Jump to content

TRPs are now really cheap - intentional?


Recommended Posts

44 minutes ago, Bulletpoint said:

Has it always been that price? I could swear they used to be 150 points each. So they were a costly investment.

Well, they don't really belong on small maps, but on a larger map, 30 points with a 50m targeting radius is about right :)

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Kevin2k said:

150 points for 5 TRPs in CMFB v1.02

150 points for 5 TRPs in CMBN v3.12

Thanks for clearing this up. It seems I remembered things wrong. I always definitely believed they were 150 points each, and for that reason I never really used them... Thought they were an expensive luxury.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I also spent most of my CM years playing scenarios, where TRPs are rare and prized assets, so it's only now I realise they are so cheap in quick battles. This changes a lot for me, because I prefer playing infantry based defence. I think cheap TRPs change the dynamics of the game and basically make it a game of artillery and tanks.

I used to think there was this cool dynamic where you had to choose how to use your arty. Preplanned strikes are instant, surprising, can hit any place on the map, and can do airburst. The downside being that you have to be clever enough to guess where your opponent might be.

Calling in arty later, you need LOS, it takes time and spotting rounds, and it can't be airburst unless you have access to specialised artillery. With the preplanned, you could delay it so it would be mind game between you and your opponent if any arty would be incoming and where and when. To me, these kinds of choices equals good fun.

But with cheap TRPs, it seems nearly all good defensive positions can be covered by quick airburst artillery, and it means infantry defence becomes a lot less feasible. Of course, it also goes the other way - the defender can also use TRPs. Which turns any objective zone into a big meat grinder. A lot less focus on good infantry work, fire and movement, suppression, etc. Each infantry team is basically just a scout and bait for the other's artillery.

Maybe most players don't really run into this, as many play meeting engagements without TRPs. I just think maybe there are some gameplay balance dynamics that could be adjusted a bit here.

But as I only discovered this now, these are just some initial thoughts, not a criticism as such. I will play some more games to see how it works out.

Edited by Bulletpoint
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Bulletpoint said:

... I just think maybe there are some gameplay balance dynamics that could be adjusted a bit here. ...

Giving the AI some TRPs on the defence is a great way to beef it up.

I don't use TRPs much on the attack against the AI - it makes it a bit too easy.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well - on a medium-sized map, TRPs give rapid artillery fire without spotting round to obvious parts of the map, but their targeting range is a little limited. 5 TRPs will probably not cover every good siting point for AT guns, for example.

If you're playing with around 2000 points, imagine you have 2 mortar units, worth around 150 points each. For 150 points, you can afford another mortar unit, or two crack Forward Observers, or even a cheap HE-thrower tank or similar, more or less...

I think in the WWII setting, 30 points per TRP is about right - although on a very small map it spoils the game.

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Bulletpoint said:

But with cheap TRPs, it seems nearly all good defensive positions can be covered by quick airburst artillery, and it means infantry defence becomes a lot less feasible.


Admittedly I haven't played QBs in 3-4 years but I did play with people who used them pretty consistently and the end result was that I would try to avoid placing my men in obvious positions. Ideally this means that my opponent has wasted points on a TRP and still needs to call in via-LOS with the additional penalty of missing some points.

Its sort of the "Church tower question". Do you place your FO in this very obvious position with a great field of view but risk him getting killed almost instantly?

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, chi-chi said:


Admittedly I haven't played QBs in 3-4 years but I did play with people who used them pretty consistently and the end result was that I would try to avoid placing my men in obvious positions. Ideally this means that my opponent has wasted points on a TRP and still needs to call in via-LOS with the additional penalty of missing some points.

Its sort of the "Church tower question". Do you place your FO in this very obvious position with a great field of view but risk him getting killed almost instantly?

This is true, but then again, it means you can't really use any viable defensive positions.

Unless the map is really big, I'm thinking you end up having to deploy all your infantry out in the middle of fields, which is pretty useless and not what happened in the real war.

And if the map is indeed really big, both players will have way more points, so more TRPs.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...