The Competition & Teaser Thread

[Xaver]

Well, for me a game covering WW2 needs have in mind facing in scales under 1km OR at least something to dont made flanking movements useless.

The problem is we dont know the engine and we are blind apart the few info know here... there are ways to simulate facing effects with no facing, i think for example in a counter with friendly units near (in a range of 2 hexes for example) has his full defensive values BUT when friendly units are over 2 hexes units with hard defensive values (VS AT guns, tanks etc etc) suffer a malus in defensive value, i refer if you split your forces a lot non pure infantry units have their defensive value reduced to simulate the malus in armored combat with no support because unit needs cover more than one or two flanks... sure add facing add more info in game but playing EAW, REN and NAP i never feel the info that add facing overflow me hehehe.

Transports... well, is great know that infantry can use vehicles as transport (maybe like in SP vehicles/tanks have a load value???) but in motorized and mech infantry... i allways think that separate infantry from transports is important, a unit of 100 soldiers with 10 HTs doesnt have the same mobility as one with 100 soldiers and 5 HTs... i can deal with the PzC abstract model in PzB but when you move down you need reduce abstraction.

I am with you that CS time scale is to small but i feel 30 is excesive big... yes, is in the Tiller scale compared with games that dont use facing (WWI, MC, PzC) but compared with games using facing... well is double in time but half in space... if engine is good enough i dont see imposible use like in NAP titles another time scale, is a question of test it, i really prefer have more turns because in tactical fights give more options to change and addapt, big turns reduce a lot this and well, in Flashpoint asimetric turns are a way to simulate advantages in command for example.

Again, we talk about all we know that is small.