|
|
|
Notices |
Do you own this game? Write a review and let others know how you like it.
|
|
|
July 21st, 2005, 03:40 AM
|
|
Sergeant
|
|
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 358
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
|
Re: Cross Link Scenarios: Timeline/Core army evolu
My understanding is that the M72's where genraly dropped due to weight. and I've not heard of the Aircav taking RCL's or baazokas.
|
July 21st, 2005, 04:48 AM
|
|
Colonel
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 1,668
Thanks: 0
Thanked 5 Times in 5 Posts
|
|
Re: Cross Link Scenarios: Timeline/Core army evolu
Listy,
We have to use what the stock OOB provides us...
If we reject the (US OoB) AirCav Pl(M)(4x Airmobile rifle, 2x recoilles rifle);
is the (US OoB) Rifle Platoon (1x Rifle squad, 3x infantry, 1x InfAT/flamethrower?, 1x Machinegun)
a better choice?
If not what do you propose?
p.s I don't think that the cavalry scouts are good enough for infantry combat...
cheers,
|
July 21st, 2005, 05:46 AM
|
|
Major
|
|
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,009
Thanks: 142
Thanked 366 Times in 194 Posts
|
|
Re: Cross Link Scenarios: Timeline/Core army evolu
Quote:
Pyros said:
p.s By "choice" the player may select his next core force addition by the mechanism of the 1-turn scenario.
|
Just to make sure, does this in practice mean that the player will get a different amount of build points to expand his core with or...?
|
July 21st, 2005, 06:39 AM
|
|
Colonel
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 1,668
Thanks: 0
Thanked 5 Times in 5 Posts
|
|
Re: Cross Link Scenarios: Timeline/Core army evolu
Hi Ulf,
Actually NO,
Because the amount of points between the multiple choices will be in balance.
Also don't forget that the adjustable difficulty will "slow down" or "help" the evolution of the player's core force, so in fact we don't have to be so concerned about his choices!
The advantage with the "multiple-choices build up" of the core force army will be the replay-ability of the campaign and the if you combine this with the "adjustable difficulty" and the "random renforcement designing technique", then we will have a very strong campaign "package".
p.s IMO the adjustable difficulty may even allow a free/open core force but this is another story...
p.s What do you propose for the ToO No1 starting core force?
cheers,
Pyros
|
July 21st, 2005, 11:18 AM
|
|
Major
|
|
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Crossville, TN
Posts: 1,189
Thanks: 21
Thanked 39 Times in 25 Posts
|
|
Re: Cross Link Scenarios: Timeline/Core army evolu
Quote:
Pyros said:
So, what should we use as the starting element of our core force?
|
What if we just create a custom one by editing a Rifle Platoon and reducing their numbers to allow for the air transport?
Using Cav Scouts even though not as heavily armed as Riflemen might not be bad as long as they have adequate support. IMHO isn't this what US forces usually had anyway. Add enough Air or Artuy support to tip the balance in their favor or to at least prevent them from taking heavy losses (unless they screw up of course).
|
July 21st, 2005, 11:25 AM
|
|
Second Lieutenant
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Italy
Posts: 447
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
|
Re: Cross Link Scenarios: Timeline/Core army evolu
So, here some units that may be suitable:
September 1965
USMC
(203)Recon team (327,328,329,330) 216 points
(93) Rifle platoon (760,440,309) 105 points
USA
(750) MG section (493) 15 points
(200) Rifle PL VN (432,422,415) 45 points
(255) Aircav PL (M) (378,778) 78 points
(86) Patrol (215) 36 points
This is a rough list of the unit in the official OOB that may be suitable for the core army.
Davide
__________________
|
July 21st, 2005, 12:55 PM
|
|
Major
|
|
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,009
Thanks: 142
Thanked 366 Times in 194 Posts
|
|
Re: Cross Link Scenarios: Timeline/Core army evolu
Quote:
Pyros said:
...so in fact we don't have to be so concerned about his choices!
|
Ok, that's good.
|
July 21st, 2005, 05:23 PM
|
|
Colonel
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 1,668
Thanks: 0
Thanked 5 Times in 5 Posts
|
|
Re: Cross Link Scenarios: Timeline/Core army evolu
Quote:
Double_Deuce said:
What if we just create a custom one by editing a Rifle Platoon and reducing their numbers to allow for the air transport?
|
Hi DD,
The problem with the campaign mechanism is that even if we modify (D key) the initial core forces (weapons etc) the program will reset these modifications (in the next scenario)...
But, what about a rifle platoon with a lift platoon ? IMO this infantry should be good for ground combat.
Concerning the cavalry scouts, I think these units (4 men!) are not good for any type of combat; just for recon...
Anyway, it would be great if anyone can present a proposal for core units up to ToO No5... or it would be useful to propose modifications to the one I posted.
ToO No1: 1x Rifle Platoon:
Rifle squad
3xinfantry
1xInfAT
1xMachinegun
ToO No2: Choice 2xUH-1b gunship(or AirCav Spt (M)) & 2xOH-13 or 105mm platoon
ToO No3: 1x Rifle Platoon:
Rifle squad
3xinfantry
1xInfAT/flamethrower?
1xMachinegun
ToO No4: Choice 105mm platoon or 1x AirCav Lift (5x UH-1D Huey)
ToO No5: Choice 155mm platoon or Strike element & AirCav Spt(M)
ToO No6 ...
|
July 22nd, 2005, 08:54 AM
|
|
Sergeant
|
|
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 358
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
|
Re: Cross Link Scenarios: Timeline/Core army evolu
looking around, as otehrs ahve said: the Aircav Platoon (M), what ever that stands for, is probaly the closest you'll get to a normal Aircav platoon.
|
July 23rd, 2005, 06:56 AM
|
|
Second Lieutenant
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Italy
Posts: 447
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
|
Re: Cross Link Scenarios: Timeline/Core army evolu
What about this starting core force?
(255) Aircav platoon X 2
(378) Airmobile squad X 3
(778) 90mm (HE) X 1
(86) Patrol
(213) Scout X 3
(213) Heavy MG
(93) 50 cal X 1
(280) Pioneer platoon
(447) Pioneers X 2
With these units you have mobility, flexibility, firepower and sneaking ability.
__________________
|
Thread Tools |
|
Display Modes |
Linear Mode
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is On
|
|
|
|
|