Jump to content

SimpleSimon

Members
  • Content Count

    395
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

SimpleSimon last won the day on February 5

SimpleSimon had the most liked content!

1 Follower

About SimpleSimon

  • Rank
    Senior Member

Recent Profile Visitors

682 profile views
  1. I lean a bit back to FI myself, if only because I preferred it being closest to the start of the war and like the challenges and context posed by Italy's terrain. Plus you have unique formations such as the Italians and Brazilians which I enjoyed a lot.
  2. I might venture creative use of Exit Zone mechanic. You're certainly going to have bloody battles in the biggest war in history don't get me wrong. Like i've been saying for years though, the games are far too predisposed to this, especially the campaigns, which rapidly become unplayable if you try to match all of their conditional requirements. The main thing I want just want to see is reform of the thinking behind scoring mechanics. If the enemy has a strong position maybe placing enough optional lesser captures on the map would create context by introducing reasonable measures for ind
  3. It's incredible to me that guys often agree to go into multi or QB battles over a 800x800m map with artillery on one or both sides at all. It's not "shooting fish in a barrel" as much as dropping hand grenades on fish in a bucket.
  4. It's amazing to me how profound the mythology of "Flanders" and "The Western Front" has been on the history. It's really exemplified in many of the game's scenarios I think. Gotta seize the enemy position by T+2:00 is never really a good objective to saddle the player with. Why that position? Why am I starting where I am? Why only two hours? Usually confronted with the context of a CM scenario I often quickly end up feeling like i'm going to need far more support or better circumstances or both to match the scenario in a single save without causing a huge bloodbath. That's why I like the
  5. That's what I'm seeing too akd. Machine Gun Battalion, Infantry Division, 1944 (niehorster.org) Updated ToE for 1944. The Battalion was now distinctly organic to the Division it was attached to (I think previously they were an independent formation?) and resembles something more like a reinforced Heavy Weapons Company. A number of the machine guns were traded in for 4.2in heavy mortars, while the usual rearmament trends in the British Army meant things like more Brens, PIATs, and Universal Carriers all around. The way the 1944 formation is organized seems distinctly like a support-gr
  6. It's hard to tell how those huge MG Battalions were used, and i've heard enough arguments both ways to say that there was no specific manner in which they used. Sometimes the guns and crews would be parceled out among infantry formations, sometimes they'd be used as you use them in "battery" all massed on a specific objective. Here's a TOE Infantry (Machine Gun) Battalion, 06.04.1938 (niehorster.org) Motorized too, trucks directly attached to the formation, also note large distribution of Boys Rifles for self-protection from armor. They seem to have been a holdover of the
  7. You will have to work at night for safety. The Juvenile Centurion does not have IR capability. The adults on the other hand....
  8. You mean you haven't already covered the entire surface area of your house with Kontakt 5????
  9. It could be outside your window Erwin. Right now.
  10. Protect yourself How to Protect Your Computer from Getting Shot by an MBT - YouTube
  11. I think it's usually worth a disclaimer or a point in the briefing, but I don't think it's necessarily a problem to have sections of the deploy area exposed to fire. One must remember after all, that it can go both ways...
  12. I think the issue here is that the scoring isn't fair. This is a thing that's still sort of dawning on me, but it's occurring to me that there can be reasonable enough justification for challenging or rough scenarios but if they're not scored fairly than it all comes apart. If the designers want to make hard scenarios I get it, but they need to score reasonably against that. Asking the player to do things that go against intuition or experience can rapidly lead to a loss of trust between player and designer ie: structural failure of the meta-game, the result of this is cheesing, save-scumming,
  13. I've been seeing this also for years. AP rounds striking turf or trees nowhere near my troops but somehow hamburgering 5 guys in 3 different platoons spread over a 300m area???
×
×
  • Create New...