|
dublish posted:DarkSwordmaster and I have been kicking around the idea of doing a mix between the head-to-head and the games we've been running. Each CO runs the turns and makes the videos but doesn't know anything about the opponent. I would hope that this would allow greater feedback between the guy running the turns and the people giving orders, but on the downside you'd be limited to 1-minute turns and dependent on two people who may not be as dedicated as Grey Hunter. That's actually a pretty good idea. The people inputting turns will have a real incentive to get things right. And teams can make the videos as long/short as they want them to be.
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2014 01:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 21:51 |
|
|
dublish posted:DarkSwordmaster and I have been kicking around the idea of doing a mix between the head-to-head and the games we've been running. If you can find two COs who will stick around and are willing to take the videos, this sounds like a lot of fun. Of course it means I can't be the overall commander.  e: maybe whoever records the videos doesn't need to be CO as long as he's willing to do the work? Hob_Gadling fucked around with this message at 01:08 on Nov 1, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2014 01:05
|
|
|
Just chiming in to say that I hope this format continues after this thread in one form or another, I can't believe I've missed all this sweet goon-on-goon action until now.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2014 01:10
|
|
|
I have limited time due to work, but if there's another battle I'd put my hand up for a command spot on the reds  Give me a tank platoon or an infantry company.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2014 01:13
|
|
|
Hob_Gadling posted:e: maybe whoever records the videos doesn't need to be CO as long as he's willing to do the work? Probably. I think that might mess with chain of command if the video guy starts cutting out the CO, but that can happen in the current games anyway. If that'd the most effective way for a team to run it, more power to them.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2014 01:20
|
|
|
As usual I'm willing and eager to give critique about a given players performance (especially commanders). Since it's impolite to do so in public, ask me if you want an assessment.dublish posted:Probably. I think that might mess with chain of command if the video guy starts cutting out the CO, but that can happen in the current games anyway. If that'd the most effective way for a team to run it, more power to them. Well, I don't have the game but I'd still like to take command...
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2014 01:21
|
|
|
Hob_Gadling posted:As usual I'm willing and eager to give critique about a given players performance (especially commanders). Since it's impolite to do so in public, ask me if you want an assessment. If you have any pointers for me, barbed or otherwise, I'd love to hear them. Am I going to have to upgrade to platinum or do you want my e-mail address?
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2014 01:29
|
|
|
Hob_Gadling posted:As usual I'm willing and eager to give critique about a given players performance (especially commanders). Since it's impolite to do so in public, ask me if you want an assessment. Sure, lemme have it. I only had one platoon, 4th SMG/3rd Platoon, but I'd like to hear what could have been done better and what worked out.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2014 01:29
|
|
|
mottbag posted:I think I'd prefer a smaller map with less players this time. Easier to manage and hopefully we'll get to the action faster. I very much like the idea of small-scale action, like in this AAR: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yA3P9roGkXc, instead of just 2 heavy armor kills determining the winner. However, the reason we ended up playing a big map was because we had so many players (and thus platoons) signed up on each side... But then the bigger map is slower to start-up and bleeds out those same players. So what I'm proposing is that everyone steps down one level of command: instead of battalion-company-platoon, we'll have company-platoon-squad leaders. This way we can play 1 vs 1 company and fit the same number of players. Bring a few APC and armored cars along too. For added excitement/realism, we can have "deathmatch" player rules - if your pixelman leader is killed in action, you are out of the game (you then can take over from any absent players).
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2014 01:36
|
|
|
What we need is an elite cadre of players. A system with a pair of battlefield commanders who see the victory goals and battlefield at the starts and then deploy their units and declare their intentions, but apart from their personal HQ squads can only issue orders to their lieutenants every ten minutes. A set of lieutenants who control their own squads completely but can only give and receive orders from their sergeants every five minutes. A team of sergeants who can only control their platoon, and only see their own LoS. Then a system to incorporate and integrate this offensively stupid idea, and a madman to manage it. All in an attempt to replicate the madness of real warfare.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2014 01:37
|
|
|
Personally I'd rather see goons vs. AI Campaign mode, myself. More chances to jump in, less chances for drama.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2014 01:38
|
|
|
I like the idea of smaller company-sized engagements. Maybe some light vehicles like halftracks and jeeps and stuff. Goons vs. AI campaign mode sounds pretty awesome as well.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2014 01:41
|
|
|
I figured I'd write up a few quick lessons learned. Choose the right force. Both sides picked effective forces for this battle. The Soviet SMG infantry proved to be murderous in the forests, just like our MG42s were murderous over open fields. Taking the 88s and the King Tiger proved to be pretty inspired decisions. Those long guns were absolutely murderous at range. And we got lucky. The 75mm PaK 40s Grey accidentally gave us ended up being more useful than the 75mm infantry guns we wanted. Know your strengths and weaknesses. In retrospect, this is one thing we didn't universally well. In CMRT, Germans work best when defending large open, spaces, while the Soviets are knife-fighters. Fighting the Russians in a forest at close range didn't play to our strengths. I think we could have done a credible job defending the town with our MG42s and Panzerfausts, but it'd have been a tough fight. Choose the right people for the right jobs. The biggest factor in our victory was our players. Thanks to good choices and good luck, talented people ended up in the right roles. Jaguars! was an outstanding XO. Kenzie and sniper4625 were very good company commanders. Our platoon leadership (Kangra, TheJJ, Kangra, eigenstate, JcDent, FellFire, Valiantman, Dark_Swordmaster, eigenstate, and markus_cz) were solid across the board and performed some very difficult moves while under fire. Our armor officers (gradenko_2000, anilEhilated, Arbite, Chunky Monkey) did their jobs well. Had the game gone on for a few minutes longer, all their delicate maneuvering would have paid off. Some people really rose to the occasion. The Panther dash was Kenzie's brainchild and his work with screenshots and maps was invaluable. Velius deserves special recognition for spotting work and machine-gunning. Dirt Worshipper was pretty quiet the whole game, but he made his presence felt when it counted. Those 88s were positioned perfectly, as that IS-2 kill proved. If you plan to succeed, succeed to plan. This the biggest factor that set us apart from the German team in Game 1. Unlike last game, we had a clear gameplan and clear goals from the start and we stuck with it. Note how closely my initial OPORDER lines up with how we fought the battle. Bacarruda posted:Concept of Operations: Having a plan helped our commanders know what we were doing, how we were doing it, when were were doing it, and what we were doing to do next. When the Russians started hammering us, we had a cohesive (and ultimately successful) defensive strategy ready to implement. Be flexible. Tactically, there were times when we had to improvise. The best example of this was Operation Cat Rescue, we we tried to save that wrecked Panther. It didn't work, but it was a good example of the team collaborating, thinking on their feet, and trying to solve an unforseen problem. Being flexible also meant we could exploit the enemy's mistakes, much as we did with the Panther dash. There was a brief window to make that attack, we saw it and we took it. We also had to be flexible when it came to personnel. For example, when we lost sniper4625 and the TheJJ, their troops were in the middle of a firefight and needed immediate replacements. There was enough leeway in our OOB so we could quickly promote Dralun and TehKeen, get them up to speed and have them fill those gaps and save 1 Company. Guide, but don't micromanage. This was one area we had trouble with. I (and some of the other officers) had a tendency to be a bit too hands-on in our orders. I made a conscious effort to give people choices and leeway. If anybody felt stepped on, I apologize. Administrate. Having a Roll20 and a spreadsheet was a huge help in planning and running this battle. Jaguars! did an outstanding job as my XO. His admin post, casualty counting, and wrangling of backup officers was an enormous help. There wasn't a lot of glory in the role, but he did it very, very well. Shout-out to sniper4625 for his banner-making and map-making skills. That gridmap he made would make an ordnance surveyor envious. The real target is your enemy's morale. Just like the last game, this round was only partly decided by battlefield events. Player morale played large role in the outcome of this battle. Our ambush strategy was designed to frustrate the Russians. And the Panther dash was deliberate shock-and-awe attack meant to wreck Soviet morale by suddenly destroying their big-ticket units. By the same token hang tough. There were rough patches, but German morale was pretty good this game. Part of it was that we had hard-headed commanders who knew losses are part of war. Part it was that we had a plan, goals, and a purpose. And part of it was that we felt we were winning. We were killing Russians and destroying tanks, which kept spirits up. And people had fun. As a team, the Germans were more serious business than the Russians, but I think that people had fun all the same. This kind of game is like playing chess with pixeltruppen and Panzerfausts. It's a unique experience you really can't get anywhere else. Know the terrain. Understanding and exploiting the battlefield was a huge factor in how this game played out. Both teams had people who owned CMRT. On our team, people really came through with screenshots, LOS checks, and mapping. Kenzie, Dralun, Dirt Worshipper, and Velius did invaluable work posting screenshots. Jaguars! also deserves a shot-out for finding and making topographical maps based on real terrain. Yes folks, this map is based on a real place in Belarus. Educate people. Having veteran players post info on force composition, equipment, and tactics was an enormous help for new players just getting the hang of CMRT. In the same vein, ask and answer questions. The German team had loads of people asking questions. "How many men do I have left?" "What's the best way to ambush a tank?" And we were pretty good about giving people answers.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2014 01:46
|
|
|
Shucks. I'm just glad my contributions helped! Fun game, will definitely watch a sequel.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2014 01:49
|
|
|
Everything was fun up until the last week or so when player drop-outs starting hurting us really bad. Not knowing what current arty missions were and unit location/structure was more an annoyance than anything else (Judging by the posts in Soviet Thread).
