GPQ

GPQ (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Campaign Series: Middle East 1948-1985

Message

budd -> GPQ (2/19/2017 2:02:23 PM)
game play question I'm playing a pbem game in the scenario "king of the Hill" as Libya. Would there be any reason a T-72 at elevation 8 clear terrain cant move to elevation 7 clear terrain? I get the unit cant move into that terrain message when i try. Another question i have is about hamada,. T-72 can go in or thru hamada.. right, the manual says hamada isnt much of a hinderence to fully tracked units, a few times i wasnt allowed to move into hamada terrain, i'll take a closer look to see if there is any other reason but there didnt appear to be. Would this be a good idea for a suggestion: putting the movement cost to enter a terrain into the bar on the right opposite the terrain name. As far as the scenario goes first time playing Libya, man their fragile. Usually when you go against Israel you can count on having the numbers, seems Israel has the quality and quantity in this scenario if i can keep a draw ill be happy. I would of had a different plan if i knew the Libyan troops were this fragile.

berto -> RE: GPQ (2/19/2017 2:46:22 PM)
As always, it would be helpful to provide a save file, with pinpointed instructions how to reproduce the supposed error.

Crossroads -> RE: GPQ (2/19/2017 3:04:34 PM)
Berto, no bugs, just a devilishly difficult ascend towards HILL 776. This is a scenario with the more experienced player as Libyans, or as Libyans vs AI. Budd, try to save your wheeled Tank Destroyers with ATGMs to scoot and shoot, and just hope the AI decides to attack peacemeal... [:)]

demiller -> RE: GPQ (2/19/2017 3:05:54 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: budd As far as the scenario goes first time playing Libya, man their fragile. Usually when you go against Israel you can count on having the numbers, seems Israel has the quality and quantity in this scenario if i can keep a draw ill be happy. I would of had a different plan if i knew the Libyan troops were this fragile. I've given up playing any of the tournament scenarios. They are all hopelessly unbalanced.

Crossroads -> RE: GPQ (2/19/2017 3:17:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: demiller I've given up playing any of the tournament scenarios. They are all hopelessly unbalanced. I am sorry to hear you have found none of them towards your enjoyment. The "A" set of tournament scenarios, with equal sized forces, are more difficult when playing as Arab nation. Tank vs tank, it will end up as the Six Day War and Yom Kippur war battles: lots of burning Arab oil in the desert! ATGMs are ones best friends vs Israeli armor, so those assets are the ones to protect, while tanks have a very difficult day unless they can hit at close quarters. The "B" set of tournaments is a different ballgame, they are not of equal forces, but a specific mission. B01 Into the Breach is one of my favourite scenarios, both as IDF as hanging on until those reinforcements come, or as Syrians looking forward to break through quickly enough to build an ambush against the incoming IDF forces. The "C" and "D" sets I've played less, so can't comment. The new "E" set is built as a story line again (by me), I'd suggest the better player as Libyans. However the Libyans in those scenarios where they have Hind helos can reload at their airfield, while Brits will be out of ammo and can't reload as they are supposed to fly support missions from distance. We'll look into play balance of these sets for the coming update.

budd -> RE: GPQ (2/19/2017 4:09:41 PM)
Kind of asking questions, wasn't calling anything a bug. Thanks for the replies but nobody really answered anything[;)] I'll be sure to take a closer look on my next turn. i just couldnt figure out why my T-72 couldnt move into certain hexes is all. I'll pay strict attention next time. I attached the file, change the extension back to .bte i made it .txt to upload, so if someone wants to look. I dont think every battle should be strictly balanced. I dont think this scenario is that unbalanced depending on your definition of victory. Were on turn 10 out of 15 of our PBEM battle and he's just under a 100 points from a minor victory. He's going to get another 50 point VP, probably nothing i can do about that.I still have all my tanks. I'm falling back across the whole front now, but i'm feinting and playing peek-a-boo with him waiting for some opportunities to jump high value targets. If i can hold a draw i'll be happy. My lack of experience with Libya and with modern equipment along with some bad terrain reading has made it harder for me. If i would known that Libya troops were this fragile i would planned differently. I do think a little better info in the scenario description would of been good, something about the relative strengths/weakness of the troops. At the end of the day it been fun, hope my opponent feels the same. Crossroads, didnt know that about the A,B,C,D, labels, good information.

dox44 -> RE: GPQ (2/19/2017 4:33:58 PM)
I dont think every battle should be strictly balanced. yeah i agree. i've got my butt kicked in tournament by other players. always try to pick up something to make me a better player. and i learned through CSME, cause i didn't know anything about ME wars, that ATGMs are your best friend.

demiller -> RE: GPQ (2/19/2017 4:41:58 PM)
I'm all in favor of asymmetric scenarios, particularly historical scenarios. These aren't, they're tournament scenarios, where balance is critical. TBH, I've kind of gone off the system as a whole. The Action Point system is just too gamey.

Crossroads -> RE: GPQ (2/19/2017 4:43:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: budd Kind of asking questions, wasn't calling anything a bug. Thanks for the replies but nobody really answered anything[;)] I'll be sure to take a closer look on my next turn. i just couldnt figure out why my T-72 couldnt move into certain hexes is all. I'll pay strict attention next time. I attached the file, change the extension back to .bte i made it .txt to upload, so if someone wants to look. Ah, sorry, forgot to answer didn't I! Are you talking about any of these hexes by any chance? Those are Escarpment hex sides, unpassable for vehicles unless there's a road there. Edit: duh, the Active Hex is on Rough, did not mean those, but the hex sides next to them. See the red ellipse: [image]local://upfiles/32195/C573B8568F664CC99E5E675F3E6C5448.jpg[/image]

Crossroads -> RE: GPQ (2/19/2017 4:56:05 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: casebier and i learned through CSME, cause i didn't know anything about ME wars, that ATGMs are your best friend. They are! quote: ORIGINAL: demiller I'm all in favor of asymmetric scenarios, particularly historical scenarios. These aren't, they're tournament scenarios, where balance is critical. TBH, I've kind of gone off the system as a whole. The Action Point system is just too gamey. Yes, as Bde vs Bde action, perhaps it should be clearly stated they are better suited for Mirrored tournament, where each player plays the scenario using forces once from both sides. It is not what the Blitz ME tourney is doing for one, so again, a fair comment. They have the advantage on IDF forces. I know they were meant as showcases between similar sized forces but with very different TO&Es, so point taken. I find Action Point based system a bit like playing a boardgame, where you play it one counter at a time. I very much like the WEGO system too, as what FPC has for instance. And I also really liked the very individual phase play TOAW had. As always, one's mileage will vary. Glad to see the wargame market becoming quite active again, after a bit of a hiatus that was there like five years ago. Something for everyone, I hope! [:)]

budd -> RE: GPQ (2/19/2017 5:04:30 PM)
I'll take a real close look when I get my next turn crossroads, i could missed that.

Crossroads -> RE: GPQ (2/19/2017 5:05:43 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: budd I'll take a real close look when I get my next turn crossroads, i could missed that. It might be easier to notice the hex sides on a 2D view. Let us know!

Page: [1]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

2.84375