tuhhodge Posted April 10, 2003 Share Posted April 10, 2003 Yes, you've guessed it, in my humble opinion playing on a small map with a few platoons gives you so much more of the 'hands-on' flavour of the game than playing a 5000 point battle! I've only just realised it - always thought bigger was better.... [ April 10, 2003, 11:17 AM: Message edited by: tuhhodge ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phantom Captain Posted April 10, 2003 Share Posted April 10, 2003 To tell the truth, I used to love the small battles best but in the past 6 months or so I've come to change my tune. My favorite battles now are definately medium size combined arms. I love battles that involve 3-4 companies with support. These always seem to break down into 2-3 smaller "battles". Plus the maps almost always have plenty of room for manuever and tactical adjustment. Definately the most fun IMO. Like you said, I also agree that huge battles become very hard to manage with so many units running around. I did play one in the Stalingrad Pack though that was huge but was very engrossing and entertaining. It took over 17 hours though!! A good 2000-3000 pointer on a nice map is definately the way to go if you ask me! [ April 10, 2003, 11:29 AM: Message edited by: Lord Dragon ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyD Posted April 10, 2003 Share Posted April 10, 2003 Have you ever tried constructing a tiny scenario with just a couple sharpshooters in a jeep 'on a mission'? It practically feels like a shooter game! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tuhhodge Posted April 10, 2003 Author Share Posted April 10, 2003 Ah, you're both right, there are two extremes and both have their plusses and minusses I suppose. What would be nice, would be reinforcements in a small or medium QB. Then you could have the benefits of both 'scales'. At the moment it seems you have to design your own battle to get reinforcements. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bogdan Posted April 10, 2003 Share Posted April 10, 2003 Originally posted by tuhhodge: Yes, you've guessed it, in my humble opinion playing on a small map with a few platoons gives you so much more of the 'hands-on' flavour of the game than playing a 5000 point battle! I've only just realised it - always thought bigger was better.... I agree : I've experienced a 400 points "combined forces" battle, where I took the attacking germans. </font>Medium tree coverage</font>Medium hills</font>Random damages</font> The battle began on july 1944, day overcast. The mission was : "Take this hill full of craters !" I chose : </font>1 x Sturm Kompanie</font>2 x Antitank team</font>2 x 81mm mortar</font>1 x Stug III G</font> ...the result : BIG FUN ! This type of engagement is nice if you prefer a short - hard battle where you must preserve your forces. When you have two or three company, the loss of a few men is not so bad. But here, it's a disaster ! Cheers. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phantom Captain Posted April 10, 2003 Share Posted April 10, 2003 Always play designed scenarios!! Nothing else comes close. Death to Quick Battles!! I very very rarely if ever play QB's. I even love unbalanced scenarios. Gives more a flavor for the real war and makes you really think how you can succeed. Scenarios are the only way to go. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.