|
Just chiming in that I'd be up for a future game, especially if we do it as a Goons vs AI campaign to ease in people who haven't played any of the CM games yet. Also, it's pretty hilarious that Arbite's plan with the Panther for the next turns was exactly what had the biggest chance to further gently caress over the Soviets: Continue his mad charge into the flank of the third IS, then turn around, mulch up the infantry some more and wait for an opportunity to charge into the flank of the attack into town. Magni fucked around with this message at 18:20 on Nov 1, 2014 |
#
?
Nov 1, 2014 18:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 30, 2024 19:00 |
|
|
Soup Inspector posted:A fair enough critique, but in my CCs' defence I think I was lacking in initiative and tended to use advice from them as a security blanket rather than trying to tweak them to fit my own ideas of how things should go. I think I was perhaps skittish because of last game and some of my less than intelligent decision making. fwiw, I thought you did very well this game. You were very good about communicating with other officers (for example the Roll20 session planning your last redeployment) and you always asked good, insightful questions. You didn't see much action, since the Soviets bailed before the town fighting kicked off. But believe me, had the game gone on for another 5 minutes, you'd have been a very rude surprise for any Ivans who tried to assault our defenses.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2014 18:21
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted: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. It would work fine with the multiplayer format where different people take care of each side's orders though. In fact it would be one of its largest advantages.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2014 19:44
|
|
|
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. Gimme one. Dark_Swordmaster posted:Honestly I'd thought about running our first one in CMSF as a blu-on-blu scenario as the US(MC?) assaults the British after a failed Scottish vote for Freedom in an attempt to liberate the oppressed. I like that idea. The victory conditions in so many Shock Force scenarios depend on the casualties caused to the blue force more than anything else. The Syrians can get slaughtered and routed off the map but still get a major victory if they cause enough casualties. I wanna see a bunch of veteran jihadists going up against some green western forces.   Readingaccount posted:Is it possible to buy units with insufficient arms and ammunition or horrible skill to simulate supply and manpower shortages? This kind of thing plays a major role in the historical scenarios/campaigns. You can get units with skill/morale levels ranging from conscript/green/regular/veteran/crack/elite. The differences can be huge and it's fun to play with. This was one of the things I loved about the Market Garden campaigns. You get to see the best and worst that the German army has to offer. In one scenario you're going up against a lovely German penal battalion that runs away the moment a shot is fired at them. Then in the next scenario, your guys move down the highway a bit and are suddenly halted in a bloody battle with veteran or crack fallschirmjäger guys. There's a series of scenarios where you control a single platoon of veteran US paratroopers that dropped near the German border. You attack a small village and a hotel, clear it from the crappy rear-area security troops, and then come under a counterattack from a whole battalion of lovely (I think Luftwaffe) infantry. Each one of your squads would go up against an entire company, and even single US airborne squads get so much firepower that you can just shred them. Later on though, the Germans attack again, this time with an entire fallschirmjäger battalion with Panther tanks. That was fun (I got slaughtered). gradenko_2000 posted: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 think one way to help solve this is to use a gridded terrain mod, so you can see exactly what the elevation is in your area just from a glance at a screenshot. We have elevation maps but they are usually not good enough for precise micromanagement like with hull down positions. There are some gridded terrain mods for the other CM games, but I don't think one exists for RT.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2014 20:05
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted: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. I think it's a bit of a problem because it turns the players into haves and have-nots. You're correct when you say it's very hard to argue against someone who can take LOS screenshots when you can't. Since the game is uniquely about communication more than anything else, it reduces the enjoyment significantly. One possible solution is to ask players to just not use their copy of CM for planning. Another (which would be interesting to observe!) is to make sure everyone has a copy. Yet another might be using a generated/downloaded map which isn't publicly available. I would personally prefer a "only use what GH gives you" honor rule (of course excluding resources like game manual, Google Earth etc. which are available for everyone). It would lead to more small positioning mistakes but to err is human.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2014 20:11
|
|
|
