Page 2 of 4
Posted: Sun Dec 26, 2004 11:16 pm
Yes - there are ways to make this happen TMTM
Posted: Tue Jan 04, 2005 8:49 am
I lean towards having more units rather than less. I believe fewer units would lead to a concentration of those units on a few key areas, leaving large regions of the board empty, which I don’t like to see. Also, battles with fewer units are more dependent on chance, whereas I want a game that is decided more by intelligent marshalling of resources.
Posted: Tue Jan 04, 2005 4:54 pm
I want more units but want to avoid the tactic of waiting "sitzkreig" with large hordes of infantry guarding the gates. It really makes for a static battlefield condition, and was a resaon for the changes on the revised map in Russia (e.g. kariella/ eastern europe) I especially want more naval units.The main idea is to give the incentive for a nation to build a more varied mix of pieces, and to provide reasons why they should... One way is to end the idea of 1-2 infantry into 3-4, so the defensive cheap builds solely on infantry will not work anymore.
Posted: Tue Jan 04, 2005 9:25 pm
I'm confident that AA&A will address these issues. I completely agree with both of you and see the value in your positions./
Posted: Tue Jan 04, 2005 10:23 pm
i love it!!
Posted: Tue Jan 04, 2005 11:14 pm
Sitzkreig - That one took me moment.
Posted: Wed Jan 05, 2005 9:19 am
I should have said that I regard AAR as very well balanced in this respect - very few empty areas, but not too many big stacks.
However, as IL said, navies still tend to suffer from wipeout. I think sensible defender retreat rules should solve this problem.
Posted: Wed Jan 05, 2005 12:17 pm
Yes – Both Attacker and Defender being able to retreat will have many positive impacts on the game indeed. I do of course wonder about what negative impacts it will have. I want the navy to not be “wipedout” I’m reducing cost and incorporating other concepts to keep them alive. The retreat ability is probably the most impactful element todate.