Close Combat Series :: View topic - 30 min battles vs. 15 min battles

through

[^/[Print]\]

Close Combat Series -> Close Combat 5: Invasion Normandy

#1: 30 min battles vs. 15 min battles Author: shah,

Posted: Tue Jan 06, 2009 12:15 am
—
What do you guys think is better? Pros? Cons? I've been playing 30 minute battles and it seems to make defence tougher.

#2: Author: Polemarchos, Location: Polemarchopolis

Posted: Tue Jan 06, 2009 12:51 am
—
15 min imo... campaign with OST truppen is diffcult to last 30 mins... even in reality a whole battalion is hard to be disabanded in 30 mins, ost truppen or not

there are however special opponents where 30 mins is ok. these guys either push you every secind or just need more time to launch a splendid attack... And there you have the point: 30mins offers an advantage for the stronger force, which usually is the attacker.

"Guerrilas trade territory for time"... and it is the same for overpowered conventional armies.
So the defender benefits from less time. the attacker doesnt. Since the attacker predemonately has numerical superiority on his side, time should favor the defender.

-->my vote for 15 mins

#3: Author: shah,

Posted: Tue Jan 06, 2009 2:43 am
—
yeah, that makes sense. Thanks Polemarchos!
Although does it work out in the campaign? I mean if you had 15 minute battles, would the game feel balanced or would it switch over to the defenders favor?

#4: Author: Polemarchos, Location: Polemarchopolis

Posted: Tue Jan 06, 2009 4:23 am
—
i'd say that 15 mins promises a more balanced campaign, but that may be just my impression.

you could also set the clock to 20 mins, which is a good compromise.
(save campaign, edit save file, done)

#5: Author: DAK_Von_Manteuffel, Location: Zaragoza (España)

Posted: Tue Jan 06, 2009 9:08 am
—
I think that 15 minutes or 20 minutes is the time, which balances the campaign. The longer, more facilities for the attacker more time to capture field. I think the downward force of battle, is less intense, more relaxed.

#6: Author: Kojusoki,

Posted: Tue Jan 06, 2009 12:13 pm
—
I think 30min games are more realistic. You have time to sneak, both must save ammo (especially MGs). It is pretty important mainly for the attacker side. When you eliminate main threats, you can only then advance. And what when time runs out...

#7: Author: Tippi-Simo, Location: Helsinki

Posted: Tue Jan 06, 2009 12:41 pm
—
When playing a campaign 15 minutes is more than enough.
Single battle can be better with 30minutes.

#8: Author: Pzt_Kevin_dtn, Location: USA

Posted: Fri Jan 16, 2009 11:59 pm
—
15 min is the way to go because typically a BG would be able to move in reinforcements into an area that is being heavily infiltrated. A 15 min battle mimics that capability. 30 min is too advantageous to the attacking or stronger force because it doesn't allow for your opponent to bring up more reinforcements for the follow up battle (that's assuming a disbandment occurs). Also bare in mind that disbandment rules disolve a BG sending them back to supply lines to respawn the next morning. So its not like they retreat back a map and regroup on the neighboring map. Their gone from the lines and have to regroup completely back at supply.

#9: Author: killerpostie,

Posted: Sat Jan 17, 2009 3:17 pm
—
15 minute battles are the way to go, if you need any longer then you're doing it wrong,

#10: Author: Kojusoki,

Posted: Sat Jan 17, 2009 3:34 pm
—
Well, if yo uuse your man as cannon fodder its enough... If you play with ambushes and crawling -15 min not too much time...

Close Combat Series -> Close Combat 5: Invasion Normandy

output generated using printer-friendly topic mod. All times are GMT

Page 1 of 1