Kenzie posted:This kind of thing plays a major role in the historical scenarios/campaigns. You can get units with skill/morale levels ranging from conscript/green/regular/veteran/crack/elite. The differences can be huge and it's fun to play with. This was one of the things I loved about the Market Garden campaigns. You get to see the best and worst that the German army has to offer. In one scenario you're going up against a lovely German penal battalion that runs away the moment a shot is fired at them. Then in the next scenario, your guys move down the highway a bit and are suddenly halted in a bloody battle with veteran or crack fallschirmjäger guys.  ... ok, now I see why the price tag is worth it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2014 20:21
|
|
|
When I did the first game I was really unsure of how much data to give everyone because I owned the game and I didn't know what resources the other side had and I didn't want to game the system. That's why I did what I did of take 10 screen shots of stuff and pretend like I took photos, I figured that would be a good way to stay within the spirit of the thing and not game the system. Really what we need to do is have both sides hash it out and leave grey out of it entirely (to lighten his load). Since at least one person on each side will own the game they both will have access to the same resources, we just put in a gentleman's agreement to say, "be able to take 10 screen shots at 2 points during the game" as an example. We can really just make a rule for anything but the fewer the better. I thought a game would be interesting where we try and mirror the decision types of the soviets/wehrmacht. So the soviet side commander would write up super detailed orders for each company and they would carry them out to the best of their ability (get to map point X at time Y, proceed at time Z to point A, etc.) and them leave them at that and only really respond to requests for artillery or reinforcements but be himself unable to alter the orders. The german team would just give general orders with teams in integrated infantry and armor, with perhaps a few panthers or something roaming around that have total independent control to say hunt for russian armor.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2014 20:26
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
dtkozl posted:When I did the first game I was really unsure of how much data to give everyone because I owned the game and I didn't know what resources the other side had and I didn't want to game the system. That's why I did what I did of take 10 screen shots of stuff and pretend like I took photos, I figured that would be a good way to stay within the spirit of the thing and not game the system. Really what we need to do is have both sides hash it out and leave grey out of it entirely (to lighten his load). Since at least one person on each side will own the game they both will have access to the same resources, we just put in a gentleman's agreement to say, "be able to take 10 screen shots at 2 points during the game" as an example. After playing this format first in the smaller engagement on company level and now defending on platoon level, I have to disagree on the screenshots. The reason is mostly long range combat and, to a lesser degree, player enjoyment. Tanks are so dangerous and so huge investments that you need to be able to both use them effectively and counter them effectively. Ditto for machine guns and infantry, although they're cheaper. In the first game we Germans had some screenshots but not many. We ended up going a bit like you suggested and it worked quite fine when it comes to fairness. However, in a small scale engagement a single tank represents relatively larger portion of your strength. It's frustrating to no end to find out that for example an assumed overwatch position really isn't (=something the tank crew in real life would figure out as soon as it gets there), or that what you think is a safe route around a machine gun nest is actually fully exposed (=something that would also get scouted in real life). Another angle I could approach this from is how crucial bases of fire and lines of sight really are in organizing a defense line. When defending, you're already outnumbered in every way. All the advantages you have are the terrain and your tactical decisions. Using the second game as an example, all four of our scout snipers turned out to be useless until moved into better positions because we didn't take screenshots. Imagine that would have happened with our 88s, who really cannot even move, or the machine guns, who would have had to be constantly shuffled around to test where they can actually fire at the approaching enemy. I do think it's unrealistic, if admittably fun, to be able to test run Panther rushes or the effectiveness of 88s against IS-2s in-game before doing the same in the LP but screenshots should be fair game.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2014 20:58
|
|
|
Valiantman posted:After playing this format first in the smaller engagement on company level and now defending on platoon level, I have to disagree on the screenshots. The reason is mostly long range combat and, to a lesser degree, player enjoyment. Tanks are so dangerous and so huge investments that you need to be able to both use them effectively and counter them effectively. Ditto for machine guns and infantry, although they're cheaper. I wasn't implying that my one example is the way it should be done, but to open debate on what the two sides should do concerning game intel just to be clear. To respond specifically, I agree with you that 20 odd photos alone are probably going to please no one. Throw in an elevation map though and I think an arbitrary number of photos would do the trick, combined with the thought that the initial commander (or at least an XO) has the game and can scout out initial gun positions