RE: River Crossings,good or bad for playability?

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

RE: River Crossings,good or bad for playability?

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> The War Room >> RE: River Crossings,good or bad for playability?

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: River Crossings,good or bad for playability? - 10/27/2005 4:20:50 AM

dereck

Posts: 2800
Joined: 9/7/2004
From: Romulus, MI
Status: offline

quote:

I thought if you already had troops on the other side of the river you wouldn't shock attack

I repeat the above because I HAD troops engaged with the Japanese before I brought reinforcements in from the north and west (admittedly) across rivers but they were joining an already existing battle.

_____________________________

PO2 US Navy (1980-1986);
USS Midway CV-41 (1981-1984)
Whidbey Island, WA (1984-1986)
Naval Reserve (1986-1992)

(in reply to Nikademus)

Post #: 31

RE: River Crossings,good or bad for playability? - 10/27/2005 4:27:06 AM

Nikademus

Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline

yup.

It prevents gamey play. Its not perfect, but then again the neither is the entire river rule itself. I still prefer it over nothing which was what we had before. Limitations of a co-occupancy hex based system.

_____________________________

(in reply to dereck)

Post #: 32

RE: River Crossings,good or bad for playability? - 10/27/2005 4:34:49 AM

dereck

Posts: 2800
Joined: 9/7/2004
From: Romulus, MI
Status: offline

God I wish I was still at 1.3 *sigh*

From what you answered I should NOT be shock attacking because I was ALREADY attacking before I moved those troops across the river.

I don't mind that initial shock attack but NOT BEING ABLE to change it to deliberate attack *explitive deletes* me off.

_____________________________

PO2 US Navy (1980-1986);
USS Midway CV-41 (1981-1984)
Whidbey Island, WA (1984-1986)
Naval Reserve (1986-1992)

(in reply to Nikademus)

Post #: 33

RE: River Crossings,good or bad for playability? - 10/27/2005 4:37:15 AM

Nikademus

Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline

the code supports specific LCU attacks but doesn't support some units shock attacking while other units delib attack.

_____________________________

(in reply to dereck)

Post #: 34

RE: River Crossings,good or bad for playability? - 10/27/2005 6:40:32 AM

dereck

Posts: 2800
Joined: 9/7/2004
From: Romulus, MI
Status: offline

*embarrased*

I have to admit I missed ONE unit that was set to shock attack while I had every other at deliberate. That was causing the continued shock attacks.

I have to stop multi-tasking while drinking non-caffeinated drinks

_____________________________

PO2 US Navy (1980-1986);
USS Midway CV-41 (1981-1984)
Whidbey Island, WA (1984-1986)
Naval Reserve (1986-1992)

(in reply to Nikademus)

Post #: 35

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> The War Room >> RE: River Crossings,good or bad for playability?

Page: << < prev 1 [2]