How many TO's are BEST for the Soviets? (Last poll ... I promise!)

[CyberRanger]

<The dark hall of the temple is dimly lit by arrays of candles. The hooded and robed figure in front of the great stone dais underneath the menacing, looming statue of some giant insect creature passes his hands through the divination smoke and makes his pronouncement:>

"The entrails read that the great Mantis means that the lists of players will be matched up with each other on a number by number basis, the first on the list of the Germans will be matched with the first on the list of the Russians, etc. If players don't agree how many TOs to use they must play by Pelle's rules. Oh great Mantis if I have mis-divined your words or offended you in any way, please spare me my humble life and continue to allow me to play the TOAW game which I so crave."

LOL!!! Yes, Mantis did clarify for me that we will match up that way. I'd hoped to have more control.

Now, how we decide on the number of TO's has me thinking.

What is the BEST number of TO's for the Soviet side???

From when I've first saw this scenario, I felt the non-deployment TO's favor the Germans. Outside of the early release of the DON reinforcements, our TO's are sort of lame.

I really think that the BEST type of game for the Soviets is the deployment TO and ONE non-deployment TO. Heck, I'll give up Little Saturn to force the Germans to pick between early release of the 1st Pz Army and early release of 19 Pz Division.

If the players can't agree, then we go to a historical game which means ... north Soviet deployment, south German deployment, and Little Saturn is selected by the Soviet player on turn 4 so it's in effect starting turn 5. Not a bad deal at all!

Comments?

 

[Tiberius]

I think the historical TOs are the best for the Soviet. I mean us having one and them not having one is pretty good no? Especially since it is generaly agreed that the northern Soviet deployment is a pretty good, if not the best, option.

Which begs the question should we make it a strategy to logjam the selection process to historical? I think we sort of owe it to ourselves to at least force their best players into a historical game. I mean we're in this to win right?

I think the players matched up against their best (top 5 or so) should take one for the team and force a historical game. For myself I would probably get a historical game with most of the enemy players, only allowing options if I got pretty much a newbie. <Sigh> once the latest updates are posted I will have a losing record I got decimated in the WiW by JoeBob and Bruce, our enemy commander who is damn savvy, good player. Trust me, if you're playing against him, you will want the historical lineup.

 

[CyberRanger]

Southern Dandy sent me this in an email ... I agree!

2) Depending on who I'm slotted against will determine game options, most likely. If I'm against an experienced player (say, MikeJ or Bruce), I'll go strictly historical. If I'm up against a newer player, I'll go with northern deployment, Little Saturn at my discretion, and early reinforcements.

3) I'm still considering options for the polls I haven't voted it yet....though you can see my leanings above.

 

[laszlo.nemedi]

Just one thought:

I think better to see all the German units in battlefield early, I don't like seeing green lamped units appear in the end game on the german side...

 

[Southern Dandy]

Good point, Laszlo....hadn't considered that aspect of it. Paralysis by overanalysis is beginning to set in.....

:nuts:

John