on his own before the game starts. You are never going to have a perfect system for los, because even with only you playing the game there are times when you get surprised that your tank can't see something because of the top of a wayward tree or bush. As for your scouts, there are a lot of different levels of cover in cm. Visually they are not that distinct and it can be very hard to tell how far you can see in one patch of woods compared to another. It is going to to impossible for people to tell how far they can see in any given wood unless someone opens the game and puts some infantry in there to test it out. Grey wont and shouldn't have to check every little thing for los, there is going to have to be some built in fuzziness in this part of the game. Again, this should be something the commander does at the start in preparing for a game. People should start with a map that has contours, wood thickness, house sizes, fords/bridges, and whatever other terrain could be a factor. dtkozl fucked around with this message at 21:54 on Nov 1, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2014 21:30
|
|
|
Okay, an elevation map and screenies in the beginning, that I could go with in the set-up phase. Maybe there could be a rule to only take screenshots during the game from where your units already are? That obviously cannot be enforced but neither can not reading the other team's thread. It's honour-based style of playing anyway. Good preparation would simulate groundwork that usually gets done in real life anyway and allowing screenies only from the viewpoints of your units on-map would prevent thinking you're having a LoS somewhere you actually don't have.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2014 21:43
|
|
|
I don't think GH's going to have time for another game before December 7th rolls around. Anyways, thank you Grey Hunter, once again, for being hero and doing a lot of work for the rest of us. Do you have a Steam wishlist around, or GOG? I do think that the game should be played from GH's maps and videos only. Yes, that means you can't see much, but that would be no different from a commander giving orders to a subordinate who can't explain where he is, to someone who only vaguely knows what he's doing, to get orders that clearly don't make sense to do a job that neither of them know what is important about it. It makes it hard when GH doesn't zoom in you (or you die off screen and no one but you notices), but that's how a lot of us will end up anyway. You have to go into it knowing the GM can't show you everything, or even what you really need to stay alive. I'd be up for another game, but I would say make it a smaller map.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2014 21:55
|
|
|
Everyone keeps alluding to December 7, is there going to be a new War in the Pacific LP or something?
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2014 23:20
|
|
|
Dirt Worshipper posted:Everyone keeps alluding to December 7, is there going to be a new War in the Pacific LP or something? War in the Pacific day by day round two, glorious 日本 edition  from what I gathered. I'd like some confirmation too, though.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2014 23:32
|
|
|
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. I'll take some criticism. I've gathered that I should have placed my HQ next to the mortars, not all the way at the front? Omobono posted:War in the Pacific day by day round two, glorious 日本 edition Much like the actual war, I expect an official confirmation will be the second post in any such thread.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2014 23:44
|
|
|
I also request the zen of Hob Gadling. All I could see was my men getting shot and not shooting back.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2014 23:54
|
|
|
Honestly, I cannot fathom the idea of using only information provided by Grey. As you saw towards the end in the German thread I started bitching because his maps didn't have near enough resolution to give accurate orders on the level I was wanting.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2014 00:11
|
|
|
Dark_Swordmaster posted:Honestly, I cannot fathom the idea of using only information provided by Grey. As you saw towards the end in the German thread I started bitching because his maps didn't have near enough resolution to give accurate orders on the level I was wanting. We were playing on Ironman Mode, Grey just forgot to mention it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2014 00:47
|
|
|
After viewing the Soviet thread, it's very clear that the detailed map work on the German side (mostly thanks to Sniper) was a definite advantage for us. Even if my orders did not turn out the way I wanted, I still had a much better idea of how the battlefield looked on a local level, and that made it easier to understand what was happening. To some extent a careful observation of the videos made it possible to see a fair amount of that detail, but planning would have felt less like doing something interesting and more like random guessing.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2014 01:00
|
|
|
How about a company on company fight. City. Attackers and defenders. Same number of units but attackers are veteran/crack and defender is green/regular. GH picks the unit composition. We all play as squads.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2014 01:12
|
|
|
NEVER city. It's just a grid of modular buildings, it's not interesting, it runs like poo poo, it's all-around badbadbad.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2014 01:40
|
|
|