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2014 01:53
|
|
|
jng2058 posted:Sure, lemme have it. I only had one platoon, 4th SMG/3rd Platoon, but I'd like to hear what could have been done better and what worked out. Poor Willie drove into a mine early, so you probably didn't have enough guidance from above. Personally I believe the company-platoon level communication is the most important in the whole game. If that fails the whole unit becomes ineffective. TMM filled in, but having an ersatz commander is never the same. Some of your orders were clear:  Some, not so much?  Honorable mention for telling the thread you can't give orders for the upcoming turn and could someone fill in for you. That's good communication. Best post of the thread is this. You lay out the problem, your solution to it and the reasoning why you think it's a good one: http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3658539&pagenumber=44&perpage=40#post436629510 You did an admirable job of concentrating your firepower. I can't find a single set of orders where you weren't concentrating your offensive into a relatively small area. It shows: whenever you got around to shooting, you shredded the Germans. Maybe leading with a half squad to trigger ambushes... but that's details. The big lines were fine. Concentrate fire, work within the plan framework, work with the units near you. Well done.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2014 01:54
|
|
|
I wish I could say that the King Tiger not moving at all for the last 3-4 turns (and shelling Russian tanks instead?) was deliberate, but  I went into this with the idea that I couldn't get too complicated with orders because Grey is going to misinterpret them, intentionally or otherwise, and in that vein our higher leadership was inspiring: commander's intent was very clearly stated, I was never just being told what to do, I was being told why I needed to do it, and given a relatively free hand in how to accomplish it. And when there were suggestions on how to accomplish it, Bacarruda, Jaguars! and Kenzie all had extensive maps and screenshots to flesh it out with. Soup_Inspector, anilEhilated, Arbite - wish you guys had more to play with, but all that repositioning and waiting and stalking would have given the Soviets a hell of a fight Chunky Monkey - thank you so much for sticking out with the thread to the very end, even when your Panther was lost relatively early in the fight. I also want to call out HerpicleOmnicron5 for being such a good sport and enthusiastic with his scouts. gradenko_2000 fucked around with this message at 02:06 on Nov 1, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2014 02:03
|
|
|
Bacarruda posted:Jaguars! also deserves a shot-out for finding and making topographical maps based on real terrain. Yes folks, this map is based on a real place in Belarus. poo poo. Me and Fangz must have spent 6 hours going through the elevation map in the scenario editor to make our topographical map. It took a week before I found the scenario description that told me where to look in GoogleEarth.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2014 02:04
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:I wish I could say that the King Tiger not moving at all for the last 3-4 turns (and shelling Russian tanks instead?) was deliberate, but Yeah, I think Herp redeemed himself a bunch for the first game. One of my favorite map related moments was finding there was a Studienka in Austria. Further west than I thought.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2014 02:09
|
|
|
It's unfortunate that the format doesn't really lend itself to getting replacement commanders from a waiting list. They'd have to content themselves with not reading any of the threads until their name came up, and you don't actually get to know when that's going to happen or where. Yet, loss of commanders was the biggest obstacle the Soviets faced. Dozens of dudes and four tanks got blown up in that northern field because the assault came unhinged where a full-scale press would have stood at least some chance. A faster, smaller-scale game might help there, but life does still happen. Highlight for the Germans, you should probably go back and watch what happened with that northern mortar bombardment that was hitting an 'empty field' a few turns ago. Not empty. That was some preposterous luck, you could barely have done better if you'd had a clear view. sniper4625 posted:Yeah, I think Herp redeemed himself a bunch for the first game. I cannot believe that northern scout lived through the whole game. It's just not right.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2014 02:13
|
|
|
Cool, thanks. Glad to see that I didn't screw up too much. Looking at the combined maps, I see now that 4th SMG was walking right into the main line of defense. I'm surprised how well we made out, considering.Hob_Gadling posted:Some, not so much? That wasn't actually orders, it was part of a discussion I was having with Willie at the time about where he should send his HMG. You know, before they all got blown up by a surprisingly well placed mine. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2014 02:14
|
|
|
GenericServices posted:It's unfortunate that the format doesn't really lend itself to getting replacement commanders from a waiting list. They'd have to content themselves with not reading any of the threads until their name came up, and you don't actually get to know when that's going to happen or where. Couldn't a replacement commander simply sign up to just one thread and then read the thread from that side exclusively? Also, I don't know how the Russians did it, but having one guy per tank worked for us insofar as Chunky Monkey was able to step in as a replacement for one of the infantry (or was that AT?) teams after a few turns of only commanding a very panicked tank crew.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2014 02:17
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:Also, I don't know how the Russians did it, but having one guy per tank worked for us insofar as Chunky Monkey was able to step in as a replacement for one of the infantry (or was that AT?) teams after a few turns of only commanding a very panicked tank crew. One guy per tank worked for us as well. The problem was dropouts. It ended up, in my case, where I originally commanded 1 tank then 1 tank and 1 Inf Platoon, then 1 tank and 1 Infantry Company.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2014 02:19
|
|
|
GenericServices posted:It's unfortunate that the format doesn't really lend itself to getting replacement commanders from a waiting list. I think I have a solution for this. I'm just not too eager to reveal it before I get to play a game with me behind the wheel. Gimme 30 goons and an army, and we'll open the route to Berlin/Moscow!
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2014 02:20
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:Couldn't a replacement commander simply sign up to just one thread and then read the thread from that side exclusively? There's a lot of potential for 'players' to end up doing nothing. You'd run the risk of having a game with ten a side and a handful of replacements for each, and then one side burning through all of theirs before the other side needed any. Keeping interested replacements who read none of the threads is more difficult than anything.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2014 02:30
|
|
|
GenericServices posted:Highlight for the Germans, you should probably go back and watch what happened with that northern mortar bombardment that was hitting an 'empty field' a few turns ago. Not empty. That was some preposterous luck, you could barely have done better if you'd had a clear view. The gently caress? That actually killed people? I'd planned that strike as an area denial attack to slow down their northern attack and stop them moving men south along Route 66.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2014 02:36
|
|
|
 In my defense, I did not know the assault command existed until after my platoon got strafed with HMG fire. Ah well, you may have killed just about everyone else I had but you never got me. I hesitate to ask for feedback, considering the meatgrinder I ended up in, but I'm pretty stoked to do it all over again if duty calls.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2014 02:53
|
|
|
Awww, I go away for three turns and we lose? Anyway, it's flattering to see that my idea of roll20 as a digital map table for last game is now a standard feature on both sides.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2014 02:56
|
|
|
Bacarruda posted:The gently caress? That actually killed people? I'd planned that strike as an area denial attack to slow down their northern attack and stop them moving men south along Route 66.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2014 03:03
|
|
|
What turn was this again?
