AAR: The Curse of the Delay

[Ravindau]

Originally Posted by Imp

You said it yourself engaging lone units with 1 & a half platoons being the stiff resistance.

You got this upside down. The strongest resistance was the 1 1/2 plts I mentioned, but I was of course engaging them with my entire company+ & ACs.

I don´t think reducing map width from 30 to 20 hexes would have made a big difference.

And yes, one could fiddle with the settings. But shouldn´t the official settings be balanced so as to be fit for tournament style play between humans, as much as possible?

As it stands, I doubt anyone would be happy to play the delaying side in a generated game in a tournament...

[Imp]

Originally Posted by Ravindau

You got this upside down. The strongest resistance was the 1 1/2 plts I mentioned, but I was of course engaging them with my entire company+ & ACs.

I don´t think reducing map width from 30 to 20 hexes would have made a big difference.

And yes, one could fiddle with the settings. But shouldn´t the official settings be balanced so as to be fit for tournament style play between humans, as much as possible?

As it stands, I doubt anyone would be happy to play the delaying side in a generated game in a tournament...

Okay take a breath
I fully understood thats what you did.

Adjusting the settings makes a big difference, I have said several times in this forum 1 out of 3 generated battles vs the AI can be very good probably because the factors are about right.

They are not official settings you can & should adjust map size turns etc to suite the battle you generate.

You are right in that I would not have liked to play that battle as defender l do not have enough units to do anything but sit there deployed close to VP. That map would be terribly boaring just sitting there waiting for you to approach, L0S does not extend far from VP area.

You have learnt for your tastes you need to reduce the number of turns & if you want to make the VP for that battle more important set timed objectives to around the halfway mark. For generated battles nothing is written in stone adjust it so it gives you a challenge.
On a side note vs a human setting timed objectives high in an engagement battle forces them to go for them if they have a habbit of playing engagements like a delay.

Its not an RTS game sides are rarely balanced & delays can go right or wrong sometimes badly so, unexpected avenue of approach can cause major headaches especially if your mainly on foot so manuvering is slow

Delay is fine in most cases, though some map visibility combinations make it a virtualy impossible task, in real life you just would not choose to defend there so dont play it.

Tournament is easy enough play it mirrored, both players play it from both sides to see who does better.

[Ravindau]

Imp: Sorry for misreading you seemingly misunderstanding one of my posts.

DRG & Imp: What I think is you assume that the defender has a large inherent advantage *even if not allowed to dig in*. Whereas I believe this is simply not the case.

Ironically, you are so well entrenched in your opinion that I could bombard you with battalions of evidence and wouldn´t change your mind an inch.

I wonder what would happen if I proposed to add an improvised dug-in state that a leg unit can enter if it is stationary for 5 turns or so. I suppose that is so heretic that it would cause heads to explode.

Wait a minute, I think i can predict your answer: "This feature has already been suggested n times n years ago, and we didn´t include it because we didn´t want to."

Was I close?