Making that map was one of my more exciting jobs - 26 6000x4000 (I think) images, none of which aligned perfectly due to viewing angles. I'm pretty happy with how it turned out. I remember I made a super lame one with blurred terrain and only the biggest grid lines - did that ever make it to the Soviet thread like some people asked for? Haven't gotten that early in the RedThread.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2014 01:44
|
|
|
Kenzie posted:Gimme one. Best tutorial for new players regarding the capabilities of a German infantry company I've ever seen. You could pretty much use it as is for any other wargame. As for orders, I think you did a very good job for explaining what you want to happen. You explain both what you want the individual platoon to do and what the result of action from the whole company should be. Orders for Operation Cat Rescue are about as good as you can hope for this format. If there is one thing you want to work on, it's using less conditional commands and stream-of-consciousness style of writing that comes up at later stages of the game. Example: quote:Circles are the spotting rounds. Because one of the rounds landed RIGHT at the end of the last turn, you might have a perfect window of opportunity here and have your guys run the gently caress away before the next round(s) hit. There will be a delay before the next one comes. Your guys are already in their holes but they don't provide perfect cover. Since we saw two spotting rounds land at the same time at one point, they might have two spotters calling in two barrages, and they might saturate this whole area with death. You can keep hiding at the bottom of your holes or run away. The team you have in that northern building might be OK where they are though as long as they stay prone on the floor. Shrapnel can go through windows. The rest of your men can run a short distance to the west and you can always return to your holes later. Hopefully I'm not giving horrible advice. If you don't know you can say simply "Take cover or move away from under the barrage as you see fit." If you do know, you can say "Move away immediately" or "Take cover and avoid movement until the barrage is over". It's not avoiding responsibility, it's delegating it. After all, you went through a great deal of trouble explaining what the whole company should do almost every time you wrote orders. People under you should have a pretty decent idea of what you want to happen, you can let them work out the details. Fell Fire posted:I'll take some criticism. I've gathered that I should have placed my HQ next to the mortars, not all the way at the front? I can't give you any meaningful criticism about tactics, just about how you worked with other players. Let me just say I love the brevity of your orders. Davin Valkri posted:I also request the zen of Hob Gadling. All I could see was my men getting shot and not shooting back. You repeated your understanding of commanders idea at start of your own orders. This made understanding what you were going to do extraordinarily easy. You also spoke when you were not sure what was wanted from you, which is good. You even said "my platoon can't do this" when command was planning a charge. Confusion increases the higher you go on the command ladder, getting feedback is very important. People on top talk to people on bottom fine when giving orders, but people on bottom don't really give much feedback to people on top on how their orders worked out. You made the feedback loop work on your own part, which means you will make the job of your commander significantly easier. It may seem pointless but saying "I need a minute to get there" can make all the difference. As it happened, I supported your troops. You took losses but not because you made any mistakes. Moving house to house means you have to be willing to eat the casualties, and you spearheaded the charge. As far as I can tell you moved in synch with the rest of us, doing your own part in the plan. Seeing only friendly casualties is a feature of the game. As long as your guys are in cover shooting back you just have to take it on faith that they're doing damage to the other side. Well played and don't worry about the confusion. It's the worst enemy in this format. Hob_Gadling fucked around with this message at 02:26 on Nov 2, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2014 01:49
|
|
|
Hob, if have thoughts about the good/bad sides of my leadership this game, I'd be interested to hear them. Grey, any chance we'll get a final KIA/WIA tally?
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2014 01:57
|
|
|
Affi posted:How about a company on company fight. City. Attackers and defenders. Same number of units but attackers are veteran/crack and defender is green/regular. Final Destination
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2014 02:16
|
|
|
TehKeen posted:No guns, Melee/Grenades only, Final Destination
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2014 02:41
|
|
|
On another note, those final turns also showed a drawback of the IS-2. It's a very cramped design and the ammo is squeezed in everywhere. If CMSF supported it, we would have likely seen the turret of the first dying IS-2 go on a magical journey.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2014 02:42
|
|
|
Dark_Swordmaster posted:NEVER city. It's just a grid of modular buildings, it's not interesting, it runs like poo poo, it's all-around badbadbad. They don't have to be a simple grid, just the bad maps. City fights are BRUTAL though and the best part of the market garden expansion is letting the brit para's loose in Arnhem, each man with a smg. I mean, does this look like a simple grid? 
