Re: Basic strategies for winning almost every map

[Jens Granseuer <jensgr@xxxxxxx>]

On 28.03.2005 22:31, Jonathan Koren wrote:
> On Sun, 27 Mar 2005, Jens Granseuer wrote:
> >> Introducing resource-dependency or ammonition shortage might help.
> >
> > Nah, let's try to keep the rules simple.
> 
> Keeping the rules simple is good, but I've always thought way too many 
> games simply don't deal with logistics in any sense at all.  I think the 
> only game I played recently that had any concept of logistics was Earth 
> 2150, and all that had was ammunition.  I would like to play a game that 
> made me deal with ammunition, fuel, repair/medical, terrain, weather, all 
> that stuff.  Crimson Fields will never be that game, and that's okay, but 
> sometimes my inner geek yearns.

I can understand that, up to a point. Also, when I say no, always keep
in mind that I also said no when translations were first proposed... ;-)
Sometimes things just need some time to sink in.

> Perhaps having the airplanes and helicopters forced to return to a base 
> after a while (say every other turn) would be good idea.  It seems that 
> air power is bit too powerful, especially late in the game.  You can have
> bombers crossing half the map in a turn and destroying entire divisions 
> with little danger to itself.  Also, this would make aircraft carriers 
> actually useful.

But carriers are useful today! Granted, there are no maps where they make
a real difference but that's another issue. You know that carriers can
repair craft, don't you?

> Speaking of naval forces I have one proposal, and one question.  First, I 
> think the addition of a battleship should be considered.  It would 
> basically fill the role of a sea based artillery piece, but some close in 
> (1 hex range) weapons unlike artillery.  Think of a cross between a heavy 
> tank and an artillery piece.

If you look at the todo list in the wiki, you'll notice that the battleship
is already there (and has been for a long long time...). The only reason
it's still not in the game is that we don't have an image for it (and my
attempt to create one failed miserably).

> Second, what's the point of submarines?  They're basically patrol boats 
> but without antiaircraft weapons, and the last time I checked, no stealth 
> capabilities.  Perhaps if they remained hidden until they attacked, or an 
> attempt was made to move into the hex they occupied, that would be 
> something, but right now I can't figure out why you'd want to use them.

In Battle Isle, they remained hidden until they attacked (or a unit with
recon capabilities came close), but even there it was a kludge. Basically,
as soon as a sub came dangerously close you knew because you usually
noticed that there was a hex your unit couldn't move to even though it
should. Battle Isle's technique to show the reachable hexes made this
slightly less obvious, but still. A little more important was that you
couldn't attack a sub unless you had "discovered" it, either by it
attacking or a recon unit. We don't do any of this because I'm not sure
it's worth it. Right know, subs are just strong ships with nice
long-range torpedoes. IMO that justifies their use even without
stealth capabilities, but if there's considerable disagreement I'm
willing to reconsider.

Jens