|
Thanks for doing this GI. It was an interesting game. Shame the Germans were so negatively impacted by morale. This game was much, much closer than the neutral thread or the German team realized. Towards the end, you guys were coming very close to achieving a 1:1 kill ratio, while still outnumbering us. And our ammo situation was getting desperate. You had 45 minutes, and only a few hundred meters of ground to cover. Why was everyone constantly rushing? Sure, this format is murder on the attacking side. But, it was repeatedly confirmed that a few MG-34/42s firing from open fields totally suppress a few lovely stens and lee enfields, even from the cover of buildings. A stug or 234 would have wrecked us. (Well, on second thought, it would probably have driven right up and gotten a PIAT in the rear end, goons being goons). Generation Internet posted:... you guys ran your security platoon and scouts into the forest without any kind of precaution, which was kind of ironic given what happened to the Americans on the first turn of the battle before this. Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose. Generation Internet posted:I would have distributed the saves if people asked! I think it may have been brought up briefly near the beginning, but I don't remember anyone seriously requesting it. Ace and I asked for the save files at the beginning. From page 1 of the Canadian thread: Generation Internet posted:I could re-start it, but my only concern, and this is tiny, is that it would re-randomize the weapons every unit starts with. I think I'm going to keep the current game we have now going, and just share the save I have if people want it. I trust everyone here not to cheat, since we've all done this before and that would completely defeat the purpose of the game. I wasn't thrilled about the idea of having the turn file with no password. If playing PBEM with someone, I would use the password functionality, even if I trusted them not to cheat. If we start another one of these, let's please, please start the game with side-specific passwords. And share the saves on google drive or something (provided that both sides have a roughly equal number of players who own the game). abelian fucked around with this message at 11:35 on Apr 17, 2015 |
#
?
Apr 17, 2015 11:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 23, 2024 07:59 |
|
|
quote:Again, my test game ended up with 3 surrendering Canadians with no ammo in the Church surrounded by a FJ force that had just taken shy of 50% casualties, but that was with perfect knowledge of all units on each side. That's the thing though, the fog of war is a huge advantage to the defender. Especially in this format, where the attackers have to make the choice between moving reaaaally slowly and so boring everyone to death or running into an ambush. quote:You had 45 minutes, and only a few hundred meters of ground to cover. Why was everyone constantly rushing? We did the slow steady advance in the Red Thunder game and more than half the team quit. Fangz fucked around with this message at 11:34 on Apr 17, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2015 11:32
|
|
|
Make things a whole lot less specific and run 5 minute turns, have people make their intentions clear then leave it up to the player in charge and we might be able to get battles done in a reasonable period of time.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2015 11:39
|
|
|
Yeah, I think that would actually be more useful. Have two people running the game with larger responsibilies while the goons give more general, conditional orders. The player then handles the intricacies of meter-to-meter positioning and timing. Each turn has several minutes (though five might be too much), which keeps each turn interesting even for the viewers. Sure, people will always be screaming for micromanagement because they want to win but If you establish before the game that the turns must be, say, three minutes long, then noone can argue. Micromanagement kills morale.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2015 11:43
|
|
|
abelian posted:This game was much, much closer than the neutral thread or the German team realized. We lost over twice the amount of dead and wounded you did and we had only 2 MGs left with any amount of ammo and only one of them being handled by FJ. Regulars were hosed beyond repair due to their morale which broke every time someone shot in the general direction. By the time we gave up we were out of ammo, people and squad morale. You would've won even if you hadn't given any more orders, just by sitting in the houses you were occupying when the game ended. Hell, we could reverse roles and you could still probably throw us out of our houses. Let's agree to disagree on this one! quote:You had 45 minutes, and only a few hundred meters of ground to cover. Why was everyone constantly rushing? The early rushes? There was a rise in terrain just before the first row of houses. Only way to close in with your troops was to cross it, which meant taking a lot of fire. No smoke, no support weapons to knock down houses, no way to suppress the house because we can't see the bottom floor. Only way was to attempt running across. It's not that we didn't think it was a bad idea, we just thought it unsporting to give up without even attempting. That final rush? My guys were out of ammo and ordered to scavenge something from the pile where you shot the last team that attempted to close in.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2015 12:05
|
|
|
