Matrix Games Forums

Hello,

As to the transports - how difficult could it be to add the option "abandon transports"?

Its not about how difficult something is, but about how much time it might consume compared to the use for the game.
OB is not a fullprice game, not everything can be included. Thus the development process is a chain of decisions according to this.
Including stuff now into the finished game often consumes more time than one would think. For example
when the NATO symbols were demanded, someone stated it could done fast (Quotation:"My cylinder solution is couple of hours work in Ogre and hey presto NATO operational map").

In fact it took several days and much testing. My point is that we do not reject suggestions easily, but we know the effort needed and take it into account, too.

Okay, I have now played the first two campaigns again as "General", using a "tanks-first" approach. I bought one fighter unit in the German campaign and made some upgrades to other units, but otherwise I spent all resources on buying and upgrading tanks. It went great. Without re-loading a saved game at any time I managed to get brilliant victories in all scenarios except "Bagration" where I fell one turn short. In both campaigns I did not lose a single tank unit until the last scenario (where there was no need to conserve the units for the future).

What I love about tanks is that you don't need to worry about anything. You can attack anywhere and almost any opponent without thinking. With other units you always have to, for example, make sure that there are no hidden artillery units in range, and it's almost impossible to save crippled units as enemy units seem to traverse zones of control pretty easily when trying to finish them off. So if you want to use infantry in combat and keep it alive you will have to buy replacements very ofdten, which is very expensive in time and resources. I hardly ever needed to buy replacements for tanks, as the few times a tank unit got dangerously low in strength I had enough other tanks so I could simply keep the crippled unit out of the way, knowing that the opp0onent rarely hunts for weak tanks. So all in all I think it even is cheaper to use tanks.

So I stand by my initial opinion - tanks are so powerful that combined-arms warfare is unnecessary, and I'm not sure this is intended that way.

Hello,

did more people experience this ? Is the "tanks-first-doctrine" a fool proofed solution to the game for others, too ?

If so we definitly have to change their values.

I fall into the "Tanks first doctrine". Is it fool proof? I'm not sure. Tank units are powerful,and can fill almost any role.But is that a problem? Don't forget these armor units also have their infantry compononts with them,so when an armor unit does well against infantry in a city,I don't feel it is wrong.
But , Yes I believe you can get by on tanks alone.(with some air cover)

To be honest, I was always more of an Artillery fan.

[Deleted by Admins]

spam