Local and tactical defense

[rocketman71]

Hi

I've played this game for a while and the other day I realized that I never use the local and tactical defense deployments. I've read the manual and understand the settings, but can't really figure out when to use them effectively. What units? When? To achieve what? and so on.

Any hints on "how to think" would be much appreciated.[:)]

[el cid]

Most will never use Local defense.

Tactical defense is a different thing.

When attacking in the first rounds you might want to put artillery in taxtical instead of diggin them in. They will support your attacks, but in case you get a break through, you will be able to move them still.

When defending you might keep a certain unit in the second line, while the front line will only be covered by weaker units. The unit in reseve (tactical) will jump in the battle where your attacker first strikes.

If you dont have armor to cover your whole front, outting some armor in tactical will help you cover more of the front. You might cause much delay on your oponent if he thinks he will be attacking an hex with only infantry, and then sees a tank battallion joining in. He might not have the weapons to destroy your tanks, and he might end up burning up his turn.

[damezzi]

Some info here, too:

tm.asp?m=1682968

In fact I think the concept of local reserve is fantastic; in a turn-based game you get a chance to have a 'programed' reaction on your opponent's turn. As El Cid stated (in the case of tactical reserve), this can place some surprise elements to your opponent. But sadly, the way local reserve is treated at the moment seems to make it almost useless for most players, as far as I could infer from dozens of comments, since my lack of experience with PBEM don't let me be conclusive here. What should be some control given to the passive player, seems to have turned out being more control given to the active player. It seems a nice concept thrown away.
Perhaps some little changes... things like establishing valid hexes or casualty levels to react, or even number of rounds to wait before reacting. I don't know, I really still didn't reflect a lot about it and players with a lot of experience on PBEM sure can come with simple and objective solutions, but I really think one should try to recover something that already is part of the game engine and is part of the original game conception.

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: damezzi

Perhaps some little changes... things like establishing valid hexes or casualty levels to react, or even number of rounds to wait before reacting. I don't know, I really still didn't reflect a lot about it and players with a lot of experience on PBEM sure can come with simple and objective solutions, but I really think one should try to recover something that already is part of the game engine and is part of the original game conception.

I think a better solution would be shorter turns. Then reaction to attacks is not a problem.

[damezzi]

I think a better solution would be shorter turns. Then reaction to attacks is not a problem.

I must confess I never considered it. One should think about the implications, but if it's easy to implement, some tests wouldn't hurt. Not that I'm unsatisfied with the current duration of turns, but making some tests for better interaction can't do any harm.
Anyway, I still think that some extra control for local reserve command would be welcome, without imposing any drastic change. I think it was implemented to give players some control over their units during opponent's turn, but the way it is, players seem to not use it very much.

[Obsolete]

I used to never touch these years ago, but now I experimented a little bit.  Problem is I'm still no expert and when ever I try to get more into it, I get more confused by reading what others have to say.  It doesn't help of course that how this works with artillery, etc. has also gone through some changes over the versions.

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: damezzi

Anyway, I still think that some extra control for local reserve command would be welcome, without imposing any drastic change.

Hm. Perhaps if a test was developed to determine whether an attack was large enough to cost supplies for the defender (something which I believe has already been mooted) then you could use this same test as a threshold for reactions by local reserves.

[Obsolete]

Well, before I knew about the changes, I was puzzled why my support artillery just wouldn't show up anymore in the plan-attack feature.  That used to always show up if it was within striking range years ago IIRC.

[damezzi]

Hm. Perhaps if a test was developed to determine whether an attack was large enough to cost supplies for the defender (something which I believe has already been mooted) then you could use this same test as a threshold for reactions by local reserves.

That's a pretty good idea. Very simple; something that should be easy to implement. Also, I think that supply is a good variable to use. The only point to pay attention is that the flag for supply use would have to be cumulative in order for units to react when a point has it's supply greatly reduced by a number of short attacks also.
Attackers would still be able to attract your units but at a price in terms of readiness and of turn burning. I favor anything that forces players to take a decision (even when not realistic). What spoils a game for me are things of the kind "that always work wonders"

[sPzAbt653]

R - Sets the selected unit to Local Reserve and advances to the next unit that can act.

That's from the manual, but when I hit 'r' nothing happens. I was tinkering with putting artillery units on Local Reserve during my combat phase, as they sometimes will add to the combat. It works as well as I would like it to, but using the drop down isn't as easy as using a hotkey.

[damezzi]

That's from the manual, but when I hit 'r' nothing happens.

I have noticed it too.

[Obsolete]

It doesn't matter.  That whole "Skip to next Unit" makes it so frustrating to use, you'll avoid it altogether.

If there is a close choice between using reserve or not, it's best to not use reserve, as that deployment will prohibit the unit from using its trucks to supply friendlies.

[damezzi]

If there is a close choice between using reserve or not, it's best to not use reserve, as that deployment will prohibit the unit from using its trucks to supply friendlies.

I think he meant placing them on reserve to get the support in the combat phase. If you dig in you can't use the unit anymore in direct support and can't move it if needed and in mobile deployment it won't support combats.

[sPzAbt653]

Yes, that's what I meant. It's probably dependant on the scenario, but in a large one with hundreds of units, when on the offensive and moving everybody, the artillery isn't going to stay stationary, so you wouldn't dig them in. As you move along you can put them on Local to get some combat benefit. That includes adding to RBC's. [:D]

If the 'r' did actually jump to another unit, I agree that could be aggravating, but it depends on how the oob and formations are set up by the designer. If it were to work, I would rather it functioned like the 'L' and not move to the next unit.