Personally if I was to change the format, the one big change is: Suspend fog of war for the attacking side. Firstly this isn't massively unrealistic - few commanders would commonly attack into the unknown with only a 3:2 superiority in force. Air recon and signal intercepts were fairly common in this time. Secondly it would allow the attackers to recruit new players from the observer thread. Thirdly it might favour a more dynamic defense instead of one based on surprise ambushes.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2015 13:22
|
|
|
Personally I really enjoy the meeting engagements. There are so many more possibilities than with a simple attack/defend, and it gives both sides the opportunity to do attack or defend as necessary. I agree that meeting engagements need to be able to avoid situations where failure to reach an objective first, or loss of one or two units, results in defeat. Playing around with the map objectives is a sure way to accomplish the former, and keeping tighter control on unit availability would help with the former. Denying armor to both sides in ths game worked in that regard. Giving either team limited information on the enemy's forces might allow them to stock up on AT weapons if they know the other guys have tanks is another idea. Mid-game reinforcements always make things interesting, though with CM you'd have to plan those far in advance and that might be a bit tricky.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2015 15:20
|
|
|
Meeting engagements might work well for one player against another or AI, but from what I have seen in Goon games is that the focus required to pivot forces dynamically just isn't there. Between lost orders, LOS checks and breakdowns in the chain of command it just doesn't react well. Goon games mean cooperation is much harder which means basic tactics aren't being used as a lot of the orders are coming top down with the idea of them not being too specific as to remove agency and not enough side to side communications to coordinate as a force even locally. I wouldn't suspend fog for the attackers. It would be much better to start them off with intel on the defenders deployment with some fudging of location and numbers so the attacker isn't going to outright snipe with artillery and work in a more general bombardment or cheese the LOS to snipe whole squads in the opening. Removing the defender's ability to ambush would really kill things for the defender and such an arrangement would only work for heavy fixed defences. Give the attackers more men and material, but give both sides lower end, but more numerous heavy weapons like Panzer 4, stugs, Marauders instead of super weapons so the loss of one element isn't going to cripple a side. In the previous game though, the Germans didn't really have enough men to hold an area of that size against a determined attack and should have been framed more as a rear guard action instead of a "Thou shall not past".
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2015 17:53
|
|
|
quote:Removing the defender's ability to ambush would really kill things for the defender and such an arrangement would only work for heavy fixed defences. You might as well give the attackers a lesser advantage in force if it would remove that unfun aspect. The risk of having the attacker try and snipe with artillery isn't too bad either, since the defenders can move around to avoid artillery fire.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2015 18:09
|
|
|
Removing ambushes is removing a fundamental aspect of combat. Another better idea is to maybe place expendable scouts to generate intel for the attacker to simulate pre attack scouting which would remove "Suddenly ambush" we had on the first turn in this game. I am oppose to removing something so fundamental when there are other options.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2015 18:26
|
|
|
Thanks for playing everyone. I had a great time commanding and I can't wait for the next match. Thanks for running it, GI. It was very well organized. I'm disappointed we won't see the final attack on the objective. For what it's worth I think you guys still had a chance. You still had a numerical advantage and way more firepower than us at the end. As for ammo, there was at least 1000 rounds of 7.92 lying on the ground at the first ambush site, and your two HMG crews had enormous pools that your squads could restock from. There's no way you would have run out before us if you had taken those measures. We had also pulled back on the final turn, so your lost LMGs were easily recoverable. I think everyone is overemphasizing the disaster at the start of the game. It was nasty, but I think it had far more impact out of game than in-game. Even after losing the regular platoon, I think the Germans still could have won simply by massing all their firepower into a big ball, smashing into us at a single point under cover of a smokescreen, and penetrated into the objective. After the ambush I was frantically getting stuff redeployed in town with the expectation that we would imminently get hit by a platoon of angry FJs spraying MG42 fire everywhere. The fatal problem was a breakdown in command and coordination, dispersing all over the map and attacking piecemeal so that nothing was mutually supporting. Lessons learned from the LP: 1. Lets not do urban maps again. Windows and doors are just way too subtle for our format. It wasn't too bad in this game since the scale was small enough that I could sperg about it, but in a full size match it will be a clusterfuck. Small groups of houses like in the last game are fine, but maps dominated by towns should be avoided. 