scooleen Posted February 23, 2001 Share Posted February 23, 2001 Last night I was playing a tank slugfest, which was labelled as Medium, with only 20 turns. If I stick to the scenario default, all of my armour was jammed to one road, and seven of my turns would be consumed just getting my strategy ready. ( I prefer hooking moves to attacking flanks). Is it cheesy to remove the stick to scenario default, and set up your tanks/armour in a more agreeable fashion? Up to now I have been sticking to the sceario defaults for setup, but I hate having to wait so long to get my armour in position. It's kinda like taking a flight sim and speeding up the time so that it doesnt take so long to get to the battle. Some people enjoy that planning phase etc... But I just dont have the patience to do it. I suppose this makes me a farb/non-grog/whatever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Ron Posted February 23, 2001 Share Posted February 23, 2001 I always play them with the default settings as this is presumably how the author intended it. In your case you were drving down the road when... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Firefly Posted February 23, 2001 Share Posted February 23, 2001 Stick to default only applies to the AI, although some scenarios have your units locked in place. If you are allowed to move it, then move it if you think you know better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted February 23, 2001 Share Posted February 23, 2001 Haven't seen the term "farb" here before! What periods do you re-enact? There is nothing gamey about setting up your forces on your own; in fact it is encouraged. The setup by the scenario designer is just one approach to the problem; yours may be better or worse. If a battle can only be played successfully with one specific setup, it probably isn't worth playing. If it was really necessary for your troops to be set up in one specific place, the designer would have padlocked them. Personally, I HATE padlocked set ups. I can see doing it for things like fortifications, or for very small battles, but the planning phase is an important part of the battle, and if the game is well balanced, the setup can have a profound impact on how the game plays. Just another part of the challenge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisl Posted February 23, 2001 Share Posted February 23, 2001 I mostly agree about padlocks, but in many historical scenarios they're useful-- especially where one (or both) of the sides was caught while moving in- the padlock is used to force you to deal with a surprise. ------------------ "If you can taste the difference between caviar on a cracker and ketchup on a Kit-Kat while blindfolded, you have not had enough aquavit to be ready for lutefisk." (stolen from some web page about lutefisk) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted February 23, 2001 Share Posted February 23, 2001 Yes, you make a good point. There are times you need to padlock certain units for "historical effect", if you will. ------------------ http://wargames.freehosting.net/cmbits.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts