• Blitz Shadow Player
  • Caius
  • redboot
  • Rules
  • Chain of Command
  • Members
  • Supported Ladders & Games
  • Downloads


New Idea for ME's?
12-24-2010, 08:16 AM,
#11
RE: New Idea for ME's?
I like all the input...it all makes sense. I'm still working on a trial map (and will take your challenge for a test-run, Fubar, when I get one ready). I still like the idea of a small set-up zone (staging area)--which will hopefully limit a side simply racing straight ahead to the nearest flag. I'm going to make the 'center' flags all small, and put them on key terrain features (crossroads, ridgelines, large buildings, etc.), not just random locations. And I think I'll have just 1 large flag near each side's start zone (instead of 2), representing that side's immediate supply line (not a biggy in a 30-50 minute battle, but a key location nevertheless).

Still a work in progress!! :stir:

~MB...:pirate:
.
.
"Never put off till tomorrow what you can avoid doing entirely."
.
Quote this message in a reply
12-25-2010, 08:26 PM,
#12
RE: New Idea for ME's?
Better idea!

How you position the flags, it will alway's result in a race for this / these flag(s)!
Better is a ME without flags so you will receive only points for killed enemy vehicles & soldiers! Now you have to scout where the enemy is (find) move you heavy units in position and fix /strike!

Greets Owl
Quote this message in a reply
12-25-2010, 09:25 PM,
#13
RE: New Idea for ME's?
(12-23-2010, 01:44 PM)Splork Wrote: I've tried games with no flags at all - doesn't really work given how CM scores. Both sides tend to sit back in cover and wait for the other guy to move - the guy who gets hit moving is always going to end up on the short end of the casualty stick, and thus the scoring stick. I remember reading a post somewhere once about someone who tried a no-flag game - both sides crouched in the woods for a while until one player sniped the other causing one casualty, then they got bored and called a CF - it ended as a total loss for the guy who took the casualty because of the ratio scoring.

Maybe a required battle 'heat' can be simulated by declaring only games over a casualty point threshold count (e.g. 500). So the player who wins the initial skirmishes would be the likely winner and would be forced to collect enough kills. The other player would go onto the defense immediately, so the game will balance itself. Even the supposed roles can swing back and forth.
Quote this message in a reply
12-27-2010, 02:47 AM,
#14
RE: New Idea for ME's?
Recently played one with no flags. The Computer AI added some on it's own. We restarted with just one small flag in each side's corner, way out of reach...and the battle ground forward like WWI trench warfare once we met along a front. It seems to me, if there are several small flags towards the center, no one is going to go after them all, so (in theory) each side decides on a battle plan to execute, and goes from there. If there are only small flags out there, sitting on them alone isn't going to win anything...casualties will count for more. But several flags at least give some initial objectives. All still theory at this point....
.
.
"Never put off till tomorrow what you can avoid doing entirely."
.
Quote this message in a reply
12-27-2010, 05:12 AM,
#15
RE: New Idea for ME's?
With no flags, the games tend to be a sit and wait affair. Each side waiting for the other to expose his location and forces. I think that the flags are needed, but more thought can be put into their placement. Don't forget to look into some other games and how they were scored. I made my Pruth scenario (It is in the H2H section at the moment being playtested) along these lines. I have flags placed at objectives, but have also included a special that one of the flags must be held by one side in order to have a chance at winning. You could design games where multiple flags existed, yet one or more must be taken within say the first 10 turns or the game is over. If you want the games to be a knock down all out affair, place multiple large flags in one location, make sure that each side knows about it then they will be focused on that one location, and will be rewarded for it in points. Just think outside the box a little and I am sure that you will be able to come up with something. I have always found that most maps are too wide and not deep enough, specially not deep enough with reguards to each side's setup zones. I have a chart somewhere that shows examples of widths of frontages for various size forces(battalion, company, regiment) in the attack and in defence. It is quite shocking to see how narrow some of these frontages were on the attack, as well as how spread out some of the defences were as well.
Quote this message in a reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)