Jump to content

landser

Members
  • Posts

    500
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    4

Everything posted by landser

  1. I can see that. In my case I played the Road to Smolensk scenario four or five times out of the block. I kept going until I could win a decisive victory in that one, which had the side benefit of giving me a lot of practice with the opening moves for Army Group Center, which paid off later. I then jumped in with both feet to the GC. I played it first as the Germans, with the 260-point campaign with FoW off. Then I played it again, this time with the 290-point campaign, FoW on and several bonuses given to the AI. Then I played a third GC as Russia. That's three times through the Grand Campaign and I did not attempt another. That was a number of years ago and then I planned to get WitW and then of course WitE2, but have done neither. WitE could really use a mode with unrestricted starting positions. I would play through a fourth time if I could set all starting dispositions with a free hand. It's interesting to consider the possibilities if the player were free to do so.
  2. It depends on who you are asking, it seems. Some complain endlessly, and I think, unfairly, about the AI. I praised it in my AAR. It's not human, obviously, and it lacks that sort of daring that a human opponent might have. And potentially, it lacks the glaring mistakes a human may make. But my impression was that it was good enough. The AI takes up logical positions, attempts to escape encirclement, reacts intelligently and promptly to breaches, masses force to affect local penetrations and generally, I thought, puts up a fine fight. I also made note of how variable it was. For example in my first aborted attempt at the grand campaign the Russian made a stand at the Dnepr, forming a strong line and making the break through of the land bridge difficult. The second time it was a thin crust and instead he appeared to prioritize his defense of Leningrad. In a game like these Grigsby games, any level of unpredictability or inability to divine patterns is great. It's not simply a matter of knowing where he will make his stands and unlocking these programmed patterns, but of reacting to and exploiting things as they unfold. That is crucial to replayability. I never did play WitP, but there's a member over at Subsim doing a AAR of his head to head campaign and I am really enjoying it, as the Pacific war is one of my things. It's all very interesting and makes me want to give it a go.
  3. A few years ago I played a German campaign in WitE and attempted to detail it in an AAR over at SimHQ. That AAR can be viewed here, if interested https://simhq.com/forum/ubbthreads.php/topics/4454240/1 It's difficult to convey things like scale of micromanagement. How do you describe it, or put it in to words? I talked about it a bit in the AAR, but you'll have to experience it to know. One of my issues with the decisions the designers of WitE made is how recruitment is handled. The two sides play by different rules. The German commander must adhere to strict historical unit arrival and departures timetables. The Russia commander can build whatever the hell he wants. It's such an odd design, and perhaps my biggest gripe with the game. But I'm not intending to discuss this. The German commander must also deal with Command Capacity. Each headquarters has a limit to how many subordinate units it can control. If the number exceeds the threshold then penalties are incurred. Juggling this overload is one of the finer points of command. Army Group South especially begins the game heavily overloaded. But there is a way out of it. You can't just build a couple new Army Group or Army HQs, no, only a Russian can do such a thing! But if you can reach Rostov it triggers the AGS split in to Army Groups A and B, which of course the Germans did in preparation for Fall Blau. This a massive event for a German player, and the new HQs offer a chance to reorganize and fix the command capacity overload. But it is a MASSIVE! undertaking. You are taking regiments, divisions, corps and reassigning them. This one here, that one there. Detach this, attach that. Return this to OKH, sack this general, promote that general, and transfer the other one. All of this is in accordance with administrative points, which you need for each of these moves. And I ate it up. This sort of thing is right in my wheelhouse, but it is a lot of work. Even many stout wargamers I know would blink at what is involved, and this is just one event in an entire war. The micro is strong in this one haha. Here's what I wrote in the post describing this part of my campaign. It does not convey scale With the split of Army Group South in to Army Groups A and B, a welcome opportunity to reorganize the overloaded command structure of the Wehrmacht was available to me, Having a fourth Army Group could allow redistribution of the forces throughout my command and alleviate the penalties that come when an organization is over the command capacity. At the start, only Army Group North does not suffer from this, but the other two do, and especially so in AGS. This is a major undertaking, and the player must embrace the micro to attempt it. I failed to mention it yet, but the very first move I made in this campaign was to replace Halder at OKH with Kluge. Model then took Kluge's vacancy in 4th Army. And as mentioned, many corps commanders have also been replaced. The creation