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2014 03:05
|
|
|
It does seem like it would be really hard to hold people's interest over a long period of time in this type of game. Patience usually ends up winning the day in CM, and lots of people would have nothing to do with their units over long periods. Most of the German tanks were in reserve for the whole battle, just waiting. I ended up stealing (tankjacking?) Arbite's tank to perform that flanking maneuver too, so he didn't have a chance to do much. A lot of our guys never fired a shot. I think this is a pretty interesting way to play the game though. I was unsure if it would work or not. I knew that some of the players would have nothing to do, or that some other players would have their units destroyed without the chance to have much fun with them. This is a game where you can have entire companies annihilated without them causing a single casualty to the enemy (similar to what happened in the north it looks like - jesus christ that artillery). This is a game where you can spend hours laying down a careful plan only to watch your guys get horribly massacred. I think a smaller company-sized infantry fight might work great in this format though. Long meat-grinder battles are hard enough to play in single-player. It was interesting seeing how this game played out though. Ivan Shitskin fucked around with this message at 03:17 on Nov 1, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2014 03:13
|
|
|
I'd definitely be up for another should someone want to run it - though I do agree that a smaller scale battle would probably be a better plan.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2014 03:20
|
|
|
Man, I'm disappointed Fangz threw in the towel. Yeah, the northern force was kicked around pretty hard, but we probably could have at least taken Objective IST had we fought it out. For what it's worth, I'd certainly be up for another round, even though I am still a bit sore about that one round that had my men walk the opposite direction they were supposed to go into a machine gun. They weren't SUPPOSED to do that, you jerks! < >Edit: Also, would it have been possible at all for the shattered remains of my platoon to assault the Panther? Acebuckeye13 fucked around with this message at 03:37 on Nov 1, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2014 03:22
|
|
|
dtkozl posted:This should be a rather straight forward win for the soviets. The germans have all their infantry up front and with no support from tanks or guns and are generally at the mercy of a combined arms assault by the soviets unless they can get off a coordinated retreat with most of their infantry assets intact. All in a nice line too so they are very vulnerable to artillery. Always nice to ruin someone's prophecy. e: reading the observer thread, it's kinda funny to watch the goon consensus go from "the Germans are so boned it's not even funny" (a literal quote) to "maybe they have a chance" to "the Soviets are hosed. Bacarruda fucked around with this message at 03:38 on Nov 1, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2014 03:22
|
|
|
Bacarruda posted:Always nice to ruin someone's prophecy. People love to declare a winner way before its time. In a game with so many different elements at play like CM, I'm not surprised at how things can change.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2014 03:53
|
|
|
Battalion commander's post mortem What went right Looking at how things generally went, I think our deployment and strategic plan was fine. The core problem with this map is with the difficulty of the river crossing. Our main gamble was this - that to some extent the Germans would divide their forces to defend the two objectives. By focusing overwhelming force on one objective, we can force a local collapse of the german forces and inflict a large casualty ratio, making whatever nasties (mines, TRPS, etc etc) they put in place to guard the western town irrelevant. With this map, we are basically constrained in a number of ways - on the eastern town, there's a very limited number of approaches we can take. The North, the Forest, and South across the river. While the map is large, in theory, when limited to the approaches it was actually quite tight. People ask if we could have swapped out a tank for an infantry company, and I'd ask - where the heck would we put them? We were squeezing a lot of companies into locations I was not super comfortable putting more than a platoon into. I don't think at any point we really had a shortage of manpower. If our strategy, at its core, is based on a good casualty ratio, then getting more guys to run into minefield, get shot by MGs, or get pounded by artillery actually directly works against our plan. I think actually the germans could have been a lot more effective with artillery, and punished out tight concentrations of infantry, especially in the case of 3rd and 4th companies. Despite the instances of friendly fire, air power was a wise purchase. It represented a way to doing casualties to them that cannot in itself turn into a casualty. It was also super duper cheap. Comboing air strikes with artillery was effective. My annotated maps was a good idea to compensate for our lack of game-owners, I wish I had more time to do it. I think our artillery use was good. Yes, we were shooting fairly blindly, but that is way better than not shooting at all! Our advance was good and patient. Our guys generally did not get tired. Our location names were better. What went wrong Well, they put a lot of forces into the East town. That was an effective counter to the 'focus on east town strategy'. But the main problem I think was that we were never clear what the Northern force was meant to achieve, and how it was supposed to be done. During planning uPen essentially assured me it was a good idea, that once we take the Austrian School we'd be able to bombard the enemy with impunity etc etc, which sounded good for the casualty-ratio plan. We were also very worried about german 88s across the river shooting at our guys while we are assaulting the eastern objective. But how were we meant to get Austrian School? I was never very clear on that. My impression was that it should be based on using all 6 heavy tanks, plus maybe decoy units, in a tight unbuttoned wedge, with a