Opponent wanted!

B

Butterblümchen

Guest
I'm a returning visitor (my old account got deleted due to my inactivity here in the forum).

My first and last multiplayer defeat is already two years old!* Now that I've overcome my "Mad Mike" trauma I'd like to try once more! So if you're interested please let me know.

Terms and conditions
default_smile.png

  • I'm in Austria, Europe and should be able to play 1-2 turns per day, especially in the early (boring) phases of the battle. But if you prefer larger intervalls, I'm also fine. No hurry!
  • I might create a video-AAR of the battle. Including captions in horrible english.
  • I have all the WWII titles and modules except for Battle for Normandy. I'll play any of them.
  • WEGO/turn based only, no real time.
  • I'd like to keep it at small-medium size. Absolute maximum for me is an infantry company + some support vehicles. I'm not a fan of tank only battles.
  • Quickbattle, no scenario.
  • I'm a fan of fixed attacker-defender roles as I think this is just more realistic. I'll play either role. I also think that the attacker could get some initial information on the defender's dispositions (--> assault battle type) to reduce the boring time spent on scouting and shadow-boxing in the early stages.
  • The map should be comparatively large and not cause too much paranoia (no woods only, no fully urban map, e.g.) as this tends to greatly increase my planning-efforts and slows down the action. We should review the map together and check whether the objectives are fair and set the time limit accordingly.
  • Once we have agreed on a map and type, I might need a few days to select my force and create a super duper genius master plan.
  • No bombardements on the attacker's deployment zone.
  • I think it would be interesting if we agreed to use only "typical" troops (not boost everything up to veteran/fanatic). But I'm fine either way.
  • It would also be okay for me not to have tanks as the defender. And in general we could agree on the max. number (points/pieces) of armor if you want.
-----------------
*
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Hey Nemesis (good name for a human opponent :) )!

I've seen your post but I didn't answer because
1) BN is the only title I don't have (which also means I have not checked the map)
2) Probe scenario - I prefer clear, fixed roles - attack or assault, but if you insist, probe is good enough for me. If so, however, the objectives must be somewhere in the middle of the map, a bit closer to the defender. The defender should not sit right on top of them at the start of the battle.
3) Large battle size - medium would be my upper micromanagement/work load stress level but okay ;)
 
Not neccessarily in a probe, where the attacker only gets slightly more troops than the defender, which - depending on the specific map/location of the objectives and time limit - might or might not justify the defender's advantage.
Then again objectives have less weight in relation to casualties in a probe. While this helps in terms of balance, it changes the type of engagement. I fear it might lead to more paranoia, chicken-dance peek-a-boo. A clear objective helps to concentrate the action and create plans (rather than making decisions "on the fly"). I like the planning/anticipation part of the game - the reaction part is better covered by RTS games. ;)

I'm not saying that probes are unbalanced per se (like with any game type, one would need to review the actual map, position of objectives, time limit), but I just prefer clear roles. :)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
A probe is just an attack with fewer points. I am happy to accept more points if you wish. I will PM you with a different proposal.
 
Ha, well some of them are just Information or non-obligatory suggestions and offers. The list is not that bad.
Besides I've already found my opponent, so I see no need to reduce my dating standards! I'm totally worth it! ;)

Thanks for the "welcome backs". :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom