Bulletpoint

Right, I forgot for some reason we can choose bazookas directly for some of the US forces.. but for the Germans, it seems we cannot do that. I'm under the impression that the equipment level affects things like the chances of getting STG44s instead of MP40s, but maybe it actually doesn't?

No. Not as far as I know. We can change what kind of tanks and vehicles are used, and adjust the amount of ammo, but we cannot change small arms, infantry AT weapons etc.

The other day I was googling around for an answer to the question but didn't find any. Now today after posting the question here, I did a bit more searching, and found this thread that explains it: It seems what confused me is that we cannot change equipment level after the formation is purchased. This is quite unfortunate when building a scenario, because deleting the formation and re-purchasing it deletes all the carefully placed defensive positions and customised levels of experience and leadership, and even worse, it erases the assigned AI groups. Would be very nice to just be able to change the equipment level and play around with the setting until it gives the right results.

When purchasing formations in the editor, there's a button directly below the "formations" button - this button lets us select the formation's level of equipment. However, I'm not sure how to actually use this button. Do I need to select the equipment level first, then purchase a formation to give the newly purchased formation the selected level of equipment? Or can I select an already purchased formation and use the button to change their equipment? Playing around with the settings don't seem to change anything once I deploy the forces on the map. So I think I'm doing something wrong.

Hi Steve, thanks for explaining things. Looking forward to see what you come up with.

Are rifles supposed to be useful beyond 300m range? In the game, they seem to be useful up to about 250-300m range, as far as I can see.

Actually what baffles me the most is not so much the competence of the American defenders as the sheer incompetence of the Germans. Imagine being a German general looking down on your maps and then the news comes in that your division can't advance because 500 paratroopers got stopped by 18 reconnaissance troops, suffering a 98:1 casualty rate. Even for a penal battallion, that would be bad.

Good looking map. Ivana live there.

Sometimes I will dial in a pre-planned bombardment of suspected enemy positions, but then add a delay of 10 minutes to give me time to scout out the place. If enemies are found, I let the bombardment come in, or I cancel it if the place is empty. Sometimes, I will do this even after replaying several times and knowing the place will be full of Germans.

How do you prevent the Germans from simply firing back and suppressing the 18 defenders?

Once upon a time, I played a game called something like 1942: Pacific on the Amiga. I was amazed at the detail - there was even an aircraft carrier on the ocean! (said carrier being comprised of 3-4 drab grey boxes)... Now we can notice if the soldiers we are strafing polished their boots this morning, and probably if they shaved too

Amazing level of ground detail for a flight simulator. Even grass bending down as the tank passes over it.. The soldier animations could do with a bit of work though

I wish Battlefront would just come out and comment on this issue, saying whether it's a bug that's being looked into, or if things are working as BF thinks they should. And if so, I'd love to understand their thinking. Why their AI behaviour seems the opposite of most wartime accounts I've ever read. World War 1 would have been over very quickly if soldiers got out of their holes to flee across the fields when the first shells started landing.

No problem, I understood you perfectly the first time And yes, the important thing is to have fun.

How did you emulate the complete German incompetence in this battle? Conscript "paratroopers" with -2 leadership? I only stumbled on the Lanzerath wikipedia article, and it leaves me pretty baffled...

Never played it from the German side, but of course the mission is much easier if you happen to guess right where the enemy is, and bring down some artillery on them. But if you guess wrong, you just wasted your fire support.. and some scenario designers are really clever in that the obvious defensive places start out empty, then they get occupied later after you wasted all your shells. So you never really know As far as I remember, the first time I played this scenario, I kept the mortars in reserve, because the LOS is quite good from the hill to most places on the map, so I thought I'd better be flexible with the fire plan. Then in next playthroughs, I knew the enemy was in the village, but it felt like cheating to use this knowledge to bombard them.

Isn't there something about modern MG42 shooters firing at a lower rate of fire and with somewhat different ammunition compared to during the war? I read that somewhere but can't remember where...

Only if the tank spots it. I once had a King Tiger sit patiently and get peppered by a small ATG for about 5 minutes until it finally figured out where the nuisance was.

"A single 18-man Intelligence and Reconnaissance Platoon from the 99th Infantry Division along with four Forward Air Controllers held up the battalion of about 500 German paratroopers until sunset, about 16:00, causing 92 casualties among the Germans." (wikipedia)

Actually I think a light AT gun will just open fire at any armour it spots, at any range (at least the ranges we get to work with in this game), and at any angle.

I think sometimes we forget not everybody is highly knowledgeable about WW2 weapons Personally, I find the tool very useful for questions like "Can my 57mm AT gun penetrate the front of the enemy tank, or will I absolutely need a flanking shot? If so, at what ranges can I expect success?" This info then helps me set up the basic outline of my defence.

Well, it was said in the first post that there were stories from all sides, so yes, a bit surprised I couldn't find them.

Not sure what counts as "private sector" in a country where the dictator basically owns everything - the concept of property only has meaning if there's a sovereign power backing up those rights. In North Korea, the State is controlled 100 percent by the supreme leader. He has the monopoly of force. If you "own" anything in North Korea, it's only because he lets you keep it.

Puppet or not - as far as I understand it, North Korea has only been able to persist for so many years of tragicomic Stalinist style dictatorship because they are propped up by China, which always saw the regime as a useful pawn. I doubt North Korea could have made it this far with their nuclear ambitions without a high degree of tacit approval from China. The NK nuclear and missile projects have been seen coming for decades. While the US appears to have just been hoping their problems would solve themselves, I doubt China hasn't been considering what kind of end games they would prefer for North Korea. I think they would seriously consider trading their pawn for US concessions, on the Korean Peninsula, in the Pacific, or both. But of course, this idea hinges on China actually having decisive influence over North Korea.

I have a strong suspicon that leadership might be the soft factor that most strongly affects the speed of information sharing.