Jeff Heidman Posted October 11, 2002 Share Posted October 11, 2002 1. When ANY unit attacks another, it should be spotted for the next turn, with the exception of subs. 2. It should be apparent to your opponent if a given unit does not have HQ support, so it can be preferentially attacked. HQs should be more important than they are; make players pay a price for buying 25 corps and only providing HQs for 10 of them. Jeff Heidman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pzgndr Posted October 13, 2002 Share Posted October 13, 2002 1. When ANY unit attacks another, it should be spotted for the next turn, with the exception of subs. 2. It should be apparent to your opponent if a given unit does not have HQ support, so it can be preferentially attacked. HQs should be more important than they are; make players pay a price for buying 25 corps and only providing HQs for 10 of them. I'll disagree on both. Sometimes it's useful to use FOW to your advantage and force the enemy to risk surprise contact. Besides, the situation can change quickly. Just pay attention to what happened last turn as "good intel" and plan accordingly. Knowing which units have HQ support would instantly lead to a game tactic of attacking units without HQ support. This cure may be worse than the ailment. You can already use air to spot HQs and make an educated guess about supported units, so again plan accordingly. FOW makes this game exceptionally interesting; I prefer to leave it alone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jollyguy Posted October 13, 2002 Share Posted October 13, 2002 I agree the opponent should not know who has HQ support. But I also agree with a previous poster who said you should be able to assign your HQ to the desired units if you don't like the computers default assigns. That's a strategic decision that fits a strategic game. I'm also of the opinion now that a player should be able to assign an air unit an area of patrol, and not be drawn into interceptions that he doesn't want to fight. Again, a strategic level decision. If the enemy reached down into that patrol zone, the air units intercept whether you like it or not. But if you only want to provide air cover one or two or three units out, you should have that option. I.e., lets take Malta as an example. The big cheeses in London may decide after suffering crippling losses over the port, not to be drawn into port air battles again. They would issue orders accordingly, in the same fashion that they choose what areas to protect and not to protect during the Battle of Britain. When you have limited resources, you husband them carefully, and allocate them accordingly, in a very stingy manner. I am currently in a game where the Allies have level two jet air superiority over northern France, but haven't taken Brest yet. I have level 0 air units down by Borduex that aren't providing cover up north because its out of range, and because they'd get slaughtered. But it's nice that they're able to chip away at Allied units bombarding Brest from the southern side. All this would be an option. The computer would still do what it does automatically, so you would still have ease of play. But the player would also be allowed to do things differently if he choose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pzgndr Posted October 13, 2002 Share Posted October 13, 2002 Yes, changing default HQ links and toggling air escort/interception on/off for individual units would be great. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Heidman Posted October 14, 2002 Author Share Posted October 14, 2002 Originally posted by Bill Macon: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> 1. When ANY unit attacks another, it should be spotted for the next turn, with the exception of subs. 2. It should be apparent to your opponent if a given unit does not have HQ support, so it can be preferentially attacked. HQs should be more important than they are; make players pay a price for buying 25 corps and only providing HQs for 10 of them. I'll disagree on both. Sometimes it's useful to use FOW to your advantage and force the enemy to risk surprise contact. Besides, the situation can change quickly. Just pay attention to what happened last turn as "good intel" and plan accordingly. Knowing which units have HQ support would instantly lead to a game tactic of attacking units without HQ support. This cure may be worse than the ailment. You can already use air to spot HQs and make an educated guess about supported units, so again plan accordingly. FOW makes this game exceptionally interesting; I prefer to leave it alone.</font> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pzgndr Posted October 14, 2002 Share Posted October 14, 2002 And how is attacking units without HQ support "gamey"??? Well, it's not like enemy units flew big banners during the war indicating HQ support. It's not something you would or should know for certain. That's FOW. Gain air superiority, move air forward, and spot enemy HQs. Attack where HQs aren't. Another possible tactic is to look at the estimated attacker/defender losses at the top of the screen and exploit weaknesses that way. Not sure if these estimated losses account for all variables such as HQ support or not - maybe Hubert can enlighten us some day. I think there are other game issues that need to be resolved first before messing with FOW, like research. If USSR is building hoards of corps without HQs and armies, then they aren't developing much of a counter-attack capability that they'll need later. And if they don't have HQs anyway, why is knowledge about their HQ support or lack thereof an issue? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Heidman Posted October 14, 2002 Author Share Posted October 14, 2002 Originally posted by Bill Macon: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> And how is attacking units without HQ support "gamey"??? Well, it's not like enemy units flew big banners during the war indicating HQ support. It's not something you would or should know for certain. That's FOW. </font> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts