SimpleSimon
-
Posts
572 -
Joined
-
Days Won
2
Posts posted by SimpleSimon
-
-
I think the MG42 may well have bought Germany 6 months of survival during the war by itself. They built so damn many of them, meaning the chance of Allied troops running into them was certain and they were so good at just taking whole platoons, companies, battalions even, and just dropping them to the ground pinning them for hours. This happened so much and so often that the net effect was felt up all the way up the war I think. Enough battalions of enough regiments of enough divisions were forced into a state of cautious movement or pause until fire-support assets could be brought up frustrating many an Allied General with the dream of being the man who conquered the Ruhr.
Any machine gun can do the above, but the crucial thing here is that Germany built nearly half a million of them, over a million if you count its close relative the MG34. Only infantry rifles were more ubiquitous.
39 minutes ago, hank24 said:Now you have a configuration like Vasquez at Alien2.
Or Jin Roh
-
1 hour ago, markshot said:
Yep, I have been working through that vague confusing stuff all day.
But I want to say this not to just GraviTeam but much larger companies like Paradox ... it is a lack of engineering professionalism to produce complex software with woefully inadequate documentation. In this regards, BTS/BFC has always done very well. The manuals are comprehensive. A player with some combat and game concepts could learn to play just from the manual alone. The tutorials rather than frustrating the player really does help one get up to speed.
When evaluating a game ... just like support ... professionally produced manuals/tutorials are very much part of the value proposition. It easier to excuse a small indie company that charges a fair price for their product than Paradox which can run you upto $500 USD for a complete game without a manual.
With all that said GTMF/GTOS are truly one of the kind gems.
Best Way has sort of left everyone in the same boat with Men of War. I want to learn all the finer points of the game's GEM editor but it's tough because few written references (especially in English) exist and YouTube tutorials require you to parse through commentary and replays to find what you need.
GTOS and GTMF are the true "operational" level games in the Russian sense existing between the tactical and strategic layers most games inhabit.
1 hour ago, MOS:96B2P said:I've never played any of the GT games, only watched a few U-tube videos, but this command "bandwidth" sounds interesting.
https://youtu.be/wwwacMv-IjQ?t=599
About a minute or two into the linked timestamp he starts going over the command system's mechanic for limiting order spam and micro management.
-
The engine is technically and visually really impressive in a lot of ways too. Wrecks, destruction, defensive positions, etc are persistent and remembered by the game from battle to battle. More detail is rendered in a space that is bigger than most CM scenarios, though larger scenarios with lots of battling units and smoke can get tough on a mid-range computer.
The most interesting mechanic to me, implemented in recent years, is the command "bandwidth" mechanism which actually makes how you play the sides different. The Russians use more pre-battle planning and timing cues and the lack of radios and field telephones means changing a plan is not something you can do much of since you can run out of command influence. The Germans can cope with this better, and play a bit more like units in a conventional strategy game but trying to micro them excessively can still "overload" the command network and cause them to just ignore your orders. It really feels more like you're back at an HQ barking orders through a field telephone. It's not a squad or company level game ya know? It's more at the regimental or division level and its a fascinating middle ground that is not often covered.
Now if only the user interface didn't contain tons of vague and confusing detail of various (unexplained) importance lol.
-
I think that yes one of the game's problems is that it can fall to a point where the forces involved are too minimal to pose a very interesting situation. You can end up with lots of situations where opposing forces never encounter each other at all and simply capture uncontested map objectives after wandering right by each other in the dark. This isn't inaccurate, but it's also not terribly exciting. They need a better mechanism for just auto-resolving engagements that aren't developing much beyond "guys wandering around the steppe".
Because their game is functionally so different from other strategy games the Graviteam guys should've included more options for tutorials, but I think it's really great honestly, it's just very different from most strategy games because control is so decentralized. You have to be more general about how you play and not see it as "Combat Mission Operation Star".
-
I really like Graviteam's stuff, but it's important to understand that their games are more abstract than CM. Combat Mission is way more granular and comparing the games directly seems a bit frivolous to me because they're only superficially similar. Structurally they're very different.
One thing I think Graviteam has on CM though is some of the AI functionality. I've watched the AI do some crazy smart stuff in Operation Star, like watch individual machine gunners pause their reload to pick up a rifle and fight off guys attacking them outside their machine gun's arc of fire, and then go back to reloading and operating their Maxim.
