i agree that excessive use of mines is not fun. A four row deep minefield the lenght of the map is, shall we say "boring" [/B][/QUOTE]

That sort of battle is the perfect reason to use paras, glider and spec op troops. If your opponent is expecting to stop you with the mines, you just ignore them.

Those who are only able to use one weapon will be beaten by those able to use all the weapons.
thanks, John.



tracer -> (8/21/2002 10:03:12 AM)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by OKW-73
[B]

Isnt it possible that in meeting engagements that in that area had fights earlier and mines have laid there before ;) [/B][/QUOTE]

In that case they would be random, capable of hindering either side. Assault/defend & advance/delay battles assume the defending player had control of the field beforehand...meeting engagements assume [I]nobody[/I] did. Remember too that in A/D's the advancing player gets a larger force to compensate for things like minefields, so in a meeting engagement where both sides have equal buy-points you have to figure 'something's wrong with this picture' :D



challenge -> (8/22/2002 12:06:55 AM)

The idea of spending lots of points on the "specials" and less on the standard troops is what I think causes the irritation. I don't mind mines, off-board artillery, strike units, air drops nor infiltrators. What bugs me is when my opponant spends two-thirds of the allotted points on those items and a third or less on the "regular" troops. It's no different than when you turn off rarity and buy four companies of Tigers, or what ever the heavy tank of the day is...

I like a balanced game -- and as soon as I get my household back online I'll be looking for one ;) .



tracer -> (8/22/2002 12:37:27 AM)

I always think about the feeling of accomplishment, and my opponents feeling of inadequacy, as his units gets torn into by a 'historic' force after he has stacked the deck with top-of-the-line equipment and 'specials'. There's nothing like watching a 3 year old Marder or 50mm ATG brewing up a troop of shiny-new IS-3's or Jacksons costing 10 times as much! If you listen real hard I think you can hear him cursing during VCR playback. :D



Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.875