close screen of scouts (1st Company), pretty much straight across open ground, so that they would all see and respond to enemy units popping up in Media simultaneously and annihilate it by simple mass of fire. Given this will all depend on some kind of LOS/formation/artillery coordination fuckery of the finicky kind that I don't specifically understood, I put both of our players that owned the game (dublish, part of 1st Company, and uPen, my 2nd in command and 1st Tank company) into that area. My assumption was that they would figure out how exactly this was going to be done, and communicate and coordinate everyone else. Didn't quite turn out that way. uPen was too busy to take an active role, just as his command became relevant. And I don't think dublish really had the time to do this sort of major strategy-mancy. I had really wanted something like Kenzie's simulated turns, but we ended up with very little direction in the North. What emerged of the attack was just very confused. We had no idea where had LOS on austrian town. We were fixated on avoiding the KT when I thought we were *supposed* to be engaging it. We barely used artillery in the North. We sent in 1st company, assuming the copse sheltered them from MG fire, when it did nothing of the sort. Platoons wound up being left in the middle of empty fields, giving repeated orders that Grey Hunter forgot about, eventually eating a few artillery rounds. So I think that was our main mistake. I don't think it's particularly a morale issue, at least it wasn't anything inflicted by the Germans. The North force barely saw any germans and was losing commanders. All of 2nd company pretty much disappeared, and they were lagging behind everyone else and barely saw the enemy until the end! The south force saw and fought the germans, and managed to somewhat keep an attack going. I think it was the fundamental issue of there being a lot of players, and many important commanders having busy lives. If there was a morale issue, it would be the persistent failure of certain units to obey orders, sometimes leading to disastrous results that would not have happened otherwise. I think the format definitely favours defenders in a variety of ways. 2 minute turns basically buffs ambushes a lot, because an unit that has been ambushed is basically stuck there for a while before they can be pulled back. While mistakes could have been made for both sides, Grey's fumbles hurts attackers a lot more than defenders - a defending unit not given an order would just sit put and still ambush our dudes. While an attacking fumble would mean our units move out of sync and get slaughtered. It didn't also help that the deployment error with the on-map mortars basically hosed up a large proportion of the firepower our infantry companies were supposed to have. Fangz fucked around with this message at 03:58 on Nov 1, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2014 03:54
|
|
|
Soviet decision not to mass tanks was one of the biggest mistakes. They were eaten in manageable, bite-sized chunks instead of all attacking together in one big group. A lot of it seemed to do with communications and command issues, but having them all together in one big group simplifies things. "All tanks go here," etc. It's relatively inflexible, but that's because the Soviets are inflexible. Better to maximize that strength.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2014 04:03
|
|
|
Kenzie posted:I think this is a pretty interesting way to play the game though. I was unsure if it would work or not. I knew that some of the players would have nothing to do, or that some other players would have their units destroyed without the chance to have much fun with them. This is a game where you can have entire companies annihilated without them causing a single casualty to the enemy (similar to what happened in the north it looks like - jesus christ that artillery). This is a game where you can spend hours laying down a careful plan only to watch your guys get horribly massacred. I like the format if only because I like the realism and need-for-IRL-tactics, but I don't have the wherewithal to command an entire force like this all by myself in the actual game. This lets me play out the game in a manageable, bite-sized chunk while also avoiding most of the interface faults (at the cost of other, possibly more disastrous "interface" faults?!)
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2014 04:08
|
|
|
Fangz posted:With this map, we are basically constrained in a number of ways - on the eastern town, there's a very limited number of approaches we can take. The North, the Forest, and South across the river. While the map is large, in theory, when limited to the approaches it was actually quite tight. People ask if we could have swapped out a tank for an infantry company, and I'd ask - where the heck would we put them? We were squeezing a lot of companies into locations I was not super comfortable putting more than a platoon into. I don't think at any point we really had a shortage of manpower. The answer to that is "safely behind another one." Pushing a fresh SMG company through 4th Co's lines right nowish would be brutal, and give 4th needed time to resupply and reorg. A fresh assault force for the objective would undo all the work the Germans put into attriting the first wave on contact.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2014 04:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 21:51 |
|
|
Bacarruda posted:The gently caress? That actually killed people? I'd planned that strike as an area denial attack to slow down their northern attack and stop them moving men south along Route 66. You better believe it did. This video at 1:16 and this one at roughly 1:05 are the highlights from the Soviet videos. Bacarruda posted:e: reading the observer thread, it's kinda funny to watch the goon consensus go from "the Germans are so boned it's not even funny" (a literal quote) to "maybe they have a chance" to "the Soviets are hosed. I'll cop to being a bit worried about you guys initially, but where I really made a bad call was thinking you'd have been better off with the 75mm artillery down south. I had no idea when I said that just how good the sight lines were from that spot.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2014 04:13
|
|