mooxe wrote (View Post): |
Breaking them down into more than two catagories waters the debate down. Just compare and size small map to any size large map and think of the advantages and disadvantages (theories) of your attack or defence. |
Profetkaninen wrote (View Post): |
I think the biggest problem with the current small and medium sized maps is they don't give much room to manoeuvre. This gives both the defender and attacker very few options. The attacker can't encircle or flank very well and the defender cant use hit and ambush tactics in any real sense. The fight use to be concentrated on a few key locations on each map and tends to get fairly static.
Though a large or huge map with more units 30 or more would hardly be enjoyable because of the extensive micro management that would require. Introducing a boosted AI that could control your forces on the map while you focus on the most important area could help. But that will in a sense change the scope of the game to a level equal to what you see when hitting the zoom out (minus) button. A reasonable fix in my opinion is to greatly enhance the macro level of the game that you control in the "Strategic" view. This part of the game is the weakest link giving very few options. I've only played CC2 and CC5, but between them CC2 at least gives you some connection between the battles and the strategic map. In CC5 it's fight till the end, in CC2 you could as germans ambush the allies blow the bridge and leave the map. Or as allies if all your AT teams are gone and the germans come after you with tanks you withdraw from the map and reinforce. If the strategic level of the game would give more of the options that you would have with huge battlemaps and those options would affect the battles then fighting small maps to get a strategic advantage would be more enjoyable. |
output generated using printer-friendly topic mod. All times are GMT