of Army Groups A and B saw Rundstedt shift to AGA and Halder made a return as commander of AGB. But only very briefly as it turned out. The man cannot catch a break. He was immediately cashiered and replaced with Kesselring, who left Luftlotte 2 for this assignment. The scope of the changes I made are too broad to recount in detail here, but in general terms I looked to make each army group structure the same. That is, each one would get a Panzer Group and two infantry armies. With the recent arrival of XXXX Panzer Corps, we now had 11 Panzer Corps, so one Army Group would be shortchanged. In the north on the Leningrad front, no changes were made to Leeb's AGN in terms of commands attached to them. Hoepner's 4th Panzer would remain, as would 16th and 18th Armies. Because of the terrain, and the fact we have been tied down near Leningrad, 4th Panzer would be the one shortchanged, with just two Panzer Corps. Bock's Army Group Center on the Moscow front saw some shuffling. XXIV Panzer Corps, the one from 2nd Panzer sent to the rescue at Leningrad was reassigned to Hoth's 3rd Panzer, raising it to three Panzer Corps. AGC had three infantry armies, the 2nd, the 4th and the 9th. So the 2nd was reassigned to Army Group B. This left AGC with three Panzer Corps and two infantry armies Kesselring's newly formed Army Group B was assigned the sector around Voronezh. The recently arrived XXXX Panzer Corps was attached to 2nd Panzer, bringing it to three Panzer Corps. 6th Army was reassigned from Army Group South to AGB. So now AGB had Guderian's 2nd Panzer along with 2nd and 6th Armies. Rundstedt's newly constituted AGA would be assigned the southern front, the right wing, and given responsibility over the region around Denpro and Rostov. Kleist's 1st Panzer (three Panzer Corps) remained, as well as 11th and 17th Armies. All satellite armies were reassigned to their national headquarters. With these moves the rough cuts were complete. No Army Group was overloaded any longer. However some overloading remained at the Army level, especially in 9th Army, but also minor overloading in 16th and 18th as they continued to hammer at Leningrad. This should be worked out in time, but I can only wish I had one additional Army headquarters, which would solve all remaining issues. In all it was a massive undertaking, down to individual divisions, brigades and regiments being shifted to various corps, corps to various higher headquarters, and additional changes were made to corps commanders as I continue to try and get my most capable men in the best positions. All of these moves costs a lot of admin points, over 200 having been spent on this reorganization. With mud coming I felt I could spare the points with few HQBUs being needed as panzer units would be pulled back to refit. The strategy gamer/micromanager in me absolutely loved the whole process, and the penalties had been eating at me since June. To have it (mostly) sorted at this point is very satisfying. It should prove of some worth come winter, and in to the '42 campaigning season So this is the sort of thing you can expect, I reckon. Again, this is not WitE2, and perhaps it is a mistake to compare the two. I should play it and see. But I expect the games will share this sort of thing, and others having played it can set me straight.
  4. I have not bought number 2, but I have a lot of time in WitE. And honestly, if you are concerned about time and micro, you'll have it in spades with a Grigsby game. Running the risk of projecting my WitE experience on to the newer game, which may or may not share these things, there are few games as micro-intensive as these. As noted turns can easily take an hour. This is not all spent concocting masterful operational plans, but also on giving orders to your hundreds of counters, every turn for a hundred or two turns. I happen to really enjoy it, but you need to have the same mindset or the sheer scale of what's before you can overwhelm or induce a sense of drudgery. This sort of game is not for everyone. Hell, it's not for most everyone But if grand operational war games appeal, there are few to compete with the Grigsby games. The micro must be embraced or you'll never finish a grand campaign. There's no way around it (unless WitE2 has found ways around it haha). You don't play one of these grand campaigns, you live it, move by move all the way down the front line, week after week. It's nearly impossible to know whether to recommend it to another player really. But every true wargamer should at least give a Grigsby game a go. If it suits you, there are few better wargaming experiences in my view.
  5. Customizable points and the return of Combined Arms preset would go far to get me to play QBs again.
  6. You cannot select the gunner or the BAR man with the LOS tool either. But the LOS tool has to be dragged around to every terrain point you are interested in, which is tedious at best. A 'visible terrain mode' would give all of this info at a glance.
  7. I fail to see how this applies to the mode I am suggesting Oh FFS.
  8. Combat Mission could really use a feature or mode where clicking any unit under your command would shade or color all parts of the map visible to that unit.
  9. Perhaps not yet, but I think Grand Tactician could become a worthy contender. It's still a bit raw, but has the potential to be the king of American Civil War games. Same guy who made Seven Years War, and while that title never convinced me really, this one has much more promise. Still in EA. https://store.steampowered.com/app/654890/Grand_Tactician_The_Civil_War_18611865/ To get to that point though, it need some work.