2. I agree with marcus that this was kind of a dull map. The thin row of bushes and the low ridge were the only real terrain features. Let's get some hills, streams, farms, low stone walls, valleys, hedges, anything to spur strategic planning. Both sides should have multiple viable grand strategies, and feel like this map forced both teams to be rather one-dimensional. 3. Playing a match with no arty really makes me realize what an important tactical dimension that is. It's pretty hard to use in our format, but if we start distributing savefiles and using order inputers it should be fine. 4. The tiny scale, rather than resulting in a quick game, actually slowed the pace. When every single squad counts and a single mistake can quickly get a significant fraction of your force wiped out, the pressure to micromanage with one-minute turns is intense. As a player I didn't mind this, but the spectators apparently did. In future games, let's have a large scale and use longer turns. Let's accept that longer turns will result in sloppy play and take steps to account for it. Give the OOBs depth so each side can take heavy punches due to sloppiness and keep going. The extra sloppiness can be mitigated by having order-inputers for each team and posting the savefiles in the thread so players can do their own LOS and terrain checks. 5. I think a large game might paradoxically be easier on the overall commander. With the scale this small, I felt like the line between giving advice and interfering with the subcommanders is extremely fine. I went into the game with the intention that I would never issue an order to anything more specific than entire sections, and that went out the window pretty fast. There were definitely a few turns in the mid-game where I feel like I got too micromanagey, and I tried to correct that towards the end. 6. This idea of disabling FOW is crazy talk.Spotting is way too fundamental to playing Combat Mission. On top of the meta considerations, I can't even begin to describe how much it would gently caress up all the unit relationships. A better idea is for the GM to give an intel briefing to each side at the start. Give a rough idea of the opposing force composition (they have about this many companies, heavy armor has been sighted, expect arty, etc) and an even rougher idea of their deployment to simulate a pre-game scouting patrol or aerial recon. Anyone who owns the game knows that this is actually a routine part of scenarios. Another option is to turn down the difficulty for the attacker. This makes spotting more forgiving, and on the lowest levels you actually get a few pre-scouted contacts. 7. Let's get creative with mission objectives. Having a GM gives a lot of freedom beyond what is mechanically possible in the scenario editor. We can have any arbitrary victory conditions we want and assign point values. It sounds like Abongination was thinking towards this when he described his grand campaign. Stuff like rescuing some trapped pre-placed units, killing a particular enemy asset, holding a position until another condition is met, adding new objectives mid-game. There's lots of possibilities. Even with regular old territory objectives, one thing we haven't ever done is have multiple parallel objectives. It's always either been a single objective worth all the marbles, or a couple linear objectives.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2015 19:21
|
|
|
Final breakdown of kills and casualties: Germans code:code:
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2015 19:51
|
|
|
And one final video to send this experimental game off. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VaJcW5Nn8Vc Thanks again to everyone who played, and to everyone who's given feedback in this thread. It's been a massive learning experience, and I know that whenever anyone wants to attempt this format again, they can look to this game for dozens of 'lessons learned'. Kind of like Dieppe in that sense. The offidical outcome: After twenty minutes of non-stop fighting, the German attackers are exhausted. They've been climbing over the bodies of the advance section just to get into town, only to face withering fire from the houses within. One by one, squad commanders start pulling back without orders, as their commanding officer had caught a bullet in the initial frenzied skirmish. The HMG section and two or three battered survivors volunteer to hang back and make the Canadians think they're still in town. The Canadians are equally exhausted, having faced unrelenting machine gun fire all morning, but notice the sudden lull in German fire. Taking advantage of the situation, their commander orders them to tighten the noose around the few houses with Germans still inside. As the bulk of the German platoon falls back into the forest, they hear the guns behind them peak in a crescendo of fire, only to slow, slow, slow, and stop. Canadian Victory
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2015 20:06
|
|
|
oohhboy posted:In the previous game though, the Germans didn't really have enough men to hold an area of that size against a determined attack and should have been framed more as a rear guard action instead of a "Thou shall not past". I commanded the American side so take this with a grain of salt. It's the only match thus far where attackers have won the game, and even then it was close. Defenders only needed to kill two or three more tanks to win the battle. Battle time was used up almost to the last minute. Almost every tank Americans had left was damaged or had taken casualties when the game ended. Maybe it was not as skewed in the attackers favor as people think, considering the format?
