Bilbao or Malaga?
Posted: Mon Jul 13, 2020 3:22 pm
I have a question for everyone who played much time in DLC1. Which path (Bilbao or Malaga) is more interesting and why?
Thx, will try Bilbao first. Sounds interesting. And finally normal fighters and bombers!!!Rhaeg wrote: ↑Mon Jul 13, 2020 4:37 pm I just finished the Bilbao scenario a few minutes ago and have only experience with that one. I found it easier than the previous few scenarios, mostly because it's just a massive siege of fortified positions and the enemy has no reinforcements that suddenly enter the map and there are no big counter attacks that occur (the city is completely surrounded by your forces after all). I completed it on turn 19 out of 23 and that was only because I had to use the "hold position" order so my Spanish allies would not take the final victory hex before I could finish the last bonus objective one, otherwise I'd have been done at turn 15. I enjoyed it though and think it's good that there are some easier scenarios further into the campaign. If things only got harder and harder all the time I'd begin to dread having to start a new map.
Thx, but I like attacking battles more. But I have made save to return and try the second path too.monkspider wrote: ↑Mon Jul 13, 2020 5:13 pm Malaga is mostly about defending against Republican attacks, if you enjoy defensive battles like me, you will love that one. Bilbao is about attacking entrenched positions and has some great briefings. I also love slow, grindy Great War-style attacks like that too, so both paths were great IMO.