|
This thread will still be open and have overall updates for the peanut gallery, right?
|
#
¿
Jun 30, 2014 16:46
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 27, 2024 16:52 |
|
|
Grey Hunter posted:Yeah, so you guys can all laugh as they drive a tank towards a load of infantry.... Davin, Herp, Fangz and the rest of No Retreat's greatest hits have signed up, there's no way I'm missing that!
|
|
#
¿
Jun 30, 2014 17:31
|
|
|
Tevery Best posted:EDIT: also, won't riding the tanks be a terrible idea if the Germans can get a shot at them? Making infantry ride on the tanks is like the coolest feature ever, which justifies its use.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 3, 2014 10:09
|
|
|
Are we going to get updates in this thread too or are we supposed to check in on the per-side threads as well? At least maybe Grey could copy-paste them here?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 7, 2014 08:13
|
|
|
Grey Hunter posted:So, Am I crazy in thinking that this could become a mini campaign? basing the next battle off the results of this one. I think that's a great idea if this game goes well. People have been wanting a dynamic campaign for Combat Mission forever, and that's still the one thing Close Combat has over CM.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 10, 2014 13:06
|
|
|
sniper4625 posted:Hahaha, compare the hugfest in the Soviet thread to the near mutiny in the German one. The Axis are so boned at this rate. Historically accurate for 1944!
|
|
#
¿
Jul 17, 2014 08:29
|
|
|
I'm so glad I'm watching this from the cheap seats  SIGSEGV posted:Don't you know it's unlikely the Soviets have tankriders? And they definitely aren't setting up an AT gun that will get a side shot on that Panther coming in and turning on the railway. Can Germans use tank riders too or is that like a T34 special ability in this game
|
|
#
¿
Jul 19, 2014 13:11
|
|
|
Do people regularly play games this big? It seems like an awful lot of units to order around, especially when you have to manage them down to the individual squad.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 21, 2014 08:31
|
|
|
Could the Germans have gotten there first if they had the benefit of hindsight? Or couldn't they shell the position and hope for a penetrating roof hit?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 21, 2014 11:07
|
|
|
SkySteak posted:It isn't an awful idea but there is something ironic about the concept of Germans bringing numerous, cheaper tanks to defeat the lesser, more powerful German ones. I was just thinking the same thing, a reverse Prokhorovka would be awfully ironic.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 21, 2014 12:49
|
|
|
Maybe the next battle could be set along the Isonzo
|
|
#
¿
Jul 22, 2014 21:04
|
|
|
Gimmick Account posted:Why volunteer for overall command if you have never even played the game in question at all? In a philosophical sense, this is what realism is for: If a person is familiar with small-unit, fire-and-maneuver tactics, then he should be able to apply that to any given LP such as Combat Mission or Steel Panthers or Close Combat and the plan should work. Even if he's never played the game, a sufficiently realistic engine should be able to let him, through Grey as the LPer wrestling with the UI, translate IRL tactics into in-game results. Unfortunately I don't think platypus is that knowledgeable of such tactics either.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 23, 2014 18:37
|
|
|
Platypus taking a command position in the Fields of Fire LP is also all kinds of magical. It's spreading!
|
|
#
¿
Aug 4, 2014 01:17
|
|
|
Graviteam Tactics is really well suited for the persistent campaign, carry over casualties and overall strategic impact of missions kind of thing that Combat Mission has never really captured, but it's full real time all the time, making it more difficult to translate into an LP like this thread is doing.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 4, 2014 13:56
|
|
|
Was anyone here around for the Forge of Freedom LP, specifically from the Confederate side? As the Union we had a Google spreadsheet broken down by hierarchy where people could post orders, and that worked well enough to make sure that everyone was getting and giving the orders they needed, since you could see the Army-level orders, followed by the Corps-level orders, followed by the Divisional commands. They'd get more and more specific as you went down and if someone hadn't put in any orders, it was easy enough for someone else to step in. Are either of the sides here doing anything even close to as detailed?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 15, 2014 12:42
|
|
|
Grey Hunter posted:the real question is do we preserve the forces seen here (with some reinforcements for both sides) or do I just convert them back into points and let both sides pick fresh? I don't know how you'd do this but I think forces should be preserved, and then both sides get an equal amount of points to play with on top of the survivors. Or perhaps unequal to account for attacker/defender balance.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 15, 2014 14:07
|
|
|
I'll sign up for a German Company command, or a Platoon if that's all full. No experience with Red Thunder, but I've played the earlier Combat Missions and Battle for Normandy
|
|
#
¿
Aug 16, 2014 18:04
|
|
|
Unless you're only counting Red Thunder experience, I've played the earlier CMs and Battle for Normandy.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 17, 2014 18:18
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
Arbite posted:I think Grey said in this thread that this will be the last one for a while, what with December fast approaching... At first I didn't get what he meant, but then December... and the 7th... 
