What do you think of a 1 to 1 ratio mod on a hex based strategic map? | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
Total Votes : 9 |
Ivan_Zaitzev wrote (View Post): |
Being able to load vehicles is overrated. And in LSA you don't have to use blowable bridges if you don't want to. |
Strat Vipurii test copy.jpg | ||
Description: |
|
|
Filesize: | 301.16 KB | |
Viewed: | 10156 Time(s) | |
buuface wrote (View Post): |
The ability to stack, merge ad swap around battle groups (which LSA provides) would certainly add to the playability and realism of a project like this. |
Therion wrote (View Post): | ||
Wouldn't merging battlegroups change the whole 1 battlegroup = 1 company thing? |
Dima wrote (View Post): |
Hmm, the combat elements of a Company would roughly form 1,5 active rosters (15 units). So basically BGs will be destroyed in 2-3 intensive combats maximum, unless it plans to have very heavy offboard elements, so most of the teams would just act as spotters. |
buuface wrote (View Post): |
In my experience of playing custom operations/campaigns in CC3-LSA, having a strategy arrangement whereby both sides start on an even footing with roughly even strength groups could well result in, as you suggested, a great slug-fest back and forth over a very small amount of territory (which believe me, gets old very fast). This issue will be exasperated by 3 bridge maps (ie choke points) which you have produced on draft strategy map. If a group does manage to break through and across the river it will likely be too spent to continue much further.
What usually works better imho is one side on the attack, with the defending forces intialliy weaker but with stronger groups arriving afterwards creating the possiblity of a counter-attack and/or effecting an encriclement or the attacking force. RD_Overkensin |
output generated using printer-friendly topic mod. All times are GMT