Field Marshal Blücher

Absolutely. One of the most enjoyable battles I have ever had in this game, and maybe in any wargame. Make more like this one and you'll be my hero. -FMB

Really enjoyed this scenario, Fighting Seabee. I play the game on and off, and finished the campaign a few months ago, so I'm just getting into user-created scenarios. I also did the campaign on Basic Training, and this was my first try at Veteran. Did two attempts, one worked out perfectly until I (again!) underestimated the blast radius of the F-16 bombs and lost two full squads (even though I hadn't lost anyone up until then). I had a bit of warning about the surprise at the end because I left my Battalion CO in the deployment area. Other than that though, it was a terrific mission that really (as everyone else has said) captures the SF feel. Ended up with a Taliban surrender, Total US Victory. I had 1 man wounded, but that was it. Hope you can make more like this one! -FMB

Double post.

Basically, to answer your question, this isn't possible with current AI unless you have 4 or fewer mixed unit groups (which you then make into 8 groups). -FMB [ March 20, 2008, 10:13 AM: Message edited by: Field Marshal Blücher ]

Thanks. My ancestors were Prussians as well, so it was kind of a no-brainer. Anyway, getting back on topic now...

Hmm, I don't know. You have the full version and you can do it now? I have no idea what was wrong before. Maybe someone who has more recent experience with the demo can pitch in here?

It depends on what the scenario (or in this case QB) designer's criteria are. There are some scenarios where the Syrians can afford to take a ton of casualties and still win, but for some reason or other force preservation may be important in this case.

What exactly is your question? You can definitely add units in the scenario editor . . .

I'm also fine with the way it is now. It seems like a major change for a minor (if that big) problem, when BFC could be working on a lot of stuff that's more important.

One thing to watch out for when taking cover in buildings is that your men are extremely vulnerable to RPGs.

#2 seems odd to me. I've definitely seen Abrams use their main gun on area fire at least, if not soft targets. What version are you using?

Hmm, it looks like instead of blasted walls, two of the four walls to the first floor look just like they're gone, that they don't exist. Maybe if you changed all four to the blasted wall section, it would work better?

Well, whether it benefits red or blue frequently depends on the situation. I was watching my friend play and he advanced pretty far with his M1s . . . only to have a T-72 appear literally 50 m away from him and destroy him instantly. Also, I've moved up infantry to the final objective line in one of the campaign missions and was waiting for something to happen, because it seemed I had killed all the enemies. Then, again, 4-5 Syrian tanks appear under 100 m away from my infantry and shred them. Whatever the reason, I would also like BFC to fix that if possible.

Just to let you all know about the low walls, I was one of the playtesters and I didn't have significant problems with the low walls that there were. I wouldn't wait to play this campaign for 1.06, as it's really good. Congrats to Webwing for all the hard work he put into it!

Well, 120's are the only things I can hit tanks with. Can we trade some of our luck around?

I found even 120-mm guns killed T-72s quite handily. It just depends on whether they hit or not, which for artillery seems to be a big "if."

In game, it seems you need a direct hit from artillery to actually do anything more than mobility kill a tank. Also, direct hits are surprisingly rare, especially when firing on point targets.

I ran some tests this morning that I thought might be helpful to the community. Usually, in cases where I'm fighting enemy armour, I've had enough big guns or Javs to deal with them. But this morning I was reading about CAS and artillery and I decided to see how effective they are against tanks. I lined up a Syrian T-62 company in the middle of the desert with no AI plans, opposing was an FO with the following support: 2x120mm mortar 2x155mm Howitzer 2xAH-64 2xA-10 2xF-16 I started with the mortars, point-target on a single tank. They got a top hit after about a minute of firing, which K-Killed the tank. I then opened with the howitzers on another tank, point-target as well. They missed every single shot, even after four minutes of firing, but managed to take out its tracks. I tried to see if the mortars would K-Kill it again, but they missed all their shots as well. I next tried point targets with all the CAS options. All three hit their targets and K-Killed them the first time around. Then I tried Area Targets for all three CAS options, where the area contained two T-62s but that was not centered on them. The aircraft picked out the tanks and shot at them, rather than scattering ammunition all over the area. The A-10 hit both targets the first time around. The AH-64 missed the second tank on its first shot, but then killed it as well. The F-16 hit with its first shot, but its second shot missed the second tank. Its strafing run hit though, and this caused a Syrian surrender. Second test: Same as above, but I had one tank move around constantly. I tried first targeting it with mortars. They tracked it and started shooting near it at one point on its route, but when it moved away the rounds continued to hit the same spot. Then I tried with the F-16, the least accurate aircraft according to my last test. The F-16 followed it and hit it with a precision missile dead on. Conclusion: Artillery is very poor at hitting tanks, let alone killing them, and should be used, if at all, only on static tanks. Aircraft, on the other hand, are excellent tank-killers, even if the tank is on the move. [ December 27, 2007, 04:16 PM: Message edited by: Field Marshal Blücher ]

Email sent.

OK. I'll hang on for a bit then!

Very, very good AAR. Makes me definitely want to get back into ToW when the patch is released!

I don't care what period wargames are in as long as they're as true to the real thing as they can possibly be. If they are, I'll play them. I'm not really sick of WW2 games because while there are a ton of them out there, I don't play most of them. Honestly, I'd like to see a realistic depiction of pre-gunpowder warfare. Something that actually lets me command tens of thousands of troops like Take Command: Second Manassas and HistWar: Les Grognards lets you do for the ACW and Napoleonic Wars. I don't care if it has good graphics, but I want something realistic.

Seeing as 1.05 came out, should we test with 1.05 or 1.04?

I'd be willing to help out.

I've had similar experiences to yours. I've read accounts of the Iraq war and just go in and try what I read about and it works surprisingly well! That's why I love this game so much.