golden delicious
Posts: 5575
Joined: 9/5/2000 From: London, Surrey, United Kingdom Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: TheJSFFenix Also, the way I see it often done with replacements is that people make units that are later disbanded so that the equipment gets dumped in a pile to distribute (France 1944 starts disbanding brigades worth of equipment for the Germans later in the scenario instead of giving them a +replacements event and Soviet Union 1941 also does that with Lend Lease stuff), so which one of those two methods is better if I say, want to have one side start getting a replacements edge past a certain point in the scenario for initiative shifting (not literal initiative, I mean the advantage) and stuff? The use of disbands to boost replacements is useful primarily for a couple of possible reasons: 1) to give a player an increase for a specific equipment type or types. E.g. if you want the production rate of various weapons to remain the same, but to get an increase in manpower by adding rifle squads, or vice versa 2) to ensure that the quantity of a particular replacement is static when the replacement rate is unknown. For example, in an East Front scenario you might have events to flex up and down the rate for Soviet equipment production, but lend-lease equipment might be static.
< Message edited by golden delicious -- 4/18/2021 9:14:07 AM >
_____________________________
"What did you read at university?" "War Studies" "War? Huh. What is it good for?" "Absolutely nothing."
|