Now Eugen's games....meh.
-
I think there was an issue with machine gun teams in 2014-2015 where they'd lose range and azimuth on a target they never lost line of fire on, which really crippled them because you could charge groups of infantry close enough to them over open ground to just push them off. I think it was one of the first major balance issues fixed though so it's all but forgotten. Some scenarios/campaigns in BN have been balanced with this problem originally built in though and now that's creating problems with the 4.0 AI being somewhat easier to scare off or rout.
Also the Pak40's HE round was more like 8-10lbs.
-
On 10/5/2019 at 9:53 PM, John Kettler said:
SimpleSimon,
This was especially true of assaulting MG positions. In CMx1, you could charge them headlong, would probably take some lumps, but would carry the position, but that same effort would get your men butchered in CMx2. That was WW II.
Yeah CMx2 has utterly transformed my perception of weaponry and tactics. Lots of games do things like force balance the Pak40 so it's useless against infantry for instance, when in reality a Pak40 is extremely dangerous to them and pretty much anything else inside its line of fire. It's a tank gun just minus the tank, and it still pitches a 13lb HE/frag charge out to 2km. Don't screw with it all if you can help it.
18 hours ago, Michael Emrys said:It may be more believable if you reflect on however many of those are from artillery short rounds and the like. Still, it sounds a bit high to me too.
Michael
I think it would help a lot if the figure had a bit more context as usual. What Army we talking about here and what period of the war for instance? I'm not doubting a figure like that is possible though. Sometimes entire operations could be wrecked by friendly fire like Bodenplatte. Italo Balbo was infamously killed by AA fire...at the very airfield he was scheduled to land at.
Anti-aircraft defenses in some cities was so notoriously heavy that more people may well have been injured or killed by falling shrapnel, dud rounds, and stray bullets than the actual bombers in some attacks. This is no joke, the British estimated that figure at some 25 percent...
https://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htatrit/articles/20110511.aspx
"The British later estimated that some 25 percent of civilian casualties from German World War II bombing attacks on their cities, were from friendly fire. That is, British anti-aircraft shells eventually falling back to earth, causing property damage and casualties."
I think it's kind of important to understand the norm of weapon systems and weaponry in WW2 was that it used saturation as its primary means of effect, just as in the Great War. Nothing was "precise", you just bombarded whatever your target was. The consequences of this of course was all those smashed cities and pulverized communities and probably more than a trivial quantity of yes fratricide.
-
Crucially I think the video highlights the fact that combat in both World Wars tended to be clearly divided between "movement" and "non-movement" states. It was pretty novel to fight and move at the same time and for the most part it sounds like it was limited to dedicated Assault/Shock troops.
I think for the most part most infantrymen in most armies were pretty unwilling or unable (or both) to engage in the sort of tactical footwork and evasion that we picture today and anchor on...modern portrayals of today's infantry or police SWAT teams. Training and standards were actually really uneven throughout the war, sometimes even among units in the same Army or branch even. We today have access to news, games, movies, books etc of a weight and ease of reach unfathomable in an age where many towns had only a telegraph station if that. Sure a lot would become evident pretty quickly at a front, but this among other factors is probably why the divide between experienced and green troops was so sharp and why veterans were such gold.
I think this is worth considering when playing CM by the way. Lots of guys, new and old, post here all the time about why they're taking heavy casualties in scenarios and blame it on the game's formation keeping or AI or etc. It really isn't those things, it's just that their picture of infantry in WW2 has been "poisoned" by depictions of SWAT teams and special forces, etc without any context.
-
One thing i'm unsure of, if specialist units were attached, such as Engineers, did they go in with the first wave? The last waves? Or were they just parceled up between all of the Battalions?
-
On 9/10/2019 at 2:44 AM, John Kettler said:
Corps frontage 4km
Corps breakthrough frontage 3.5km (61st RD 1.5km, 333rd RD 2km)On 9/10/2019 at 2:44 AM, John Kettler said:Superiority
Infantry 1:3
Artillery 1:7
Tanks and assault guns 1:11.2These are a pair of important notes for scenario designers to keep in mind if they want to make campaigns and scenarios for the Red Army. Turns out even my own assessments as to what the Russians were using to support attacks with was low-balling it. Seven to one in artillery and guns!
