Jump to content

Harsmith

Members
  • Posts

    17
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Harsmith

  1. I think its a very realistic mission and campaign. You are commanded at battalion, regiment and divisional levels by sheer incompetents who can't arrange for you to attack on favorable ground, with coordinated companies and adequate artillery preparation from the start and with adequate resupply. I don't think that that was that uncommon in the initial period after the landings.

    More seriously though, the mission is bloody but doable, and there are a number of historical posts on how to achieve it.. Darkness and then smoke are your friends. The enemy AT assets must be spotted and eliminated and then your tanks are key.

     

  2. Yeah if you are following your orders in the briefings it's more for environmental effect than anything else. :) Help make the map a cratered moonscape which will become important in later battles in the campaign. Windsor opened with an enormous creeping barrage that was described by some as 'World War 1' like. Wasn't the best option for a late WW2 battlefield but hopefully you're running into that now and trying to overcome it.

    Actually found mission one to be fairly straightforward and achieved a major victory with a German surrender. Lead to overconfidence in mission two and received quite a bloody nose before deciding that discretion was the better part of valour and hit ceasefire.  Mission three started very well but ended in tears as well, wont post any spoilers but I'm sure as designer you can guess why. Hopefully redeem myself in mission 4. Having a blast with this campaign and strongly recommended it on what I have seen so far.

  3. I have often wondered if the system of AI orders in scenario design could be adapted to make a game like this. The concept would be that each turn orders similar to the AI programing could be given to an element, eg each platoon or even section, provided they were in command from the senior HQ which would represent the player.: eg assault, advance etc. Does any game do this - ? Tac ops. I doubt BF will ever devote the time to it so Bils system might be the closest we get.

  4. Am I alone in thinking AAA weapons are to hard to kill ? I get that they put out a metal storm and all but ( I'm thinking of the Soviet 37mm) it's a few guys perched up high in the air on their seats, yet MG fire, close direct cannon fire or even indirect fire doesn't seem to faze them, let alone kill them. I seem to have had just a couple of them out shoot and out last a Panther platoon on a number of occasions. ( Panthers were mission kills). Were they really that effective historically ?

  5. A very unpleasant scenario but probably reasonably representative. And the next two missions aren't much better - you still play whack a mole with your artillery against the enemy. By the way, Monty was long gone from Italy by then ( Alexander was in command, I believe). You don't need to fight the whole German force on the map , but their numbers will prevent any force surrender.

  6. Thanks for the hello,

    Yes the hatch was open as I wanted max crew reaction time and the tank (seemed) well protected in defilade. Im just amazed that the game engine can model something like that. I've had collateral damge to infantry near tanks from rounds bouncing off before but nothing like this! I guess thats why footsloggers kept their distance from armour in real life.

  7. Has this happened to anyone before?

    Playing a mission where you defend a ridgeline against a german combined arms assault. I had a sherman positioned on the reverse slope to ambush the oncoming Pz IVs. Worked a treat, the enemy tank lumbers over the hill, the sherman fires... and the projectile richochets into the air in a lazy parabola straight back down through the turret roof of my sherman which promptly does the usual sherman thing and burns brightly. Only wish I had a screenshot!

×
×
  • Create New...