 |
|
Game length - Printable Version +- Forums (https://www.theblitz.club/message_boards) +-- Forum: The Firing Line (https://www.theblitz.club/message_boards/forumdisplay.php?fid=1) +--- Forum: Combat Mission (https://www.theblitz.club/message_boards/forumdisplay.php?fid=10) +--- Thread: Game length (/showthread.php?tid=38244) Pages:
1
2
|
RE: Game length - Colonel Talvela - 12-21-2006 for a 2K point attack I like 30 turns. I think the attacker needs to feel rushed. For assaults, I want either less time or harder assaulting conditions (mud or snow) to make up for the extra attacker points. Mcivan, I find it interesting that you advocate MORE time for the assault. Why is that? RE: Game length - McIvan - 12-21-2006 Flags are further back on the map, there are more of them, and the attacker is liable to have to negotiate a lot of obstacles. I've only played a couple of assault games, but it seemed to me that the attacker needs a little more time than a standard attack. RE:��Game length - The Coil - 12-21-2006 RE: Game length - Soldier - 12-22-2006 In response to Coil's message; Agree that it is a matter of preference, as far as which of the two evils one is willing to live with, etc. I for one choose to keep the game balance intact, over the so called rushing the flag in the last turn "thingy".. :-) (just my opinion) RE:��Game length - Colonel Talvela - 12-22-2006 RE: Game length - McIvan - 12-22-2006 Well, the extra distance has to be walked, and it means that units have less time to take one flag and then swing right or left to take more. I also reckon that defence in depth does make a difference and its a rare commander that won't keep some reserve assets hidden right to point blank range. In addition, at a certain depth in a map, an attacker will start moing very cautiously as they feel out enemy positions. That last distance will generally be covered pretty slowly. Anways, its all open to negotiation between players, but that's my impression of it. |
){kind=link}