Small maps, fewer turns

[rfisher]

Oh, wow! Is it available anywhere?

[RichP]

Just wanted to thank everyone who's posted on this thread, the methods posted here generate some very interesting battles for MBT and WW2. It's given me a renewed interest in both games, which I have been away from recently.

[Double_Deuce]

I actually prefer smaller battles (company size). This limits some maneuver since you do not have a force for flanking, etc but it can make for some nice, small fights. Being an old SL/ASL boardgamer, this size better suits my playing preferences anyway.

[rfisher]

These are the only two issues I've had with the smaller map/ smaller force games. The first one is really just a personnal learning curve, the second more of an game limitation.

1) When trying play with an elite SAS type infantry force, you have to find a very careful balance between how elite they are and how expensive they are.
(The first desert scud-hunting coloumn I made had lots of lovely SAS FO units with 40 vision TI/GSR, and 'pinkie' landrovers with milans and 40 vision and snipers with, you've guessed it, 40 vision. Unsurprisingly, on the other side of the map they found few scuds but an awful lot of tanks. I'm a bit more conservative with the vision now!)

2) When assaulting, especially if its an airbourne assault, I long for a big map to allow for more choices on where to assault from. But with a small force on a large map, understandably, the computer side spreads its forces out which can make grabbing V hexes too easy.
I sometimes wish you could force the computer to deploy within a certain distance of victory hexes, so then you could make villages, cross roads, hills etc be more meaningful objectives.

[PanzerBob]

I sometimes wish you could force the computer to deploy within a certain distance of victory hexes, so then you could make villages, cross roads, hills etc be more meaningful objectives.

Good day,

Are you aware that you can change VH locations before a game starts?

Bob out

[rfisher]

Thanks, but yes I am aware you can move them and that is indeed what I normally do in these games. I was more wishing that the enemy would set up closer to those points in order 'protect' them.
This would allow little special forces type raids on isolated targets such as a AAA battery, radar post, fuel depot etc. which has a garrison but is not dispersed across the whole map.

[Artaud]

Originally Posted by Double_Deuce

I actually prefer smaller battles (company size). This limits some maneuver since you do not have a force for flanking, etc but it can make for some nice, small fights. Being an old SL/ASL boardgamer, this size better suits my playing preferences anyway.

I'm an old SPI 1970s wargamer, and I always felt more comfortable with games I can complete within a reasonable amount of time. Monster games can be fun--on the computer and on a tabletop--but one can get lost in all the details. I find it easier to care about my troops when I can see many of them on my monitor without zooming all the way out.

I generated an Ethiopia vs Eritrea battle with my little Capital City map (see the Map section of this forum ), and somewhere near the Interior Ministry (I think) one of my scouting Panhards got immobilized by some Eritrean infantry. I tried for a couple of turns to reach and rescue them while they tried to fight off repeated assaults, but alas, they were eventually destroyed with no survivors. It's kind of hard for me to feel that closeness when I'm playing a huge map.

I have, however, been tempted to play the Stalingrad campaign in winSPWW2.

But it's more likely that I will copy a section of the map and use it for smaller "generated" battles.

Company-sized battles are nice, but a couple of companies (at least) of infantry (I like mech because I like APCs) plus a platoon of tanks is really fun. I do like to have flanking forces, ad hoc task forces, etc.

[PanzerBob]

Originally Posted by rfisher

Thanks, but yes I am aware you can move them and that is indeed what I normally do in these games. I was more wishing that the enemy would set up closer to those points in order 'protect' them.
This would allow little special forces type raids on isolated targets such as a AAA battery, radar post, fuel depot etc. which has a garrison but is not dispersed across the whole map.

I see what you mean now.

Bob out

[rfisher]

I thought I once read in this forum that the AI would ignore a victory hex below a certain value, so as to prevent it from trying to recapture it (assuming you wanted the AI to hold its position regardless).

It would be nice if in a similar way you could oblige the AI to favour victory hexes of a specific value in the deployment phase.
Therefore you could set up that kind of raid battle in the map preview screen by manually changing the points value of hexs, or leave the values alone and play normally.

Just a thought chaps, please don't be too harsh if its a bollocks idea!

[Lt. Ketch]

Originally Posted by Artaud

I have, however, been tempted to play the Stalingrad campaign in winSPWW2.

But it's more likely that I will copy a section of the map and use it for smaller "generated" battles.

I just finished a generated campaign in SPWW2 designed around a company sized force in Stalingrad on a 20X30 map. (Read about it in the AAR "Letters from Stalin's City" in the WW2 forum.) It was a challange at times, particulary when I had a special delay battle after taking more causatlies than I wanted to (granted, anything over 0 is too much ). I ended up trying to perform an organized withdraw while under fire.

I found with the small maps that there doesn't seem to be as much strategy as with larger maps since it vastly limits manuverability, which I see as a big part of tactics. I found that my units linded up across the map and advanced or just sat in the buildings, double stacked, and waited. I do like how they play faster though.