-
Gray_Lensman
- Posts: 497
- Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2007 4:04 am
- Location: Who is John Galt?
-
Gray_Lensman
- Posts: 497
- Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2007 4:04 am
- Location: Who is John Galt?
-
Gray_Lensman
- Posts: 497
- Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2007 4:04 am
- Location: Who is John Galt?
-
Gray_Lensman
- Posts: 497
- Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2007 4:04 am
- Location: Who is John Galt?
-
Gray_Lensman
- Posts: 497
- Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2007 4:04 am
- Location: Who is John Galt?
-
Gray_Lensman
- Posts: 497
- Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2007 4:04 am
- Location: Who is John Galt?
-
Gray_Lensman
- Posts: 497
- Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2007 4:04 am
- Location: Who is John Galt?
-
Gray_Lensman
- Posts: 497
- Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2007 4:04 am
- Location: Who is John Galt?
-
Gray_Lensman
- Posts: 497
- Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2007 4:04 am
- Location: Who is John Galt?
-
Gray_Lensman
- Posts: 497
- Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2007 4:04 am
- Location: Who is John Galt?
-
Gray_Lensman
- Posts: 497
- Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2007 4:04 am
- Location: Who is John Galt?
On first inspection, I'm actually more concerned about the radical increase in Wheeled speeds, especially in the difficult terrains [beach, mountains, swamps, marshes]
Wheeled thingies are what drives campaigns, in particular supply wagons. The beta change to 'slowest element in division' doesn't touch supply limitations, but will come into play with independant divisions with integral artillery. I don't want to see changes made to the terrain matrix just to offset another community demand for 'slowest element movement'. We'll be going around in circles forever!
Testing should look closely at this, as I'm now very worried we'll start seeing 'panzerblitz' tactics if supply, support and artillery become too easy to move through the difficult terrains........
I'm leaning tward a model-by-model adjustment of the cohesion loss rate, with a very mild [10% per value] increase in speeds.... That's a working theory, now we test for solid data, both HTH and vs. AI....
OBTW: Does anyone have the numbers behind the 'NotHarsh, Harsh, Very Harsh' parameters, so we can evaluate their impact?
Wheeled thingies are what drives campaigns, in particular supply wagons. The beta change to 'slowest element in division' doesn't touch supply limitations, but will come into play with independant divisions with integral artillery. I don't want to see changes made to the terrain matrix just to offset another community demand for 'slowest element movement'. We'll be going around in circles forever!
Testing should look closely at this, as I'm now very worried we'll start seeing 'panzerblitz' tactics if supply, support and artillery become too easy to move through the difficult terrains........
I'm leaning tward a model-by-model adjustment of the cohesion loss rate, with a very mild [10% per value] increase in speeds.... That's a working theory, now we test for solid data, both HTH and vs. AI....
OBTW: Does anyone have the numbers behind the 'NotHarsh, Harsh, Very Harsh' parameters, so we can evaluate their impact?
Always ask yourself: "Am I part of the Solution?" If you aren't, then you are part of the Problem!
[CENTER][/CENTER]
[CENTER]Visit AGEWiki - your increasingly comprehensive source for information about AGE games[/CENTER]
[CENTER]Rules for new members[/CENTER]
[CENTER]Forum Rules[/CENTER]
[CENTER]Help desk: support@slitherine.co.uk[/CENTER]
[CENTER][/CENTER]
[CENTER]Visit AGEWiki - your increasingly comprehensive source for information about AGE games[/CENTER]
[CENTER]Rules for new members[/CENTER]
[CENTER]Forum Rules[/CENTER]
[CENTER]Help desk: support@slitherine.co.uk[/CENTER]
-
Gray_Lensman
- Posts: 497
- Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2007 4:04 am
- Location: Who is John Galt?
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests