Riley D. Smith Wrote:One other issue that crops up in my mind is game scale. I have played many games using the Campaign Series where we had multiple commanders (one monster we had 3 divisional commanders and one overall Army commander per side for a total of 6 players!). It was a great way to play a game of that scale (ie...divisional units and down). The sheer size of the map was daunting but it worked. The other problem is that playing a game that large (and it was like 30 or turns in length) was S-L-O-W.
In fact, we tragically had one of the actual players pass away (this was a Blitz player on the CS ladder) while involved in the game at which point we formally declared a truce and left the game where we stood at the time of his death in his honor. But I digress.
I don't believe that the Squad Battles framework/engine really is designed to cover engagements that large, which, IMO, is what makes this Squad Battles. I have really enjoyed up to Battalion sized engagements in this series but think that much larger than that and you begin to dilute what makes the smaller scale so inviting in the first place.
That said, it doesn't seem that there are that many "mixed forces" (ie..nationalities, different service branch, etc) that you would be dealing with at the Battalion level and lower.
Anyway, just my unsolicited 2 cents. Game on.
If you really really want to do this play it on line. We've played foursomes of AOTR before but I'd recommend keeping it small to start. It has a lot different feel. you just divide up the available OOB amongst the team. An armor leader and two infantry leaders work as both infantry guys fight over tank support.
Archived Forums
Help
Calendar
Member List
Search
){kind=link}