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2015 21:09
|
|
|
Hob_Gadling posted:I commanded the American side so take this with a grain of salt. I commanded the Germans, so take this with an equally large grain of salt. We did only need to kill a couple more tanks to win, but only by the arbitrary point value the game assigned to destroyed tanks. The Americans ended the game in complete control of the only German objective, plus objectives we didn't even know about, and you'd just received a large number of halftracks as reinforcements.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2015 21:25
|
|
|
dublish posted:We did only need to kill a couple more tanks to win, but only by the arbitrary point value the game assigned to destroyed tanks. This is an interesting point. Do people play for other victory conditions than those given (and often obfuscated) by the game?
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2015 21:41
|
|
|
Hob_Gadling posted:This is an interesting point. Do people play for other victory conditions than those given (and often obfuscated) by the game? We certainly were in that game after Abong revealed it was the start of a persistent campaign.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2015 21:51
|
|
|
I'm getting a rough sketch of what any future games should look like from the discussion here. So far I think a few agreed upon points are more generalized orders over several turns on varied and interesting maps, with the saves distributed with a per-side password and some intelligence reports in certain situations. My question is what people think would be better for the videos: having one person do both sides like I did, and GH did way earlier, or having the video production on a per-team basis like Abongination kind of did, even if he ended up having to run the American turns himself. Another question would be if we should even bother at all with on map objectives and points awarded for casualties, and just have the objectives on the map be more abstracted and player defined. That way neither team gets caught up in occupying any one green square and can decide who wins on a more practical basis of map control of casualties.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2015 22:01
|
|
|
Generation Internet posted:I'm getting a rough sketch of what any future games should look like from the discussion here. So far I think a few agreed upon points are more generalized orders over several turns on varied and interesting maps, with the saves distributed with a per-side password and some intelligence reports in certain situations. My question is what people think would be better for the videos: having one person do both sides like I did, and GH did way earlier, or having the video production on a per-team basis like Abongination kind of did, even if he ended up having to run the American turns himself. Another question would be if we should even bother at all with on map objectives and points awarded for casualties, and just have the objectives on the map be more abstracted and player defined. That way neither team gets caught up in occupying any one green square and can decide who wins on a more practical basis of map control of casualties. I'd definitely be in favor of this. The great thing about this format is being able to try and plan out and conduct attacks within a chain of command semi-realistically, and having more abstract objectives definitely helps put more emphasis on the decisions of the commander to pursue particular objectives as opposed to the game giving them points for completing arbitrary tasks. As to who runs the turns, there are benefits and drawbacks to both approaches. If it's just one person running the turn, then it's easier for them to just record it and run it as opposed to having to coordinate with another person. On the other hand, having a dedicated video-creator per team means, in theory, that the videos will be more focused on what the commanders want to see, as opposed to what the person running the videos thinks the commanders want to see, but you'd probably have to ask the Germans from Abong's game how well that actually went.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2015 23:26
|
|
|
Generation Internet posted:I'm getting a rough sketch of what any future games should look like from the discussion here. So far I think a few agreed upon points are more generalized orders over several turns on varied and interesting maps, with the saves distributed with a per-side password and some intelligence reports in certain situations. My question is what people think would be better for the videos: having one person do both sides like I did, and GH did way earlier, or having the video production on a per-team basis like Abongination kind of did, even if he ended up having to run the American turns himself. Another question would be if we should even bother at all with on map objectives and points awarded for casualties, and just have the objectives on the map be more abstracted and player defined. That way neither team gets caught up in occupying any one green square and can decide who wins on a more practical basis of map control of casualties. As for videos, both ways have advantages. I like the consistency that GM-made videos provide, but that might be too much work when combined with multi-turn videos and team order-input. Would the inputters and GM have to swap savefiles between every minute, or can the inputters create a new game file every minute and turn them all in to the GM at once for filming? If they're not compatible, I'd say have the inputters make the videos and the GM can direct the game via forum posts. For objectives, a mix of both in-game and out of game objectives sounds good. Abong's game is actually a pretty decent model: The Americans had a hardcoded objective to take the town, but also a meta objective to take it quickly. I do think the objectives should be defined in advance though, including point values, rather than deciding who won after the fact. Coming up with these out-of-game goals will just be part of the GM's job when designing the scenario. The GM might not tell