PDA

View Full Version : Play style?



rahamy
08 Apr 06, 10:51
How many people take the time to study period tactics and then do their best to execute them on the field?

Or, are you more of and "wing it" player combining elements from all the different time periods rolled into one? :cool:

KG_RangerBooBoo
08 Apr 06, 17:03
I've tried to get a feel for the historical tactics and use them on the battlefield as much as possible. Not sure if it leads to any more victories and in my case it couldn't lead to any less, but it does seem to make it more enjoyable in my mind.

Mini-Me
08 Apr 06, 17:12
I usually wing it. Especially on the ACW, Napoleonic, Early American games because at this point I know little about the period. I just try to use sound doctrine no matter which games I play.

Sol Invictus
08 Apr 06, 19:41
If the engine allows for it, I will usually use period appropriate tactics.

Glyn
10 Apr 06, 03:27
I try my best to use historical tactics for the games as best as I can.. Not that it helps me much.:(

Alan Sharif
10 Apr 06, 03:56
I wing it. Ideally I think a game system should prevent or punish you in some way for using unhistorical tactics.

Mini-Me
10 Apr 06, 10:21
I wing it. Ideally I think a game system should prevent or punish you in some way for using unhistorical tactics.

Agreed. Even though I say that I wing it, I try to be realistic. I don't set up and move per the literature on the particular battle, but I do try and be historical in a general sense.

I'm so used to Panzer Campaigns and all of the mobility that sometimes in ACW and EA games, despite my best efforts not to, I've made moves that would not have been made in 1812 or 1863, and they have always cost me. My tendency to do this is decreasing as I play more games.

rahamy
11 Apr 06, 09:01
I'm more of a "wing it" player than purist, but I try to keep things in line too...my problem is I play some many differnt periods and scales it all blends together after a while. :bandit:

Gary McClellan
11 Apr 06, 09:47
Honestly, I think I tend to use 7YW tactics no matter where I'm at :surprise:

I do try to stay within period tactics, and especially try to avoid doing things that are too "out of touch" with the day. Things like column assaults in 1776 or the like don't even come into my mind. If I have a hole, it's that I'm too firepower based to fully take advantage of the opportunites for melee in the Nap games.

Mini-Me
11 Apr 06, 10:49
Honestly, I think I tend to use 7YW tactics no matter where I'm at :surprise:

I do try to stay within period tactics, and especially try to avoid doing things that are too "out of touch" with the day. Things like column assaults in 1776 or the like don't even come into my mind. If I have a hole, it's that I'm too firepower based to fully take advantage of the opportunites for melee in the Nap games.

Sounds familiar. In the games I've played to this point, I think I have initiated all of 3 melees.

Pirimeister
12 Apr 06, 14:29
Sounds familiar. In the games I've played to this point, I think I have initiated all of 3 melees.


I suffer from the opposite aflliction: too much meleeing, that's what the doc said.

I try to follow the period tactics, but when a specific situation presents itself, I tend to prefer shock action to firepower-based tactics, because in most of the games I've played (in PBEM, at least) mass was the only advantage I could count on. So I tend to use some battalions to disrupt the enemy and shake them a bit before the main action. It's also a good way to buy time for a more efficient course of action.

Of course, the effectiveness of this tactic is open to debate... Sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't...:whist:

Leftie
12 Apr 06, 22:04
I suffer from the opposite aflliction: too much meleeing, that's what the doc said.

I try to follow the period tactics, but when a specific situation presents itself, I tend to prefer shock action to firepower-based tactics, because in most of the games I've played (in PBEM, at least) mass was the only advantage I could count on. So I tend to use some battalions to disrupt the enemy and shake them a bit before the main action. It's also a good way to buy time for a more efficient course of action.

Of course, the effectiveness of this tactic is open to debate... Sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't...:whist:

I tend to be either too cautious or too reckless in my approach to games. I have trouble finding the right balance to applying the correct amount of force in the right areas. My last few games have been lost due to the fact that I take too many casualties trying to secure objectives.

But when possible, I try to keep my tactics similiar to those used in the period.


Ben

AlAmos
12 Apr 06, 23:09
I prefer historical style of play.

Mike Cox
13 Apr 06, 11:37
I prefer a game of maneuver and fire. I rarely move my full MP as I am always trying to dress my lines/order my brigades. If a game goes halfway or more w/o a melee, I am usually pleased.

Of course what are historic tactics vs ahistorical is open to interpretation and debate within the context of the game.

That being said, when the lines are joined, the gloves come off. There is a reason they call it a melee and it should resemble a street brawl more than a waltz at that point.

a82ahawk
14 Apr 06, 13:28
I tend to "Wing it"...problem is........I lose!......:cry:

Sgt_Rock
28 May 06, 01:54
I prefer historical play as well. Nothing bothers me more than an opponent purposely disordering my units just to make them worth less on defense. Same goes for ZOC kills.:mad:

The game is patience. The guy that makes the first mistake usually pays big for it.

Reiryc
28 May 06, 05:10
I wing it...