Re: Buying Defensive Features for Meeting Engagements
 

Perhaps another possibilty is to create a 4th battle type. It could be called 'Front Line Battle' or something.

A 'Front Line Battle' would have:

• Close to centre start lines
• Even points for both sides
• Defensive features available for both players

Sorry for the multiple posts. I should have thought through the idea before posting it. :doh:


Cross

Re: Buying Defensive Features for Meeting Engagements
 

The way I see it it's more the forums fault than your fault.The tiny lttle editing window they give you to modify a post is unacceptable. If that didn't exsist you wouldn't have to post again.

Re: Buying Defensive Features for Meeting Engagements
 

Assume you mean time period here, can understand why they do it some people will abuse & change original post tis the way of the world.

Re: Buying Defensive Features for Meeting Engagements
 

Cross I can sort of see what you are going for but I think much like several of my ideas the time to implement vs the time it saves the end user is a factor. OK you cant do it in a campaign but you could do it in the editor.
If they would be willing to put the time in for new deployment perhaps some thought on what exactly so one change covers all.

Example off the top of my head
New meeting type called user which allows you to adjust points for fortifications start lines etc. No idea of the ramifications of moving the start line which currently can only be done in a user campaign, may need some serious work on AI deploy routines.

In an AI campaign you could do this by creating one (requires work) but a PBEM campaign no to my knowledge.

Lets assume the majority of play is vs the AI so that has to take priority then adapt if possible for PBEM whats needed as a one stop fill all the holes engagement.
The ability to toggle on off the abilities you want as in this thread.
Perhaps the ability per battle for players vs AI to switch buying for AI side to human computer or allow you to buy part of its force & it finnishes it. Perhaps the ability to choose the next battle type or set probablities based on outcome of previos battle sure there are others people would like sorry garbled but posting on the fly here. Realy I suppose a campaign that allows you to do a sort of user campaign on the fly.

My thought is to make viable to even be considered has to be a one stop shop look at the problems which occured giving us PBEM campaigns this is bound to happen with any tinkering I feel, bit diffrent to adding another thing to "the list"

Re: Buying Defensive Features for Meeting Engagements
 

Sorry that was clear as mud meant define it precisly plus any other ideas. No real idea when it would occur but my thoughts more happened at specific time frames theatres like city seige otherwise uncommon. If this is the case half of your fortifications could in fact be out of position as in overun at the start of the battle as the lines have shifted.
Possibly a more common occurence is to allow both sides to dig in only as in fox holes. In both cases map generator should probably add a liberal sprinkling of shell holes, never as straight forward as initial thoughts:)

Re: Buying Defensive Features for Meeting Engagements
 

i do not think allowing to buy mines and other defensive units in other battles as the defensive ones is a good idea.

simply this does not fit the idea behind such battles.

however i think more variety in the types of battles would be interesting.

for examples corridor type battlesn when all units of a side have to escape from the battlefield.

or decisive victory hexes: you would have 1 to 3 victory hexes with huge point values so that anybody controlling them is guarantee to win decisively the game whatever its losses...

or defensive battles when the defenser is surrounded...

many other ideas could be developped, and as well many man hours time of coding would be required...

Re: Buying Defensive Features for Meeting Engagements
 

This idea is cool to have some extra def and adjustable startlines. I'm down with that!

I think for PBEM games we should organize some design for online play. Somehow we should simulate the "frontline" online

Re: Buying Defensive Features for Meeting Engagements
 

the flyingstartline idea is great! I think that would be cool.

Re: Buying Defensive Features for Meeting Engagements
 

Interesting! But it's good the way it is now. What I think the game needs is unit graphics that are at the same scale as the rest of the map. Perfection! That's what we need. Actually, the scale works just fine, it just takes awile for it to become second nature. I wonder how things look at diferent resolutions? Or how about with mass amounts of memory? Like on a main-frame computer?

Re: Buying Defensive Features for Meeting Engagements
 

I pressume that was a joke my eyesight is good but finding a tank would be difficult & as for Mr Snipper he would be 1 pixel very good at hiding even from his owner. Things would not look any better with huge memory the graphic overheads are small for this game but yes you should buy the CD for this if no other reason.
Look at your map fully zoomed out its a mess, now look at it fully zoomed in not bad. Buy the CD & fully zoomed out is as good as what you get zoomed in so seeing arty puffs of smoke is easy, zoomed in is crisp no eye strain.
Note to designers showing this in store or guide might boost sales dont think most people appreciate the huge diffrence in quality. To such a large extent that once bought MBT would not play WW2 till I bought it.