the players exactly what the objectives are worth until it's over, and he might announce new objectives during the course of the game, but it's all planned out. The winner is then determined by score, summing the in game and out of game points earned. Here's an example off the top of my head: An allied force is to raid a German supply depot. The GM explains that although the objective is lightly defended, other powerful German formations are nearby. Thus the allies must overrun the defenders quickly, then hold off the ever-growing German reinforcements until the sappers can set their charges (simulated in game by keeping sapper teams in certain locations for a predetermined amount of time). Then they must keep the Germans from disarming the charges before the timed fuses blow, while also pulling back to an extraction zone. Points would be awarded to the allies for how many parts of the depot were demolished. The Germans would get in-game points for inflicting casualties, and out of game points for disarming charges and preventing escape by the allied force. It's interesting because there are multiple phases of the battle, with both sides on offense at different points, and there's more to the outcome than just "I have the hill/He has the hill". Fray fucked around with this message at 23:32 on Apr 17, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2015 23:28
|
|
|
Fray posted:As for videos, both ways have advantages. I like the consistency that GM-made videos provide, but that might be too much work when combined with multi-turn videos and team order-input. Would the inputters and GM have to swap savefiles between every minute, or can the inputters create a new game file every minute and turn them all in to the GM at once for filming? I liked for format from the last game. Two minute turns. Team captains input things and can make small corrections as needed. Using intention-based orders seems good, although it'll come down to how well the team captains can input things. Fray posted:Here's an example off the top of my head: This is a great idea. There's a very similar mission in Red Thunder that is quite fun.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2015 03:08
|
|
|
The only suggestion I really feel strongly about is giving both sides enough stuff that we don't need to be too careful with them or risk losing the battle. The format makes it hard to be very precise or cautious, so I'd rather err on the side of "more stuff" if anything.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2015 04:05
|
|
|
quote:Canadians B Section gets a medal for me. 16 kills!?! I thought A section took a couple of hits too, I'm amazed A and B only lost one guy. Man of the Match for me goes to the Canadian Stone Cold Killer Sniper. I'll have to watch the other thread to see WTF happened, but from my wrong perspective, I think the Germans advanced way too quick and just assumed they could walk up to the forest edge and then start the attack. Once they knew the defenders were at the edge of the village, they either should have attacked one place with everything, or spread out and attacked on all sides at the same time. To me the middle of the battle the north, south and central German squads all attacked at different turns. Now I can read the thread back, I'm sure my perspective is all wrong, but thanks for the game everyone- I thought it was well made, run and played by all sides. Edit- 2nd last page of the German thread I'm wrong- they DID try to attack in the centre as a fist, but it looks like that was after a failed pincer? I dunno, I'm all confused on what happened. Edit- Ok, 1st page of German thread, the plan was to SCOUT to the forest edge, and then advance from it, not expecting the defence to start at the forest line? WTF happened? Edit- Oh, they didn't specify way points and half the attack force moved up right behind the scouts. Who didn't expect the Spanish Inquisition to be so far forward. Whelp. Edit- And by the 2nd turn the entire right wing of the German force is shattered. Edit- So the original plan was to move up to the forest edge, attack in the centre with everything. The 1st two turns shattered that idea. New plan- flank left and right. That idea goes tits up when the centre attacks first without waiting for the flanks to be in a position, which then gets both flanks shot to pieces attacking on a 1-1 ratio. The Mortar didn't actually DO anything - the Canadian side has no idea it existed until the last turn. It should have been used to smoke or shell - why didn't it? Perhaps because it was focused on in the Canadian video's, but the Lee-Enfields seemed very useful in a house to house fire fight, when fired from the flank! Comstar fucked around with this message at 15:00 on Apr 19, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2015 14:36
|
|
|
Having the video maker in your own team certainly made the game more immersive compared to a neutral game master. Not sure how much of that was because it was DSM, specifically. I guess a lot. Pewpewpew, boom, ka-blow, aaargh!
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2015 19:01
|
|
|
So what's next? Have you continued working on your campaign idea, abongination?
Fray fucked around with this message at 19:52 on Apr 19, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2015 19:11
|
|
|
Fray posted:So what's next? Have you continued working on your campaign idea, abongination? Double or nothing bonus round, a platoon of Shermans or T-34s against a platoon of Panzer IVs 
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2015 00:22
|
|
|
Two companies of infantry armed with nothing but Bazookas and Panzershrecks going at it edit: five Shermans against one Tiger
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2015 03:56
|
|
|
Acebuckeye13 posted:Two companies of infantry armed with nothing but Bazookas and Panzershrecks going at it For extra fun, each player is one member of the Tiger crew. The driver places all the movement orders. The gunner places all the turret orders. The commander is the only one who can see the whole map, the other two just see narrow cones in front of them. Nothing could go wrong!
