Instead of no flags--- No time limt.

Fullhouse · 11-28-2006, 12:28 AM,

I was wondering if anyone had tried a QB with no imposed time limit? This might add a nice twist to the QB format.

Games would be fought till one side could literaly not mount a challenge with both partys agreed a ceasefire or the computer imposing one.

This would seem alot more realistic than some arbitary time limt.

Rico (FGM) · 11-28-2006, 12:40 AM,

If the fighting is intense, you'd run out of ammo pretty soon and that'll end proceedings pretty smartly.

Fullhouse · 11-28-2006, 01:01 AM,

Rico Wrote:If the fighting is intense, you'd run out of ammo pretty soon and that'll end proceedings pretty smartly.

Thats what tactical reserves are for. Thats why I think it would be intresting as it would force the commander/player to consider such things as ammo conservation and attack phases with much more thoughtfullness.

It could add a whole new layer of depth to the game.

DerBlitzer · 11-28-2006, 01:49 AM,

Does the editor allow you to design a scenario without a turn limit?

Mike Abberton · 11-28-2006, 04:21 AM,

DerBlitzer Wrote:Does the editor allow you to design a scenario without a turn limit?

I don't think it does, but taking into consideration the ammo limits discussed above, and I think you could set the turn limit high enough (i.e. 99 turns or more) that for all practicable purposes it was unlimited.

Soldier · 11-28-2006, 04:53 AM,

Sounds reasonable. I'm sure many a battle ended due to one side running out of ammo first, etc..
Just set your time limit to the highest possible number of minutes and battle away. Sooner or later, one side will concede..

11-28-2006, 06:08 AM,

Or it will grind on to 99 turns and end up a draw... LOL

McIvan · 11-28-2006, 06:43 AM,

I haven't tried this personally, although I have played a small 60 turn scenario (which was actually very exciting and went right down to the final turn), so can only report what I have heard.

Firstly, I have heard they can work ok with probes, which have a higher chance of ending when one or both sides get low on ammo. Attacks/assaults seem not to work, because the unlimited timeframe gives the attacker too much advantage.....they can break, recover, break, recover, until they win. So it can probably only make a good game with ME's, and maybe probes as a secondary if the added turns don't hurt the defence too much.

Secondly that they can, even if they continue, become very tiresome as lots of squads on low ammo struggle to make a difference and the turns just keep ticking on and on.

On the positive side, I agree completely with Fullhouse that it really would encourage the use of tactical reserves and ammo conservation. It could make an excellent game if it all goes down to the wire. I suspect tho that it might be better to cap turns at a high level like, say, 60, than go completely unlimited.

Great thread.

11-28-2006, 06:48 AM,

McIvan Wrote:it really would encourage the use of tactical reserves and ammo conservation.

I like the idea of that but would be worried about signing up for a 60 or 90 turn battle in case I get bored and it becomes an ... open file... fast forward through turn ... press go.... games. Now that doesnt happen very often but if it would be a nightmare if it happened on one fo these big games.

I also feel once one sides armour is taken out that it will quickly finish as infantry against armour doesnt work.... well depending on the map but you know what I mean about the advantages of having a Combined Arms OOB left against footsoldiers.

Bootie

McIvan · 11-28-2006, 06:56 AM,

Yeah I do know what you mean, Bootie. It's the kind of thing you do every blue moon as an experiment and yeah maybe keep it small.

As an aside, infantry v tanks can work...and is exactly the situation where you need lots of time. Can be fun hunting tanks or waiting for them to run low on ammo and then pounce. Not easy though. Combined arms is best.