On 9/10/2019 at 2:44 AM, John Kettler said:A German battalion commander (Hauptmann Hans Diebisch, CO II.IR579, 306.ID) commented: 'The fire assets of the German defense were literally destroyed by the Soviet fighter bombers attacking the MLR and the rear positions. When the Russian infantry appeared (auftauchte - indicating they did not see them coming) inside the positions ofthe battalion and it tried to retreat, the Russian air force made this impossible.
Exactly how German commanders were describing Normandy, the Falaise Gap, etc.
On 9/10/2019 at 2:44 AM, John Kettler said:Still, at 4.5 rifle battalions to a km, and 2/3 strength, you are effectively putting 3 full-strength rifle battalions in there per km. Open a CMBO map and have a look at what that looks like.
And since this was the main effort the fire support for it should be suitably commensurate. There is not much dispersal of force since the Russians lacked the sophistication in command and control for it. It almost looks to be something out of 1918 but since the Germans in defense would lack the manpower or support or both to stop it, it was going to work.
-
The Japanese had invaded and left the local French authorities with little choice as to who was in charge now for sure.
So chief source of fire for French Infantry in 1940 seems to have been the Hotchkiss Mle M1914, a robust air cooled machine gun of Pre-Great War vintage and the Brandt Mle 27/31, a rather unremarkable but simple Brandt style mortar. Both of these weapons were grouped into a weapons company in with the 3 rifle companies and all of them under a Battalion. This is a fairly typical layout for a 1940 infantry formation.
Devil as they say, is in the details. The weapons company was only assigned a pair of Brandt mortars. Equivalent German weapons company was supposed to have 6. This put a French Infantry company behind a German one in weight of fire. It isn't really made up for by the 4 extra machine guns in the French weapons company over the German company either. (A French weapons company was assigned 16 Hotchkiss Mle vs 12 MG34s in the German weapons company. The MG34 was such a superb machine gun though...) The French had no heavy mortars but then neither did the Germans outside of the Chemical troop, then mainly for smoke bombardments.
A light mortar very similar to the American 60mm M2 mortar was assigned, one to each Company only and French troops were also supposed to receive a 50mm mortar to replace the VB rifle grenade but I think none were delivered before June. Very little exists on that 50mm mortar, but here's something.
https://www.militaryfactory.com/smallarms/detail.asp?smallarms_id=990
Most of them went into service with Vichy, and it would've been assigned to Platoons. Could lob a 50mm shell out to around 650m-700m but it seems rather complicated. At only 8-12lbs it's certainly much lighter than the Granatwerfer 36 (30lbs!) and weighs about the same as the British 2in mortar but has a little bit more range.
-
I've used the headcount setting to reduce headcounts but I don't always like the result I get. So another way is just to cut formations and "stretch" your remaining force. In many cases depleted formations would just be rolled up into another or combined to make a full strength formation, but I get how this option becomes less practical the smaller your scenario gets.
-
Because at one point or another the Viet Minh in fact were fighting the Japanese and then the French. One after the other I think is what Frenchy is getting at but tbh they may well have been fighting both the Vichy French local authorities and Japanese at the same time. Vietnam was a French overseas territory and after The Fall it went to Vichy. The Japanese and French had an unfriendly but pretty much cooperative relationship with each other in Indochina and it was from French airbases that the bombers which sank Repulse and Prince of Wales took off from.
The MAS38 is an interesting little sub machine gun too. The barrel and receiver are actually offset from the bolt and firing pin, allowing the bolt to recoil partly into the weapon's stock which is why it's so compact. However, typical of pre-war SMGs it was far too expensive a weapon to equip armies with. Lots of milled parts and fine wooden furnishings and few were produced after the war.
Mid war sub machine guns were all kinds of crazy anyway. The Thompson had a leaf sight adjustable up to 600ish meters (yards?) I think (!!!!!) presumably for whoknowshwhateven. I think it was expected that most of the customers at the time were going to be MPs and law enforcement.
