Post by t0ra on Mar 30, 2008 8:08:47 GMT -5
Differentiating between horde factions : the Question of Questions in wargames.
Basically, I feel that their basic combat doctrines must be different :
think Orks vs Tyranids in wh40k - two horde factions, but no one complains they're too similar. Their 'feel' is way different.
(Suggestions)
China - Soften them up with artillery, then roll in with massive combined arms attacks, with armor spearheading and infantry mopping up. Numbers will simply be used to 'roll over' enemy units, and this faction should have the most numerical superiority. Combat should be rather like a punch in the face, rather than a sting in the tail. Heavy armor (but slow), huge squads, devastating firepower at mid-range. Should be the slowest of all the factions, with guerillas being the exception - used to counter enemy harassers/special forces?.
Russia - Infantry and armor basically act as meat shields to the more advanced units - psychics and tesla's inventions, to do damage. Their technology is their ace in the hole, rather than their numbers.
Jihad Pact - True harassers, like how the saracens fought the crusaders. Use quick-moving light armor to disorganise their troop formations, and exploit any gaps with infantry or heavier armor. Make close combat their specialty. Should be the least 'hordey' of all? Should be 'rush and disrupt', versus the african 'pin and outflank'
Africa - Raiders and outflankers, thinking rather of 'bull's horns tactics' - two flanking vanguards supporting a main body of infantry and armor to attempt to encircle the enemy. Armor should be the lightest, but the fastest, and primarily used to support/transport infantry rather than being a true force in themselves. Think Black Hawk Down - ideal conditions should be light skirmishers used to pin enemies down, while flankers move into better positions, and finally massive numbers to finish them off.
Should be the most infantry intensive.
Just some suggestions on how to differentiate the horde armies. I won't be offended if their tactically unsound or anything, just some observations I picked up from years of playing RTS games, and some tabletop ones.
Basically, I feel that their basic combat doctrines must be different :
think Orks vs Tyranids in wh40k - two horde factions, but no one complains they're too similar. Their 'feel' is way different.
(Suggestions)
China - Soften them up with artillery, then roll in with massive combined arms attacks, with armor spearheading and infantry mopping up. Numbers will simply be used to 'roll over' enemy units, and this faction should have the most numerical superiority. Combat should be rather like a punch in the face, rather than a sting in the tail. Heavy armor (but slow), huge squads, devastating firepower at mid-range. Should be the slowest of all the factions, with guerillas being the exception - used to counter enemy harassers/special forces?.
Russia - Infantry and armor basically act as meat shields to the more advanced units - psychics and tesla's inventions, to do damage. Their technology is their ace in the hole, rather than their numbers.
Jihad Pact - True harassers, like how the saracens fought the crusaders. Use quick-moving light armor to disorganise their troop formations, and exploit any gaps with infantry or heavier armor. Make close combat their specialty. Should be the least 'hordey' of all? Should be 'rush and disrupt', versus the african 'pin and outflank'
Africa - Raiders and outflankers, thinking rather of 'bull's horns tactics' - two flanking vanguards supporting a main body of infantry and armor to attempt to encircle the enemy. Armor should be the lightest, but the fastest, and primarily used to support/transport infantry rather than being a true force in themselves. Think Black Hawk Down - ideal conditions should be light skirmishers used to pin enemies down, while flankers move into better positions, and finally massive numbers to finish them off.
Should be the most infantry intensive.
Just some suggestions on how to differentiate the horde armies. I won't be offended if their tactically unsound or anything, just some observations I picked up from years of playing RTS games, and some tabletop ones.