Michael Dorosh Posted February 26, 2001 Share Posted February 26, 2001 I like this idea so much I'm making it a seperate thread. In addition to the current quick battle types (attack, defend, ME, probe) how about "fall back defence" where the attacker starts at one end of a map, and the defender starts say 1 or 200 metres away, with the objective flags at the far end of the map. The defender would get points for exiting and AI (whether on attack or defence) would have incentive to move to the flags. Or would the AI not behave properly in this case? I am still testing a conversion of SL scenario 40, which simulates an American evacuation of a river bridgehead; the AI seemed to handle the Germans ok (because I included assault boats, the AI can't play American). I think it would be a nice variation and provide some unique tactical challenges. What other QB types have been suggested, or can you guys think of? Edit - actually, having hit submit, I now get the sinking suspicion this has been discussed in depth before - apologies in advance; please address all flames to my email address - much easier to delete them there! ------------------ CANUCK: Clothing, Equipping and Employing the Canadian Soldier in Combat Mission [This message has been edited by Michael Dorosh (edited 02-26-2001).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alexander Posted February 26, 2001 Share Posted February 26, 2001 What other QB types have been suggested, or can you guys think of? A QB with Random Attacker. You notice, on the various ladders, that players are reluctant to defend because defending has acquired, rightly or wrongly, a bad rep. Therefore you end up playing those Meeting Engagements over and over and over. I don't know how this would be implemented, however. I guess it would require an additional email at the start. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cos Posted February 27, 2001 Share Posted February 27, 2001 Originally posted by Alexander: A QB with Random Attacker. You notice, on the various ladders, that players are reluctant to defend because defending has acquired, rightly or wrongly, a bad rep. Therefore you end up playing those Meeting Engagements over and over and over. I don't know how this would be implemented, however. I guess it would require an additional email at the start. 109 Gustav mentions using a 3rd party where the 2 players agree to play QB map in another topic (sorry not sure how to link, doing a cut/paste). Originally posted by 109 Gustav: Yes, you have to have a 3rd person set up the map. Both sides mail the 3rd party their unit selections, and he will put them on the custom map. I think it might work for picking a random attacker. Pick your units and have the 3rd party pick (radomly of course) attacker/defender. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
North Star Posted February 27, 2001 Share Posted February 27, 2001 How about "Counter-Attack"? Say the defending side can delay for some of their units entry while paying reduced cost for the reinforcing units. For example, units arriving halfway through the QB may only cost 50% or 75% of normal cost. Both sides are time sensitive and the game momentum can turn! ------------------ "Act after having made assessments. The one who first knows the measures of far and near wins - this the rule of armed struggle." Sun Tzu - The Art of War Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Michael emrys Posted February 27, 2001 Share Posted February 27, 2001 Originally posted by North Star: How about "Counter-Attack"? Say the defending side can delay for some of their units entry while paying reduced cost for the reinforcing units. For example, units arriving halfway through the QB may only cost 50% or 75% of normal cost. Both sides are time sensitive and the game momentum can turn! Hmmm. This sounds kinda like my "conditional reinforcements" suggestion I made a few days back. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts