Matrix Games Forums

What types of scenarios do you prefer playing?

Defending?

Attacking?

Meeting engagements?

Etc, etc

Thanks in advance
Take care and good luck
Jason Petho

ORIGINAL: Jason Petho

What types of scenarios do you prefer playing?

Defending?

Attacking?

Meeting engagements?

Etc, etc

Thanks in advance
Take care and good luck
Jason Petho

My personal preferences have always been for "meeting engagements". That's more wide open and less like solving chess puzzles when you start with a set piece scenario. I hate the "Guide" books that tell you specifically how to win a certain scenario. I hate games with "perfect solutions" - meeting engagements defy the idea of perfect plans and setups.

Personal opinion only, of course. [;)]

Games in progress at the moment? HPS Campaign Gettysburg and HPS Campaign Waterloo... both full campaign scenarios and are meeting engagements on a huge map... the kind where you can spend 25 terms before even contacting your enemy. That probably tells you a lot about my preferences, even for the "Campaign Series", as well as the Battleground series which is my clear favorite.

I play almost exclusively against the AI, and it's always seemed to me that the AI does a much better job defending than attacking. Still, I have played some challenging scenarios defending against the AI provided the AI has a significant to huge advantage in numbers, such as the late-war scenarios in EF II defending against the Soviet onslaught.

My absolute favorites are the airborne and/or amphibious assaults on large maps such as the various Crete, Malta and D-Day scenarios.

I would like to see the ability to recreate Khalkhin Gol.  Khalkhin Gol is a forgotten battle in 1939 fought by the Japanese against the USSR that had enormous repercussions.  It is especially interesting to see what happens to the Japanese Army when it has to fight a modern army without the benefit of the jungle.
 
Bob

I like all sorts of scenarios for different reasons. Variety is the spice of life, they say. [:)]