<i><blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">I hope the new upgrade will convet many multi phase players to the single phase play.
But there are two things is the multi-phase play that make it less realistic IMHO.
1) Cannot change formation after a unit begins movement
2) No opportunity fire. A unit can literally dance in front of an enemy formation and attack from the rear, or just move to a different location without fear of loses or disruption.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote"></i>
Hi, Rich,
Everything you say is true. I will add that single phase is more fun to play.
Your first complaint about multiphase is misleading, as John could change that if he wanted to. But he takes exception to folks marching down the road in column in plain view with impunity and then deploying into line in a covered location. And he has a point.
The blitz tactics are, I believe, the primary complaint against single phase. But nearly as compelling is the arbitrary nature of opportunity fire that often lead to more firepower for the offense than for the defense, particularly in the woods. Nothing drives gamers nuts more than watching a unit charge across an open plain against artillery, maybe take a weak burst of fire at range 4 (or none at all), and seize the guns with minimal casualties. I believe that has converted more than one player back to multiphase. Some mechanism needs to be found to ensure the defense is guaranteed to get its licks in or lots of folks will never convert to singlephase.
If there are other major problems than blitz melee and arbitrary defensive fire, somebody please remind me.
MG Mike Mihalik
1/III/AoMiss/CSA
|