|
JKG -> RE: Defensive Play and Auxiliary Units (7/27/2011 8:07:30 PM)
|
First , thanks for your comments. Second, my suggestions are intended to provide some suggestions as to where gameplay could be made more enjoyable (not necessarily easier) for me a player somewhere between a casual and experienced wargamer. Of course, this is a subjective undertaking so YMMV. I am not suggesting anything is necessarily wrong or broken.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Rudankort
We may change the mix of soviet units in Bagration a little bit, but we don't have any plans to make it easier. ;)
How many aux units are there in Bagration? I counted zero. ;)
While I do think the scenario (Bagration) is not well balanced for the typical player, my comments were more generically addressing playing the single player campaign on the defensive. True, there are no auxiliary units in Bagration; however, I think adding a few auxiliary units with/without the abilty to replace lost auxiliary would help me enjoy the game more. Having some "throw-away" units to help manage a fighting retreat without completely devastating mycore would improve my experience (I think). If in the future, the campaign was lengthened by adding more late war scenarios where the Germans on the defensive, this would be one mechanism to help maintain some semblance of a core even as the Germans are defeated as they historically were. Because again, for me, one of the most appealing aspects of PzC is the RPG aspect. For me, I would like to end the game (in defeat) with some veteran core forces whose prior glorious exploits in defense of the Motherland could be relished.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Rudankort
It is already possible, use fog of war to your advantage. The AI won't hunt down units hidden in the fog, it is too difficult for it.
Thanks for the tip. However, I might suggest thinking about the abilty to retreat off-map in the future or something like it to add greater options and nuance to an already fine game. For example, one limitiation of having all battles fight to the death as happens nowmeans that it is difficult to imagine playing campaign-style against a human component. One player or the other would basically have suffer 100% loss of their core at the end of each scenario.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Rudankort
Bagration has two excellent rivers to defend behind, especially Berenzina....
For me, I have found the rivers to less useful than expected as there are too few units to form an initial skirmish line. On top of that it is difficult for my mainly infantry based core to hold an anchor as the hexes outside the city do not have any fortifications and your units start with 0 entrenchment. There could be many ways to adjust the scenario to appeal more to me this was just one suggestion. However, it is clear that the early scenarios when the Germans are on the offensive the allies have benefit of more fortified hexes. The complete absense of these in Bagration and the highly advanced Soviet TOE suggests that the scenario designer may have felt the need to handicap the German player to compensate for either advanced playtesters, a substantially differnt core mix than I play with, or an offensively limited AI. I tend to think it is more of the former two as the Soviet AI did a good job of "trapping" my armored withdrawal. Anyway, as a more casual gamer I think defensive scenarios, especially if added to the campaign, could benefit from reconsidering some of the design elements.
|
|
|
|
