Cross Link Scenarios: Timeline/Core army evolution

[wulfir]

Pyros said:
What is your opinion?

One possibility could be to use, apart from the HQ, AUX units for the first few scenarios if the intention is to assume the role of an advisor or special forces group...???

However, I haven't quite got it straight yet if the core forces is meant to be drawn from the entire 1 Cav Div or a particular Bn within the division...?


An observation on helicopters I've made through PBEM is that they are highly popular with new players, particulary the Russian players , and while it's easy to clobber the AI with air assaults few seem to master the art against a human opponent - I have yet to see a successful helicopter air assault carried out against a human opponent. Seasoned PBEM gamers do not seem to favour the helicopter assault to the same degree...

For reasons of attraction to the campaign I don't think helicopters are a drawback (everyone loves the chopper, right!?), it's the Air Cav after all..., from a designing point of view though I'm in favour of a few "non-helicopter scenarios"...

[Pyros]

Ok then,
Here is a very early proposal to use as a base of further discussions:
(1 UH-1d Huey has lift capacity 12...)


ToO No1: 1x AirCav Pl(M):
4x Airmobile rifle
2x recoilles rifle
or
ToO No1: 1x Rifle Platoon:
Rifle squad
3xinfantry
1xInfAT
1xMachinegun

ToO No2: Choice 2xUH-1b gunship(or AirCav Spt (M)) & 2xOH-13 or 105mm platoon


ToO No3: additional 1x AirCav Pl(M):
4x Airmobile rifle
2x recoilles rifle
or
ToO No3: 1x Rifle Platoon:
Rifle squad
3xinfantry
1xInfAT
1xMachinegun

ToO No4: Choice 105mm platoon or 1x AirCav Lift (5x UH-1D Huey)

ToO No5: Choice 155mm platoon or Strike element & AirCav Spt(M)

ToO No6 ...
ToO No7...
etc...

p.s Up to ToO No3 we will provide airlift as aux and we may design specific missions.
p.s At ToO no4 the player may choose to add an Airlift platoon.
p.s By "choice" the player may select his next core force addition by the mechanism of the 1-turn scenario.
What do you think?

[Listy]

My understanding is that the M72's where genraly dropped due to weight. and I've not heard of the Aircav taking RCL's or baazokas.

[Pyros]

Listy,

We have to use what the stock OOB provides us...

If we reject the (US OoB) AirCav Pl(M)(4x Airmobile rifle, 2x recoilles rifle);
is the (US OoB) Rifle Platoon (1x Rifle squad, 3x infantry, 1x InfAT/flamethrower?, 1x Machinegun)
a better choice?

If not what do you propose?

p.s I don't think that the cavalry scouts are good enough for infantry combat...

cheers,

[wulfir]

Pyros said:
p.s By "choice" the player may select his next core force addition by the mechanism of the 1-turn scenario.

Just to make sure, does this in practice mean that the player will get a different amount of build points to expand his core with or...?

[Pyros]

Hi Ulf,

Actually NO,

Because the amount of points between the multiple choices will be in balance.
Also don't forget that the adjustable difficulty will "slow down" or "help" the evolution of the player's core force, so in fact we don't have to be so concerned about his choices!
The advantage with the "multiple-choices build up" of the core force army will be the replay-ability of the campaign and the if you combine this with the "adjustable difficulty" and the "random renforcement designing technique", then we will have a very strong campaign "package".

p.s IMO the adjustable difficulty may even allow a free/open core force but this is another story...

p.s What do you propose for the ToO No1 starting core force?

cheers,
Pyros

[FJ_MD]

So, here some units that may be suitable:


September 1965

USMC

(203)Recon team (327,328,329,330) 216 points
(93) Rifle platoon (760,440,309) 105 points


USA

(750) MG section (493) 15 points
(200) Rifle PL VN (432,422,415) 45 points
(255) Aircav PL (M) (378,778) 78 points
(86) Patrol (215) 36 points


This is a rough list of the unit in the official OOB that may be suitable for the core army.


Davide

[wulfir]

Pyros said:
...so in fact we don't have to be so concerned about his choices!

Ok, that's good.