I need some help

[MOS:96B2P]

On 5/15/2017 at 0:10 AM, Ithikial_AU said:

<Snip> The abiltiy for scenario designers to award victory points for finsihing a scenario before 'x' amount of time. It would give the ability for scenario designers to award players who are able to complete the engagement in the planned amount of time without having a hard end to the scenario. If you take longer you get less VP's. It would also be great on the defensive where you could alot additional VP's for each time marker a defender can hold the enemy up for. Great for delaying actions <Snip>  

This sounds interesting.  

[John Kettler]

Ithakial_AU,

On 5/15/2017 at 0:10 AM, Ithikial_AU said:

If you have a battaltion of infantry to command, perhaps have 'Two Up, Two Down' that is you have two companies up front taking the hits while your on map reserves are ready to react or exploit a breakthrough or plug a hole that develops.

Very few battalions are square, for most have three infantry companies, not four. Consequently, the usual mode is "two up, one back." Love your idea for additional VP for early mission completion. Am curious how you would handle the interplay between that implementation and own force casualty limits.

Regards,

John Kettler

[Ithikial_AU]

4 hours ago, John Kettler said:

Ithakial_AU,

Very few battalions are square, for most have three infantry companies, not four. Consequently, the usual mode is "two up, one back." Love your idea for additional VP for early mission completion. Am curious how you would handle the interplay between that implementation and own force casualty limits.

Regards,

John Kettler

In my defence I was playing a battle with a British Battalion before typing that comment.

[Apocal]

On 5/30/2017 at 8:15 AM, John Kettler said:

Ithakial_AU,

Very few battalions are square, for most have three infantry companies, not four. Consequently, the usual mode is "two up, one back." Love your idea for additional VP for early mission completion. Am curious how you would handle the interplay between that implementation and own force casualty limits.

Regards,

John Kettler

Strip a platoon from both leading companies or use the engineers, recon troops, etc. as a fourth maneuver company. You have to fight your companies flatter, without their own reserves, but generally it is hard to have a trailing platoon commit to the action in a meaningful manner without getting blasted in the same way as the first two, at least in my experience. So I'm not losing much doing that.

The downside is that I usually don't care enough to run battalion-level scenarios.