General Jack Ripper

Didn't know Charles and akd were the same person.

If you want to simulate a force being unaffected by a large artillery barrage, just put them on a reinforcement timer that makes them only show up after the barrage is over at a reduced headcount to simulate casualties. Ithikial did the same thing in his 'Lions of Carpiquet' scenario, (spoiler highlight to reveal:) the majority of the defending force doesn't show up in their positions until after the barrage the player is told to conduct is over. (/spoiler) OR: You can place a reduced strength attacking force in a deployment zone full of shell holes and simply place the start of the scenario after the barrage is over. OR: You can place a fraction of the force, let it sit through the barrage, then have the remainder of the force 'come out of their shelters' and arrive as reinforcements in the trenches. My point is there are many ways to address the problem, but throwing your hands up and saying, "Well trenches just aren't good enough so I'm taking my toys and going home," just isn't one of them. Now get out there and finish that darned scenario!

Nonsense. Artillery fragmentation is absolutely modeled, how else could a GI a hundred meters from an artillery impact get killed, while dudes just 20 meters away are just fine, if the system is as simplistic as you claim it is? Your obsessive pessimism is starting to grate.

Well I know where I'm going when I take some vacation time.

No pre-planned artillery in an attackers setup zone. No pre-planned artillery at all in a meeting engagement. No area fire except on contact markers. Send at least one turn every day.

Here's another possible test: Try firing at that team until they become suppressed, then see if they all crawl into the foxholes after they become 'Pinned'.

Try placing a foxhole on top of a hill, and then order your men to enter it. See if all of them get into the foxholes then. I find the vast majority of time men don't occupy foxholes, it's because there is some other terrain interaction, like going prone behind a slight rise in the ground (like the natural depression formed at the edge of that road), or the presence of bushes and trees in the space. It's just not readily apparent because the video you post is only from a top-down perspective.

The trouble with quick battles is that they're not based on anything. It's not simulating an actual military engagement, it's merely throwing a bunch of troops onto the map and letting the player muddle through as best they can. That's a recipe for casualties no matter what you do, and that's never going to change.

Not to mention they weren't listed as 'Pinned' until AFTER they started moving. If they had poor motivation they would have pinned sooner, and avoided the movement entirely. Highly motivated, with poor leadership. Ouch.

I don't understand why people say these things. If you're playing against a human opponent in a single scenario, then you can expect to recieve and inflict heavy casualties, because you are playing a game that has no consequences beyond winning or losing. Thus, neither player is under any obligation to agree to a ceasefire, or surrender, if they take a sufficient number of casualties. In fact many players, myself included, will drive their pixeltruppen far beyond human endurance if it means securing a victory in a PBEM. If you are playing a single-player scenario, then there is no excuse for incurring massive amounts of casualties. I've made it a point to provide such object lessons as "How to Avoid Needless Casualties" with every single scenario I play and record. Sure, my run through 'Gog and Magog' was inconclusive at best, but I certainly didn't lose more than ten percent of my force before realizing I couldn't win without incurring the insane casualties you speak of. I think the question of casualties comes from an incorrect assumption on the part of the player that every single scenario is capable of being won with a total victory, or that one needs to simply hurl human bodies at the enemy with enough frequency to guarantee a heroic result.

But then I couldn't haul it around on foot, and use it to smash this stupid HMG position that's been bothering me.

Yeah, I got it. I remember seeing that somewhere, but this is the first time I've used to mortars so extensively I am noticing it for the first time. I plumb just ran out of 120mm, and now I have some 60mm to play with too. Pretty nice.

Pure, unvarnished truth. Simple fact is, with such incredibly tight spacing, I'll bet you dollars to doughnuts some of those tanks were either destroyed or disabled by sympathetic detonation.

Thanks.

I just noticed the Mortar Carrier contains 120mm mortar ammo, but the mortar deployed with it is a 60mm mortar? Is this a bug, or just the Task Force Thunder campaign?

I must say, the Red commander is doing things the exact opposite I did while commanding Red many years ago. Then again, in the HTH campaign you don't start with all available forces on the map at once.

Definitely a fun little map, highly recommended.

Be still, my beating heart... But it sure is fun to watch.

Step 1 Step 2 Enter your old username and your email address, and you'll be emailed a link to follow to re-set your password. Once you've reset your password, you should be able to log in.

Me.

>Development >Stopped

Did I miss something?

Yes. He did that until I called an adjust fire and then he fired as normal.