  10. For CMBN? My two favorites are Devil's Descent and Kampfgruppe Engel. Devil's Descent is a company sized American paratrooper campaign just perfect in scope. Kampfgruppe Engel is an innovative campaign where you play as Germans in the Falaise Pocket. It's a tough one, but fun and diverse. Check this thread for some of my thoughts on these and a few more. https://simhq.com/forum/ubbthreads.php/topics/4490340/combat-mission-campaign-reviews#Post4490340 Edit: It's Engel, not Engle
  11. In WitE 1 divisions can be broken down in to regiments. Support units are battalions, which can be attached to the divisions.
  12. I might just do, thanks for the offer. I don't like doing this usually, as it reveals too much that I would rather remain hidden until I am playing it. But I may decide to try this down the line. Regardless, I appreciate your skilled efforts to provide campaign content for the player base. Keep up the good work!
  13. For me I think it is the Forging Steel campaign, which is another George's creations, if I am not wrong. I only call it frustrating because of the quality of the OPFOR troops. The map is fantastic, the core force is probably exactly the sort of formation I would choose if playing a QB. Everything about it seems right up my alley. But all enemy are crack. I gave up because of how difficult it was to dislodge even a small, isolated team. I'm not criticising the design, and I know this is precisely what George was going for, as you had replied to me back when I played it. I am only frustrated because I didn't keep playing it and it seemed like one I would really enjoy if it weren't so difficult for me. Maybe there's a version with reduced enemy skill?
  14. Ah yes, that squares it. Following along I didn't know you knew this was in his bag of tricks. You must always assume it is, something about basing your plans on enemy capabilities and not intentions, so even if you didn't know, you would have allowed for the possibility all the same. Thanks for the reply Captain, good hunting.
  15. Haha, well said. How did you know this? Not saying you shouldn't. Is it in the briefing? Good luck commander.
  16. Hopefully few agree. One aspect should not be given a pass based on the quality of other aspects, nor should it be elevated for the same reason. Each should be judged on its own merits. I can believe that spotting and ballistics are top-notch while thinking graphics are underwhelming. And I would say so, and hope others do too when offering their assessment. Any notion of not being critical of graphics because of the overall package is misleading and not what I want from honest reviews and opinions. The reaction on these boards to Combat Mission hitting the mainstream last year was something to see. Like the neighbor's fence came down and now everyone can see the wash hanging out to dry.
  17. What a great idea, and a superb thread already, great commentary all. It takes the most interesting AARs on the net one notch higher. Don't have much to add, but I'm leaning towards the Captain's numbers. Either way it is a battle that highlights one of the things that appeals to me so much about CMCW, the opposing doctrine, dissimilar rosters, asymmetric warfare. A spectator's analysis thread like this is so logical and fun, thanks for starting it!
  18. I listed about twenty games, and you picked out one, EU IV, and that's a stretch to call it a war game. It's grand strategy, by my definition. Falcon 4 has a war in it, so a war game, or flight sim? Silent Hunter, which I didn't list in the first post, is it a war game, or sub sim? I think your definition of war game is broader than mine. OK, went back and read it and you only said tired of war, not non-war game, so yeah, some of those have war, fair enough.
  19. Hole 1 is a mean dogleg right. But maybe you could take it right over the trees there. Yeah, golf too now And all due to me carelessly tossing idioms around. Gotta be more circumspect.
  20. Good work mate, glad to know it may have been helpful, but I am not keen to sort it out, was just trying to help my brothers-in-arms
  21. Thanks for taking on this project Captain. These AARs are always fun and interesting. Good luck in the battle ahead!
  22. *Spoilers* In that mission there is a King Tiger with no crew behind enemy lines. You must get the crew forward, under fire, mounted in the KT and get out of there.
  23. I read (and write) a lot of AARs, but Bil's are probably my favorites. The presentation (screens, maps, etc) and analysis is top-notch, The commentary of your reasoning, analysis and actions is always entertaining and enlightening. Add to it the ability read the AAR of the opponent, while it is all going down, and it all adds up to the best AARs on the 'net. Turn-based WEGO Combat Mission is especially well suited to this. I know these AARs are a lot of work, and I would believe it if you told us you spend more time on these than the battle itself. Just a post to say how much it is appreciated, and for those of us excited about Cold War, a must-read. Good luck, commander!
  24. Perhaps I am misunderstanding, but the Kampfgruppe Engle campaign mission called Tiger Poaching has this same scenario. Perhaps you could open it in the editor and see what the designers did there?
×
×
  • Create New...