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2014 03:15
|
|
|
Velius posted:I'm pretty sure the IS-2s are superior to the Tiger I in virtually every regard. Even the T-34-85s wouldn't struggle to penetrate it from the front, much less the sides. That's a big difference between the eastern and western front games, a Tiger is scary to a bunch of Shermans since they can't even penetrate with side hits reliably, but Soviet armor gives no fucks. With the slow turret rotation Tigers are really vulnerable to flanking action besides. Used well the Tiger can be deadly as hell to T34's if you keep them at range and utilise its high accuracy and good rate of fire. The T34-85 can only really pen it reliably from <500m, outside that its a gamble. That said the Tiger really struggles to pen the IS-2 at any sort of range, whereas a hit from that 122 is utterly devastating to the Tiger. gently caress in CMBB I have one hit KO'd them with 122mm HE after my IS-2's had run out of AP. If another game is run I think points wise a good aim would be enough for a company of infantry plus an attached platoon of armor. That gives a good sized battle without it becoming too big to manage.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2014 03:54
|
|
|
dtkozl posted:They don't have to be a simple grid, just the bad maps. City fights are BRUTAL though and the best part of the market garden expansion is letting the brit para's loose in Arnhem, each man with a smg. Market Garden is an exception since it's a module. The base game city maps tended to be a stupid square grid of buildings and it was horrible. Now let's be honest: If we're just going to do various Market Garden scenarios I'm more than on loving board.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2014 04:52
|
|
|
Someone recreate Leningrad, let's do this in real time!
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2014 05:03
|
|
|
Alright, who wants to sign up to starve to death in the first winter?  e: realistic goon attrition
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2014 05:13
|
|
|
sniper4625 posted:Making that map was one of my more exciting jobs - 26 6000x4000 (I think) images, none of which aligned perfectly due to viewing angles. I'm pretty happy with how it turned out. Thanks also to Dralun for supplying the images. I did suggest it at one stage, but didn't really get any feedback on the idea so in the end I dropped it. Fellfire, you kinda got a rough billet there because you only had a few units to command, which were already being micromanaged by their section commanders and even the company commanders. I thin kyou did as well as could be expected in those circumstances.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2014 05:24
|
|
|
Right, while I try and decide whether I want to run another of these or not, here is the end score after the Russian surrender.  I'll do a after battle map review tomorrow.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2014 08:19
|
|
|
Man, those casualties were a lot closer together than I thought they'd be. If we'd managed to keep our tank assets alive we would have had this in the bag.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2014 08:26
|
|
|
This is why I was really surprised when the Russians called it. We always exchanged hits on a one for one basis (Except on the ridgeline farm), and if we didn't improve that rate, when we lost our last man, the Sovs would still have at least a hundred men left.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2014 08:32
|
|
|
Yeah, the peanut gallery was commenting on the fact that neither side could actually see much of the damage they were actually inflicting. The artillery up north is the biggest example, but also stuff like the MGs up north killing like 10 dudes in reality, while the germans maybe saw 2 go down, or in the woods to the south where you could only see bullets being sprayed and not the squads being loving riddled as a result.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2014 08:56
|
|
|
If the Russians had fought it out to the bitter end, they had a good chance of winning (or at least forcing a draw). The Panther dash, the King Tiger, and the 88s evened the odds with armor, but if the Russians had played smart, they could still have won the tank fight. They still had an ISU-152, an IS-2, and the gaggle of T-34-85s, not to mention the mortar strike on the 88s and the Po-2 bombers. If we'd lost our tanks, the Russians could have pounded our lines to rubble with artillery and then marched in infantry to mop things up. Even is the Panzergrenadiers managed to kill the Russians one-to-one we'd have lost. I doubt the Russians could have taken the West Town, but taking control of East Town and gutting our force would have been a Soviet victory in my book.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2014 09:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 30, 2024 19:00 |
|
|
That casualty total is closer than I'd expected, even from watching both teams. From the videos it seemed like the gunfights were relatively one-to-one, but the Soviets had an edge in wandering into wholesale slaughter moments like the first northern MG ambush or that mortar barrage. Either the SMGs and the artillery in the town were picking off more guys than I'd appreciated, or the mass-casualty events from Soviet tanks firing into buildings were happening more often than I noticed. Whatever the cause, solid work by the Soviets keeping the casualties nearly level in a fight like this.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2014 14:30
|
|