majog Wrote:definitely the booze talking... how would you get a winner?
One player would have to surrender or call it (just a win/loss). Each would have to take calculated losses to determine what is acceptable (it would be like a real commander trying to minimize loss of life); perhaps the scores can be adjusted for losses only instead of objectives. e.g. given the level of force each player has at the start, he can then attempt to establish and hold a bridge-head. This way if losses are mounting, one could retreat from the bridge head or break off the defensive attack. At which point the player less confident of his success or the one starting to run away with victory can call the game, then compare losses.
Its just a thought but I can see it opening up new horizons on tactics and it would only work if both sides were evenly matched. A player could decide to engage in a two pincer move or decide to engage in a fighting retreat to preserve his troops for the next battle. It would be like a boxing match in which one fighter would know he is beaten and stop before he is killed or commits suicide.
I like thinking about things like this. Perhaps others have better ideas.
LOL
The only problem I see is if two players are timid and don't want to fight to avoid loses.
Fierce
Archived Forums
Help
Calendar
Member List
Search
){kind=link}
