Hi,
just wonder if it is OK as it is now to have SM 1 for MEs and SM2 for advance/assault.
I mean, you get twice as much points for 1000 points, 10 turns advance than 20000 points , 70 turns meeting engagement. Doesnt sound fair, does it ?
Any thoughts ?
Hi Maciej
I agree that it seems a bit odd, especially with the example you just gave.
In a way, it would be better to adjust the points against the amount of turns played, as that was the origional (IIRC) reason for the modifier.
The older version of the game would set the turns higher for advance and assaults...so you were being rewarded (with the extra points) for playing a longer battle.
I would love to play some really long PBEM, on big maps...like 50+ turns, but that means at least two months for a game to get a result...and most people do not have the patience for that :-)
So...we end up having to do assaults in 30 turns...all the sneaky recon just goes out the window unless you use small maps, which means there is no room for manouvre...sigh.
Oh well...back to the 10 turn assaults then eh!!
Cheers
czerpak Wrote:Hi,
just wonder if it is OK as it is now to have SM 1 for MEs and SM2 for advance/assault.
I mean, you get twice as much points for 1000 points, 10 turns advance than 20000 points , 70 turns meeting engagement. Doesnt sound fair, does it ?
Any thoughts ?
I dropped the question to consideration for new scoring basis couple of months ago and it was discussed and rejected by Blitz officers. Type of battle does not decide the time used, only turns and your points do.
Walrus, I'm ready for a huge battle if you are ok with H2H and a little slower turn rate (3-4 per week).
Jason,
for good, longer battle you can try Omaha scenario in winWW2.
I tried it in DOS ver and scored over 200 kills halfway. And still wasnt sure if I held positions or not. Sadly, never finished that one.
Vesku,
do you know reason why it was rejected ?
As far as I understand it, it should be our ladder custodian decision regarding SMs.
czerpak Wrote:Jason,
for good, longer battle you can try Omaha scenario in winWW2.
I tried it in DOS ver and scored over 200 kills halfway. And still wasnt sure if I held positions or not. Sadly, never finished that one.
Vesku,
do you know reason why it was rejected ?
As far as I understand it, it should be our ladder custodian decision regarding SMs.
I tried that Omaha scen too, it was amazing :) but never got through either
Chris told me why ... it was something about being too hard to take into use ... or something, Chris may have better memory than me.
Quote:Chris told me why ... it was something about being too hard to take into use ... or something,
well, that basically cant be true. Enuff to go to Rules of Engagement section of Blitz, point 12 - Scoring, and see how complicated are SMs in other ladders and games.
Hey Walrus,
I regularly play longer games of 50+ turns.......anytime your ready drop me a line.
Jad
Vesku Wrote:Walrus, I'm ready for a huge battle if you are ok with H2H and a little slower turn rate (3-4 per week).
Hi Vesku
I only play MBT or winSPww2.
3/4 turn p/w is no worries
If you want to try a large/ long battle in either of those two formats, drop me an email at
[email protected]
Cheers
Walrus
czerpak Wrote:Jason,
for good, longer battle you can try Omaha scenario in winWW2.
I tried it in DOS ver and scored over 200 kills halfway. And still wasnt sure if I held positions or not. Sadly, never finished that one.
Hi Maciej
I am sure I started that one and never finished it either. Too much arty for me.
What I like are big map and lots of time. No always lots of units, that's what makes the buy/deploy/replays etc take so long. The moves take ages and the files are huge to email.
Smaller forces, limited arty, good scouting, use of air, ammo etc...that's much more fun for me.
I really enjoyed Pyros' scenarios for his ANZAC campaign. All 90 turns and action all the way. Great fun but quite an investment of time!
Cheers mate
Jason