Guest Germanboy Posted September 4, 2000 Share Posted September 4, 2000 Right, I have been thinking (bad idea, I know) about the point allocation in QBs, and I think a bit of randomising would be nice. Currently if you have a purely infantry force, you can not buy any tanks, but if you have a combined arms force your infantry points are limited. I find myself playing a lot of battles in which the defender has a pure infantry force. For sake of FOW/nasty surprises, I think it would be a good idea if a random portion of purchase points for the defender are allocated to vehicles or tanks (say 0-10%). In a 900 point battle you would then have to expect enemy armor (as you would have had to in reality) and adjust your attacking force mis accordingly, by maybe buying a TD or Sherman Firefly instead of just the nice infantry pounders. As far as I know, lone Stugs were encountered in infantry defense lines and this would be reflected by such a device. Any thoughts? ------------------ Andreas Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Juju Posted September 4, 2000 Share Posted September 4, 2000 I like it! But why not randomize all assets to a 0-10% level. Would make it even more FOW, maybe. ------------------ Der ver zwei peanuts, valking down der Strasse, and von vas...assaulted! peanut. Ho-ho-ho-ho. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kurtz Posted September 4, 2000 Share Posted September 4, 2000 That could work if the suggested percentage was the minimum points the player could spend on tanks (with maximum points allocated as before). Otherwise you could end up with 45 pts (5 % of 900 pts) that you have to spend on tanks, and there is not many tanks available at bargain prices. But it´s a nice idea, more FOW regarding your opponents force is welcome. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Germanboy Posted September 4, 2000 Share Posted September 4, 2000 Kurtz, I thought about that. I think the point is not that you have to buy a tank, but that the attacker knows you may have done that. After all, he won't know that you only had 45 points, for all he knows it could have been 90 and there may be a Stug/TD around. To get around the problem with small-scale battles, make it 0-20% for any battle smaller than say 800 points. ------------------ Andreas Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kurtz Posted September 4, 2000 Share Posted September 4, 2000 Perhaps I am misunderstanding something here? Is it your suggestion that a infantry force could have a chance to have some armour around? This feature wouldn´t be needed if Combined Arms is choosen since they have points allocated to armour, am I right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Germanboy Posted September 4, 2000 Share Posted September 4, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kurtz: Perhaps I am misunderstanding something here? Is it your suggestion that a infantry force could have a chance to have some armour around? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> That's what I am saying. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kurtz: This feature wouldn´t be needed if Combined Arms is choosen since they have points allocated to armour, am I right?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Yes, you could say that, but I find that the balance in point allocation is too even for my taste. I want to be able to: a) have a strong infantry defence with a weak or very weak armour element. This is a problem at the moment at combined arms, especially for the US, because of the size of the support element in the infantry platoon/Coy. have my opponent (who knows the setting for my force) wonder whether there might not be one or two tanks around. This could be achieved through a random function on the Quick Battle screen. So what I suggest is not radically different, just opening more options for FOW in QBs. Actually, the same goes for infantry only attacks. If you and your opponent agree to that, the defender knows he won't have to splash out on AT guns/AT teams, because there can be no tanks. Again, a slight random point allocation would introduce uncertainty, which is all I want. Uncertainty is good. ------------------ Andreas Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts