karch Posted December 24, 2002 Share Posted December 24, 2002 I was wondering what people would think about unbalanced games as an option. Think of the Germans in the second half of the war.. outnumbered, nearly surrounded, performing a delaying action against an advancing enemy. Do your best to hold off the enemy, inflict as many casualties and get off the map before too many troops are killed. The scoring would have to take into account: - turns holding back the enemy - how many enemy troops you killed - how many of your troops were killed - how many of your troops got off the map - how many of the enemy troops followed ou off the map I've seen posts that some managed game system do this and I'd love to occasionally get a no win game that you have to carefully extricate yourself from. Maybe you don't even know it will play out this way. Maybe occasionally your enemy will get 50% more troops and you just have to deal with it.. It would be a killer if you were attacking and find out your enemy is stronger than you. Could make reccon much more important. Come to think of it, I think it would be even better if it just happened sometimes. You shouldn't always know you will be meeting an even opponent. Any thoughts anyone? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hans Posted December 25, 2002 Share Posted December 25, 2002 Perhaps what is needed is a purely random fight-one of the annoying aspects of the system is you know the enemy is launching an attack etc, ie this tells you about how much stuff he has. I believe there should be an option to obtain NO information, yeah unbalance Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
karch Posted December 25, 2002 Author Share Posted December 25, 2002 sorry, no caps.. typing with one hand... 2 month old baby in other... good point hans , but rather than random, what if, occasionally, you pick a me and realize quickly your opponent has about 50% more troops than you... or more. made that dash to the flags kinda bad. You would then realize the victory conditions were for you to inflict as many casualties but exit the map as late as possible... it could make you really think on your feet and not really know what's in a particular game even if you picked it. Obviously it could be turned off if wanted, like casualties are now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hans Posted December 25, 2002 Share Posted December 25, 2002 I guess what I'd be interested in is limiting my knowledge of what I'm attacking or whats coming at me, kinda of a "card counting" exercise in some battles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Schoerner Posted December 25, 2002 Share Posted December 25, 2002 Absolutely no information about the opponent as an option? - excellent idea! Randomized points of the oponent? - great idea. Randomized battletype and no information about it or rudimentary informations ("hold position", "attack enemy") only, that could turn out to be wrong on the battlefield? - great. Relative victory calculations instead of absolute ones (say, you have to attack a dug in enemy even stronger than you - if you gain a partial success or weaken him without losing to much own men (ratio of losses?), in reality this would be a great success for a single tactical battle - in CM the absolute calculation of all forces on the battlefield doesn't allow such "victories". This would be great. I think such quite simple to implement ideas would bring the multiplayer gaming another big step forward. IMO, in the meantime there are so many good ideas, that i would definately buy CM3 with the current graphics engine, if some of them would be implemented (relative spotting, multiplayer campaign mode similar to Biltong's rules, full battle video review, Ultrarealistic FOW incl. ideas from this thread, AI-script-support for scenario designers). Come on BTS, don't let us wait 2 years due to new graphics. Keep the old ones, use the excellent CMBO mods-out there and bring back the western front with such an enhanced engine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leit Posted December 25, 2002 Share Posted December 25, 2002 I vote for strategic online server in arborne assault style. Some number of players assigne conected people to operate with battlegroops they move. So strategic level good comand woud give you unballansed enemy, air support, artillery and so on The main target - to win large scale battle. (Kursk, Normandy, Kiev, Smolensk, Moskav, Berlin, Marketgarden...) [ December 25, 2002, 02:55 PM: Message edited by: Leit ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts