Bulletpoint

Sorry for reviving this old discussion, but I got started with the game late, so I only now played (and finally won) Razorback Ridge today. It's nice to see that I'm not the only one cursing this mission - had a good laugh over that It seems we have all different experiences with it though. I was confused why people recommended using the cut-off platoon to attack, until I realised that it was only in my personal game that this platoon consisted of about 10 guys, and had no chances of doing anything worthwhile. Well, now that I finally won the mission, I would like to say that I'm in the group of people who did not really enjoy it. Both this and many of the other missions in this campaign suffer from what I call the "puzzle syndrome" - the missions feel artificially constrained due to the designer carefully designing the map to be as devious as possible, so the mission becomes more of a labyrinth to solve rather than a believable combat mission. Trial and error starts to become more important than tactical thinking. And as others have said, the time limit is much too short, especially on WeGo where even the smallest tactical movements take at least a full minute. So, my verdict is: of the two campaigns included with the game, "Road to Monteburg" is thoroughly enjoyable and decently challenging for people who play by turns and try to do each mission in one go, despite casualties. "Courage and Fortitude"... is a frustrating slog that seems made for people who like to load and save a lot and restart the mission until they know every nook and cranny of the map, and every emplacement to the point of calling artillery on unspotted positions by memory. I don't even know if I want to bother with the last mission of the campaign...

What is this EVADE button you speak of? I've been playing for quite some time now, and I can't remember ever seeing that..

Very interesting article, thanks for sharing. There are no easy answers, but I suppose I would say that he is innocent until proven guilty. And nothing in the story seems to prove that he is guilty of anything.

The Geneva Convention came into force in 1949, well after the war had ended. At least according to Wikipedia

My guess would be that the game tracks the rounds until they pass the armour (in one way or another), at which point there's a roll made on a damage table. Probably that roll does not take into account the type of ammunition, as it might be assumed that any round that defeats the armour will be sufficient to cause damage. This one being an exception..

Did you suppress both stories of the house? I've found that troops on the first floor do not care if you bomb the second floor to smithereens.. That said, I also find it difficult to make suppression work consistently. It seems "hit and miss"...

This seems to be a fluke. The house should not even be standing after that treatment. Hedge just in front of the house maybe?

Well, I said it before, but why not again: I see this game as an anti-war game. I'm sure not everyone here will agree with me, but it's certainly a game that shows the cruel and often meaningless way people die in warfare, despite of what they might just have achieved.

Fair point, I found out most of those things by playing the tutorial campaign. But I didn't recommend that in this case, because the guy said he already have experience with Fortress Italy. I'll change my recommendation to "start with the tutorial" then

Welcome to the jungle, son! Remember to start with the Road to Montebourg, which is the best of the two campaigns, in my opinion. One thing you should know: the campaigns were designed when machine guns were weaker than they are now. This makes some of the maps much more difficult than they were designed to be. So don't despair

From what I can find on Wikipedia, the US army developed their own version, based on the S-mine, but only after the war. I guess that they didn't need to invest in mine development at that time, being on the offensive. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M16_mine

Thanks a lot, interesting findings. How did you decide to use 360 pieces of shrapnel? I know there are 360 degrees in a circle, but is it indicative of the amount of steel balls in the casing of an S-mine? Not trying to be snarky, just interested

I do buddy aid to... aid my buddies basically. So more of them will aid me in the next map too. The extra ammo is just an extra.

Must have missed that part when I read the manual Well, that sums it up then, I guess.

I wasn't arguing against you either, just forgot to add some smileys

So a SMG is more of a "good excuse" for the squad leader to stay out of harm´s way? "Sorry guys, I would love to lead from the front, but the paper pushers decided to give me this machine pistol, so I won't be much use up there, better I guard the rear" Well, but a squad who has somebody guarding the rear has an advantage. And if you're advancing through built up terrain or hedgerows, there's always a risk the fog of war is hiding an enemy squad and when you suddenly run into enemies at close range, it would be nice to have somebody in your squad with an SMG, no?

I've been thinking this over, and suddenly I realise why mines in this game are showed as devices that kill so much. The reason is that they blow off a part of the leg. Therefore it would be unrealistic if the casualties of mines were counted among the wounded, as that would mean a lot of them would be able to return to battle in the next mission. Even if it's "just" a foot that is lost, the soldier would not be able to return to active duty, and therefore we must count them with the dead in the context of this game.

It seems to me that it could use a bit of redesign for future games or (hopefully) patches. Logic being that the SMG is a specialist weapon fulfilling a certain role in the squad, just like the LMG and the Bazooka. A squad with 1 SMG and 5 rifles seems objectively better (more versatile) than a squad with 6 rifles.

Didn't think of that. Could be destroyed, could be lost if it fell in tall grass or something. Anyone ever saw a squad member pick up an SMG?

Well, I value my squad leader with his SMG very much. When he goes down, why doesn't somebody else from the squad pick up the Thompson? Is this working as designed? Maybe regular squaddies don't know how to handle that type of weapon? They should recruit some more mobsters from Chicago then

This is why I also wrote that of course it should be balanced with the rest of the game, not just added

I should have clarified: I meant that having wounded squadmates lying around untreated should have a morale penalty until they are given buddy aid...

Soldiers usually don't walk close together for many reasons, this being one of them. So I think the designers preferred to save on costs - explosives were in high demand. Also, less weight per mine equals more mines, which means a larger area covered or higher saturation.

My post was based on my own meandering experience, no thorough test. I posted it as an invitation to debate, not to prove anything As for historical facts - I just assumed that military designers in WW2 were as shrewd as their modern colleagues. It's not very sophisticated, and doesn't take any special technological fuses to make mines sub-lethal. It's just a matter of putting less explosives in them.

In one of my recent games, I sent some scouts into a building where a Stug had blown apart a whole squad before. I thought that it must have been a grisly sight for those scounts indeed. Not sure if this has been suggested before, but what if having injured squadmates lying around actually gave a morale penalty for the squad? Maybe a high penalty for the squad where the casualty is from, and a smaller one to nearby friendly troops. Of course, this would need to be balanced into the game properly.