Jump to content

General Liederkranz

Members
  • Posts

    246
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Posts posted by General Liederkranz

  1. 21 hours ago, benpark said:

    The VG have fewer MGs and AT assets than historically. I also think the timelines are very generous.

    Thanks for the link, it's helpful to see what the VGs had. I should have been clearer, I was actually referring your other post from earlier (above), which I understood as saying that the VGs in the campaign have less than the VGs did historically. I appreciate the work that you put into designing such a great campaign!

  2. Thank you for explaining this! I'm finding it very interesting to follow this thread. May I ask why you say that the VG in the campaign have fewer MGs and AT assets than historically? Is this a limitation of the OB in CMFB, or did you deliberately reduce it for playability?

  3. Has anyone played a game with infantry traversing marked minefields under v4.0? Does the new spacing mean they don't move in column, and thus make them more likely to set off a mine? I'm about to play the first scenario of the Hammer's Flank campaign and it would be useful to know going in whether I can count on marking minefields then traversing at "Move" speed.

  4. Haha, I will assume that the mortar ammo trucks didn't arrive, or got hit by Soviet air interdiction, or something. I appreciate you looking into this! Thanks again for putting together the campaign--the challenge of avoiding being spotted in the first mission was unusual and combined with the PDF booklet, it gives the campaign a great feeling of immersion. 

×
×
  • Create New...