|
|
#
¿
Nov 1, 2014 14:46
|
|
|
Hob_Gadling posted:If I were your company commander I'd like a few more "I want to X because Y" type of comments. Then again you were micromanaged from above pretty hard. It's detrimental for company commander to say "do exactly X" and reduce tank commander to saying "what he said". I find it better for CC to explain "I want this to happen" and leave the details to underlings. While micromanagement seems appealing every fight thus far has been decided by players getting bored, frustrated and dropping out. If you happen to get a micromanager as your CC in the next game, push back a little. It's easy to fall into repeating "yes, exactly that" for the entire fight, which makes your participation superfluous, which risks you getting bored and dropping out at exactly the wrong moment. It also wastes your potentially good ideas; after all, you spend more time staring at that one tank than anyone else. I'm not trying to defend myself here, and I fell into this trap myself a couple of times, but when you don't have the game yourself and it's really finicky about elevation and LOS, it's easy for someone to come in with "okay, here's a bunch of screenshots to illustrate my proposed movement and positioning for you" and for you to reply with "do exactly that" because not having the game means you don't really have anything to substantially counter with unless the proposal was completely at odds with your intent/objective. I'm not saying that this is a problem per se (because obviously the person who does have RT and made the proposal has nothing but teams' best interest at heart) and even if it was I don't know how you could solve it, I'm simply saying that it's a symptom of the format that we're playing in that there's sometimes a big gulf between what you want to do and how it translates to actual in-game orders and results. Perhaps if we were playing one of the earlier/simpler Combat Missions so that stuff like being inside houses and hiding in forests and shooting across valleys and hills is more abstracted?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 1, 2014 19:22
|
|
|
Right, if the point of the exercise is for people to play their part in a WW2 tactical chain of command, then anything to make it easier to play this out using nothing but Grey's videos themselves and maybe some freeze-frame captures and a planning map would be a good thing, I think; whether that means one of the earlier, simpler games, or having a single game-owning team adjutant, etc. EDIT: Which is not to say that this was a bad LP either, not at all. I had a ton of fun and would sign up for another in a heartbeat. gradenko_2000 fucked around with this message at 20:32 on Nov 1, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Nov 1, 2014 20:29
|
|
|
Dark_Swordmaster posted:Looks like Abongination might have this next one. Sign me up yo. Yeah I've thought for a while now that having each side have their dedicated "orders inputter" would help, but I was never sure if it would work within the framework of Grey being the processor of the turns. A straight-up blind duel between two commanders as though it were a normal PBEM except forums goons are commanding the units, though? Sign me the hell up. VVVVVV A goons vs AI game would also work well I think because there'd be less petty sniping between the two sides, it'd be easier to replace drop-outs since you don't have inter-thread cheating to worry about, and we'd all be going into it just as blind. gradenko_2000 fucked around with this message at 18:44 on Nov 3, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Nov 3, 2014 18:38
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 27, 2024 16:52 |
|
|
Bacarruda posted:Yeah, scenarios where the AI has to go on the offensive don't work all that well. If we do run a goon campaign (which seems likely), it'd needs to be an Epsom-type deal where the goons are assaulting the AI. Well geeze it shouldn't be that hard to do better than Monty, right?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 3, 2014 19:32
|
|