RightDeve Wrote:So, what about you guys? Are you tired of staring at those thousands of toys on the purchase screen?
Cheers, Zain Abdillah
Never get tired of that. I keep finding cool new toys I didn't know before.
On the whole planning thing I completely agree with you. The single most determining factor in the outcome of a game is the time/effort spent in planning.
The phrase that 'no plan survives contact with the enemy' is supposed to be a metaphor telling you to be prepared for surprises and to incorporate flexibility in your plan. But it's gotten to be taken at it's literal meaning, which is silly IMO. Battle plans always assume contact at some point. It's not as if a plan then suddenly becomes useless. On the contrary, I fully believe that he who doesn't plan will lose. Planning for contingency is planning too.
Planning shouldn't be confused by players with scouring the OB's for the best buys in general though, buys should be matched to the overall plan. I'll give a very simple example; most players in most games seem to want as many of their units to be able to take out as many sorts of enemy units as possible. In practice that means they equip all their infantry with the most powerful AT weapon possible, and buy the heaviest AT guns (only) and get the heaviest armor (usually focused on the biggest gun). They also get plenty of AT teams with the heaviest stuff. Which is a complete waste of points and bad planning. You only need so much heavy AT capacity. Beyond that (and you really don't need a whole lot) you're far better of spending the additional points on other stuff.
I do love it when a plan comes together (to loosely quote a great general :whis:).
Narwan