Quick Battles - Your rules?

[Josey Wales]

Based on my research into the affects of the soft factors I am much more inclined to adjust these factors based on what I'm trying to achieve in a QB. I will incorporate my unit purchase into my strategy. It's not realistic but it's a fun game within the game.

If for example I was playing a meeting engagement which was primarily infantry focused and I had an objective on my left which was near a built up area that was close to my start position, I would be inclined to garrison that area with regular or green troops but give them high motivation. This would mean that I had an inexpensive unit in hard cover that would be very hard to shake, panic or break which I would trade off against their lack of ability to shoot straight, spot well or recover from being suppressed. I could even make them unfit as they will be static and it squeezes a few more points out.

This decision would free up points to either support their defence or allow better quality troops to make an attack on the other flank.

The way I see it is that the points are there to be played with. The antidote to this is of course scenarios.

 

[Bulletpoint]

Based on my research into the affects of the soft factors I am much more inclined to adjust these factors based on what I'm trying to achieve in a QB. I will incorporate my unit purchase into my strategy. It's not realistic but it's a fun game within the game.

If for example I was playing a meeting engagement which was primarily infantry focused and I had an objective on my left which was near a built up area that was close to my start position, I would be inclined to garrison that area with regular or green troops but give them high motivation. This would mean that I had an inexpensive unit in hard cover that would be very hard to shake, panic or break which I would trade off against their lack of ability to shoot straight, spot well or recover from being suppressed. I could even make them unfit as they will be static and it squeezes a few more points out.

This decision would free up points to either support their defence or allow better quality troops to make an attack on the other flank.

The way I see it is that the points are there to be played with. The antidote to this is of course scenarios.

I liked your post even though I completely disagree

And when I say I disagree, it doesn't mean I disagree with your logic, because what you're saying makes total rational sense - if one primarily sees the game as a "chess match". And that's fair, the game can be played in many different ways. But after reading your post, it's just clear to me that I fel different about how I personally like to enjoy the game.

I had a couple of quick battles where I pored over the unit roster for hours, cherry picking and min/maxing endlessly, squeezing out the last few points as you say, by making the company commander a fat, unfit slob .. he wouldn't be doing any running anyway And I won the battle.

But afterwards, I just thought it was too much time spent in the purchase screen, and not enough on the battlefield. I felt I had been a bit "cheap".

I like to play with force compositions that are not perfect for the job. As you say, that's what scenarios are for, but I would also enjoy this way of playing in quick battles.

So, gentlemen, you completely thrashed my idea about not changing soft factors. You had many good arguments. But how do you feel about this idea then?

"All troops must be regular and with neutral (+0) soft factors"

The idea would be to place less focus on micromanaging purchases and more on tactics. All troops would be equally capable, and it would be how you used them that mattered.

 

[A Canadian Cat]

I'm not suggesting this idea (or reporting the issue with the jeep) because I am losing. Actually I'm doing quite well.

Oh I'm just joshing with ya over the jeep windshield thing - since I know you reported it. And I was thinking of my own example when I started playing I kept loosing to this one player. What I noticed was that he kept winning the tank battle and then I would loose. So I thought fine I'll put an end to that and loaded up on panthers and went really light on infantry. And guess what he still kicked my butt.

The reason I suggested it was more for immersion, that troop quality levels would stay closer to their historical counterparts, and be more variable, so we'd have to play the hand dealt... I think that's quite fun.

Oh I totally get that. And that is why I play QBs with purchases made using "typical" myself.

 

[Zinzan]

This thread is one of the reasons I rate this site so highly other than it having my precense of course.

(Interesting thoughtful analysis of a game mechanic, mild amusing criticism of other participants and a HUGE respect for everyone's point of view. It also highlights AGAIN the flexibility and subtlty of this game. therre yah go Zinzan I fixed it for you)
thanks voice in my head

 

[Bulletpoint]

After you upgrade CMBN to the patched v4, remember that I prefer tiny/small (platoon to company-plus Kamfgruppe) for US and GER forces when you're ready to play . . .

Well, that sounds like a challenge to mine olde worlde eares. And, as the challenger, it is only fit and proper that you be the chooser of the field of battle.

In other words, let me know what scenario or map you would like to play.

US translation: Bring it on.