Search Results

I like the idea of a poker-style tournament system for 100 player games: 1 - You ante-up a fixed amount of gold as an entry fee. No gold use is permitted. 2 - Winner wins 90% of the total ante, 10% goes to the house as a rake. Incidentally, with the option of gold use removed CoW can be proven to be a game of skill, not chance; thus byassing US federal laws against gambling... but that is a bit of a side-track.

An option to retreat under fire makes perfect sense. It adds to the realism, it is senseless to have every single battle being fought to the death.

In many situations a limited front of contact against an enemy can happen in which the large overstack is, in the current mechanics, a winning move. In general terms my objection is to the fact that for any force of size N, the correct defensive disposition of that force is in the center of a given town X, taking no care of the roads leading into the center. This is the ill I wish to cure -- forcing defenders to consider not just having forces to defend the center, but to block the potential for…

Which is why, as I stated earlier, stacking in center position would be highly deprecated under a system that allowed for tactical flanking. That is, in no way shape or form should you be encouraged to stack in the center.

That is simply penetrating a static front-line and is not actually flanking; what the author you quote is referring to is strategic victory. Flanking is a tactic whereby an advantage is gained within the same battle, what is described in your quote is how you win the war. What I am referring to is gaining an advantage in the battle-rolls for a given battle being fought based on positional advantages such as surrounding the defenders in an extreme case, or at least approaching the target from dif…

Its a bit of a design flaw that there is no message explaining the "refusal" state for those cases.

Should carry naval bombers though.

Quote from wildL: “Still as I said, it is simply too gamechanging what's stopping me from flanking with delay... Just send one troop/few troops to get the desired direction, then flank with 10 sec delay with the main stacks.. would make it too easy on inactive stacks and AI ” That is actually the point of the change. The first issue is that it makes stacking all at center point a riskier proposition, you would need to consider blocking the paths the enemy can attack instead of waiting passively …

The naval example gets complicated, but the following situation might work: 1) When combat begins, the first fleet to engage the enemy is the primary one. 2) When combat begins, that initial contact point becomes the frame of reference for determining directions. 3) If, subsequently, a new fleet engages the same enemy fleet, flanking occurs. For land, its easier: 1) Each path represents a direction. When combat begins, this is the frame of reference. 2) If attacked from a different path, flankin…

Hi, Ran into this rather interesting design flaw in which units in a naval transport (convoy) fail to unload if there is any enemy unit present at the unload point. Steps to reproduce: 1. Send units by sea to an enemy province 2. Enemy positions one unit of any class at the exact unload point you would be using to invade 3. Your convoy unload counts down to zero and fails to unload. Suggested fix: 1. At count = zero, forcibly move the defenders sufficiently away from the coastline to permit the …

Hi all once again, There is a very important element missing in the overall strategy game, the role of flanking (attacking from different directions), surrounding the enemy and similar such positional advantages. I would suggest the following model be implemented: 1) When different army groups of one country attack from different provinces an army group belonging to an enemy country, the first group to make contact with the enemy is the primary group. The defender gets the current standard defen…

I for one really appreciate the detailed explanation. Thanks Azkazan!!

I would suggest that the slow arty have a large radius, and the SPAA have a much reduced radius being focused instead on army-protection rather than strategic protection. It would justify both existing and having different roles instead of SPAA being simply a huge upgrade. You are right on the rules of A&A, I forgot the details. What I really meant as an example is that it should at least cause damage, on a random basis, to enemy aircraft passing over the radius...

Hi all, A quick suggestion: 1. Anti-air, like artillery, should have a radius. Effective radius should be upgraded by level. 2. Any enemy air flying over that radius, you get a random chance to damage the aircraft overhead (see, for example how Axis& Allies handled it: for every anti-air gun, a roll of 1 out of a six-sided die would destroy one aircraft). At the moment bombers are really too powerful, and anti-air too cumbersome to use because anti-air has no strategic dimension, only coming int…

The breakdown on morale logic is very much appreciated, thanks!!

I like these ideas. I haven't even tried nukes due to the scathing review in the Field Manual, changes like this might make them useful.

Aircraft carriers would make naval bombers a lot more attractive and would indeed open up a whole new level of play. I'm all for it.

I would not presume to put words in Gen. Barrow's mouth. However, he is not the only one to emphasize the importance of logistics. For example: logisticsworld.com/logistics/quotations.htm

My hope for 2016 is a revision to the business model to control, in some fashion, the p2w elements present in the game.

From a design standpoint I can understand why picking was removed... it opens the floodgates to farming, making it a bit too easy.