Today Wigam and I rattled out 2 small random pick QB's. We each took a turn at defending and the maps were truly appalling.... the defenders housed up in 'houses' in my case and in his case lining the woods and the odd dotted building sitting in the middle of nowhere. In both cases the attackers had to advance across open ground. In Wigams attack the battle lasted 6 turns as I systematically tore his troops apart as they advanced under a hail of mortar and MG42 fire. In my attack thanks to better troop pick I was able to scratch out a tactical victory.
IMO I would rather the computer used pre-made maps to play on rather than the debacles it foists on us. Wigam and I didn't mind as we only play these games as a back drop to our conversations about plans for the CM area of the Blitz.
However, I think from here on in I will be using pre made maps.
So in your opinion what makes a good pre made map.
I personally think several points are important.
- Several routes of advance.
I hate it when my opponent looks at the map and goes... ok if he has armour that is the only route he can take.
- Room to manoeuvre.
You dont want to be restricted on having to take on a defence head on. Room to flank is nice.
- Realistic objectives/flag position.
Nothing bugs me more than the victory flag/battlefield objective being the middle of an empty field... WTF is that supposed to represent. I believe objectives should be hills/road junctions/buildings.
- Realistic road network.
Again another pet hate. Roads that just end. Roads that dont go via the natural lay of the land and arch up onto hills with wild slopes that would be a challenge to Sir Hilary... never mind a 1940's vehicle.
- Realistic contours.
This ties in with the above one. Houses built on tops of little cliffs with no access. Roads that buck and bend like someone has picked it up and given it a shake, especially if it leads to a bridge and your vehicles cant cross because of the dodgy lie of the land.
Opinions.
Archived Forums
Help
Calendar
Member List
Search
){kind=link}
