While it's true that I lost a number of my forces unnecessarily attacking Marshall turn 1, I think the larger strategic blunder on my part was that I planned my strategy around war breaking out turn 1. When that didn't happen I fell into a cycle of building up my forces to compensate for the lack of fighting weather and choosing not to attack because of the unfavorable weather in the later turns. The end result was a compromise army, that was basically incapable of doing anything for the middle three turns without getting caught in the open waiting for a counter. Holding back obviously didn't go much better.
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
In hindsight I should have kept the militia away from the border. It was only after considering if I should attack on the first turn that I realized that it was insanely easy to counter offensive militia with defensive infantry. My militia had 3 moves with fighting weather, so if I had stationed them back a bit I wouldn't have suffered significantly. I also didn't bring enough to folow through on any border but aedan's until the 4th turn. I should have tried to kill barkardes immediately, but I strongly suspected that he had a supply cache+armor waiting in reserve, and I didn't think I had the offensive power to kill him. I do not think that the infantry on the border in the north was not a significant mistake, as they require a much larger investment to counter effectively. I was going to try for a mass assault with a huge number of soldiers, but the weather generation screwed me over by being almost nothing but winter. Lack of confidence in offensive follow through has screwed me over a number of games. I think that if this game had also not dragged on to Diplo and War Phase 5 I would have been more attentive to it. I look forward to the next game, although I'm not sure if I'll be playing in it yet.
Also, I mentioned this briefly in the other game thread, but would it be possible to try for a Duel game, or parallel games? Basically 1v1s taking place on a largely symmetrical map to see how players fare when they only have to contend with 1 adversary.
We'd either need more GMs or a GM gming a lot of games. GMing a lot of games at once is a pain. (I also think this would greatly change strategy.)
That's not to say it can't be done, just that it might be troublesome.
Oh, speaking of new things to try, I'm thinking of a rules change. I was thinking that in the future, maybe we should make it so you have to move a unit onto an IC or SC to capture it. What do you guys think of that?
PS: Are you thinking of making these duel maps big or small? It makes a really big difference.
My strong suspicion is that a duel on a smaller map would be a very fast game. In fact, I think we could play a test match while we're waiting for Game 13 to finish. I could throw a map together if we had two volunteers. *coughs*
Step over here for the test game. I don't want to spam this thread in case people have more remarks to make about game 12.