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2015 04:42
|
|
|
Generation Internet posted:Double or nothing bonus round, a platoon of Shermans or T-34s against a platoon of Panzer IVs If abong's campaign isn't ready yet, I'd totally be down for a big dumb tankageddon on a stock map to pass the time and play-test some format changes. I've been thinking more on what an improved “2.0” format might look like. Everyone seems to agree that our current one suffers from being slow and rigid. We need a better balance between flexibility and player control. I think a good system would be to use freeform video lengths, where the length is decided by the order-inputters during the play session. We'd have a minimum length, say two or three turns, but it can keep going until one inputter says "stop." An inputter can play until he’s completed his orders, or he might choose to end the session if he feels that the situation has changed beyond the scope of his orders. The inputters will need a degree of autonomy to make this work, so we should combine it with a move towards more generalized orders than what we've traditionally done. Just give intent, a general plan, priority targets, contingencies, etc, rather than drawing explicit waypoints for the units. Of course a player can still give exact orders when he feels it is appropriate, he’ll just pay a price in terms of flexibility. It’ll be the GM’s job to decide how much leeway for the inputters is reasonable, and insure that the players are still ultimately in control of the match. This has a few benefits. The overall pace can speed up to reduce player burnout and increase entertainment value for the spectators. We can fast-forward through dull periods where not much is changing. It should make managing LOS far less of a headache. Most importantly, it’s adaptable to the in-game situation. Fray fucked around with this message at 20:37 on Apr 20, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2015 20:29
|
|
|
That definitely seems like the best option. There were definitely a few times in this last game that we could've easily run two minute turns, but we never did since both sides would have had to agree to it beforehand. Having the order-inputter decide "Okay, we can keep going" would definitely make things run a bit smoother.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2015 20:55
|
|
|
Yooooooo I've been hella slack on the campaign (and kinda the last game as well kinda) as the arcade/cafe I've been working at has been becoming more successful and I've been running a bunch of events/tournaments/leagues IRL. Here's a preview of what I've got so far along with the American 3rd Army:  *Edit - Got some bad artifacts as a .jpg but cbf re-uploading it haha Abongination fucked around with this message at 06:14 on Apr 21, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2015 06:05
|
|
|
Abongination posted:Yooooooo Don't sweat it man, that thing looks beautiful. Can't wait to draw big arrows all over that map. If anyone seriously wants to gently caress around with tanks and test some new methods of forum CM, I've been playing around with a few Red Thunder and Black Sea setups that could work. I'm thinking a big open hilly map with a village or two would be interesting enough for people to play around in, with a platoon or company sized armoured force on either side. It still needs tweaking, though, I tried a setup of one company of Abrams versus one company of T-90s and it was a massacre. Anyways, I think the main thing we'd need before anything else to test the new styles are people who are willing to be the inputters/video makers. If that sounds like you, step up! I can definitely do things on a per-side basis as needed.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2015 06:16
|
|
|
I probably could do order-input if we start a match in June. May is looking pretty bad for me though. And I own CMBN now so I might try my hand at making a scenario to use in the Falaise campaign. Doing something with the Battle of Mortain sounded interesting to me, but it looks like Abong is setting the start date well after it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2015 17:29
|
|
|
Fray posted:the Battle of Mortain sounded interesting to me, but it looks like Abong is setting the start date well after it. I was actually looking into doing some small leadup games based on Operation Lüttich since the campaign is already in the game and the maps already exist and such, do whatever you want to do and I'll be keen to help out however I can.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2015 18:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 23, 2024 07:59 |
|
|
Abongination posted:I was actually looking into doing some small leadup games based on Operation Lüttich since the campaign is already in the game and the maps already exist and such, do whatever you want to do and I'll be keen to help out however I can. Oh nice, I hadn't noticed that there's a Luttich campaign already in it. I'll have to check it out when I get home. I was thinking of doing something on the surrounded 2nd Battalion, 120th Infantry Regiment since that's a cool story. I'm not sure an accurate scenario would make for good gameplay though, since historically it largely consisted of the Germans getting shelled and bombed to poo poo. Or I might see if I can find a way to take the scenario idea I posted further up the page and shoehorn it into Luttich. I just like that setting since it has stuff we haven't seen before like attacking panzer formations, panzer-grenadiers and  tank destroyers .
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2015 18:47
|
|