Tweet
Why on Earth does a chariot not receive a negative to operating in forests and hills? It is an open area weapon designed for fast strikes and flanking. Further more, what makes it so spiffy against axemen? Sure, there is game balance and making a unit have meaning beyond its name, but there is such a thing as internal concistancy.
In my mind, and I must admit my mind is a rather damaged place, Chariots should (as should any cavalry type unit)
A: receive a negative bonus when operating in hills, jungle, or forest
B. Receive a bonus to any melee unit caught out in the open, axeman, swordsman, what ever. This bonus should also be closer to 25 percent, and not 50.
C. Any cavalry or motorized (tanks, mech infantry, etc) unit should have at least a 10 percent chance to retreat, minimal. I am not entirely sure how this works, but the idea is based off a roll at the point of death. If made, unit retreates, last damage negated (or unit dropped to .1 or something), else unit killed.
D. All infantry (firearm+ era) should get a hills/forest bonus. If infantry take the high ground or forests/hills/mountains/cities, they can be dogs to dig out.
E. Armor should have a negative when operating in city and hamlet/town/etc environments. Either way you look at it, the battleground is an urban place which infantry should rule. I mean, tankers love city fights.
F. Armor should recieve a bonus to attack any thing that isn't other armor or aircraft. Hopefully, the city/hill/jungle/forest bonuses in infantry will offset this somewhat. I have been disappointed that cavalry and musketmen should be so effected on a one 1vs1 basis against armor. It just ain't right, especially so for cavalry. Armor aginst Cav in the open should be so much dog food.
G. AND THE WEIRD ONE. What if tanks were treated as direct attack artillery. Now, I know how artie works now, but what if tanks worked in a similar fashion. The following is some of my reasoning/thinking.
1. Armor in and by itself cannot hold territory. Smash through and enemy line, destroy hard points, and give the enemy a pucker factor 9.5. It's mobility and ability to investigate all the noocks and crannies prevents it from controlling a large area, especially so in urban warfare. You need warm bodies for this.
2. So make tanks more like siege equipment or planes. They attack, do damage, but to a single unit, not the stack. If the tanks wins the fight (the point where a siege unit would withdraw because it "won") it drives the enemy back instead of retreating. The tank would only retreat if there was more than one unit in the square (a stack). Since the tank only damages on a 1:1 ratio it can only drive back one unit. If the square is vacant after the battle, the tank adances into it. A tank may attack (blitz) so long as it has movement.
3. To destroy units damaged by armor assault one then would move in with infantry of some type. Preferably Mech, which I would give blitzing ability to as well (if they don't already have it.)
In my mind, and I must admit my mind is a rather damaged place, Chariots should (as should any cavalry type unit)
A: receive a negative bonus when operating in hills, jungle, or forest
B. Receive a bonus to any melee unit caught out in the open, axeman, swordsman, what ever. This bonus should also be closer to 25 percent, and not 50.
C. Any cavalry or motorized (tanks, mech infantry, etc) unit should have at least a 10 percent chance to retreat, minimal. I am not entirely sure how this works, but the idea is based off a roll at the point of death. If made, unit retreates, last damage negated (or unit dropped to .1 or something), else unit killed.
D. All infantry (firearm+ era) should get a hills/forest bonus. If infantry take the high ground or forests/hills/mountains/cities, they can be dogs to dig out.
E. Armor should have a negative when operating in city and hamlet/town/etc environments. Either way you look at it, the battleground is an urban place which infantry should rule. I mean, tankers love city fights.
F. Armor should recieve a bonus to attack any thing that isn't other armor or aircraft. Hopefully, the city/hill/jungle/forest bonuses in infantry will offset this somewhat. I have been disappointed that cavalry and musketmen should be so effected on a one 1vs1 basis against armor. It just ain't right, especially so for cavalry. Armor aginst Cav in the open should be so much dog food.
G. AND THE WEIRD ONE. What if tanks were treated as direct attack artillery. Now, I know how artie works now, but what if tanks worked in a similar fashion. The following is some of my reasoning/thinking.
1. Armor in and by itself cannot hold territory. Smash through and enemy line, destroy hard points, and give the enemy a pucker factor 9.5. It's mobility and ability to investigate all the noocks and crannies prevents it from controlling a large area, especially so in urban warfare. You need warm bodies for this.
2. So make tanks more like siege equipment or planes. They attack, do damage, but to a single unit, not the stack. If the tanks wins the fight (the point where a siege unit would withdraw because it "won") it drives the enemy back instead of retreating. The tank would only retreat if there was more than one unit in the square (a stack). Since the tank only damages on a 1:1 ratio it can only drive back one unit. If the square is vacant after the battle, the tank adances into it. A tank may attack (blitz) so long as it has movement.
3. To destroy units damaged by armor assault one then would move in with infantry of some type. Preferably Mech, which I would give blitzing ability to as well (if they don't already have it.)
Comment