-
ps reading up on French small arms. The French Army may well have had more Erma EMPs around than their own MAS38, but both SMGs were issued in veeeeery small quantities. Less than 2,000 of each. I wouldn't be surprised if an average infantry battalion didn't have any, and probably most went to MPs and maybe some to vehicle crews.
https://conflictuel.pagesperso-orange.fr/LGGtemp/French_SMGs_1940.pdf
Here's an interesting paper someone wrote on French SMGs between the war. The tl:dr of it is that the French seem to have lots of different SMG models, but not many of any of them. The Thompson was around here and there. Overall sub machine guns would've been quite rare among French infantry in 1940...
-
9 hours ago, Frenchy56 said:
@SimpleSimon Quite exact, but the FM 24/29 is about as much of a 'slightly modified French BAR copy' as the Bren is a 'slightly modified British BAR copy'. It used part of the action, yes, but you cannot call it a "copy", or "slightly modified".
Yeah you're right. Various old sources keep referring to it as "that BAR copy" because I think the source saying that actually knows nothing about it. The FM24/29 isn't a very close copy of the BAR. "Influenced by it" seems a more appropriate description. Unfortunately it seems to have kept the BAR's crucial limitations, like a small magazine and lack of a quick change barrel, but the French kept it in production after the war until the 1960s. Maybe they just didn't want to pay FN Herstal for the MAG and Minimi…"not made here".
9 hours ago, Bulletpoint said:I guess you could say the same about the late war, but the other way around?
Certainly. Winning and losing both have ways of coloring their side of the story...
-
Issue is there are few English sources of the Battle of France, and lots of what's there is focused on the BEF and Dunkirk. Translated German accounts of the battle can be valuable, and can be used as a way verify ToE's through captured equipment, but I think German accounts have also been overused. This is sort of what led to that picture of "Sacre Bleu! Surrender faster!!!!" stereotypes about the French and overreliance on the Maginot Line by German Officers riding the emotional high of their greatest achievement on the back of the world's first Tank Army.
tl:dr German accounts of the Early War battles are detailed but rose tinted and a bit condescending.
As for what I've seen, your average French Infantry squad was 12 men, mostly rifles. A machine gun, slightly modified French copy of the BAR, was assigned to every squad and one man was an "assistant" armed only with a pistol. Every squad was also supposed to have a VB rifle grenade launcher. "Viven-Bessieres", a cup-style grenade discharger from 1916. Interestingly this type of grenade used the "trapped energy" of a normal rifle round to launch and activate its 8 second timer, no blanks needed.
Issue here is of course that French re-armament was a very sloppy affair and in 1940 how many units had anything near their ToE? The Lebel and Berthier rifle of pre World War 1 vintage were by far the most common weapons still in use by the infantry even though the much more modern MAS36 was around. Ps neither the Lebel or the Berthier shared ammunition with the FM24/29 so squads all had to carry two kinds of ammo around oh dear.
All of this is then further complicated by the fact that the French operated on paper 3 kinds of Infantry Divisions. Line (I think that's the name?), Reserve A, and Reserve B. Line Divisions were full time and would've been equipped with the cream of the crop...(cream of the croissant?) of French equipment, all the best Officers and even men experienced fighting in the Rif War. Probably few formations were full strength though, even the full-time units probably weren't.
-
Oh yeah I took some notes too on the playthrough of my own version of Crossing the River and highlighted some interesting things.
Here is a view of the redesigned German defense. On balance it seems as if the German defense is heavier, but the major change I've made is to add a thinly manned trenchline between the center and right positions. Only a single squad holds it, and the logic behind it was that it would've served as a communication trench between the center and right (from Russian perspective) positions which this poor squad happened to be transitioning when your bombardment opened up.
The redesigned left flank position (from behind the position, facing toward the river, trees disabled). A trench connects the two machine gun pits which are covering a wide axis but now exposed to being outflanked from an attack originating up the former center position. If the player should chose to pursue this course that is.
A shot of the trench line running between center and right. This is an ideal target for the SU-76s to silence, but even if every SU-76 you have is lost or disabled it's defeated easily enough by infantry mortars and machine guns. It was a major point for me to diminish player reliance on the SU-76s from the original scenario, because they could all be lost to bogging, mines, or one (of the three!!!!) Pak 40s on the map and this crippled your attack. The Russians would not have been that reckless for an operation of such importance.
The Russian's new artillery park, page 1. The Russians have not had substantial changes outside of the new support. The SU76's are no longer your chief tool to affect the map, though their presence is still welcome.
The artillery park page 2. After playing the original scenario with this new artillery park it became fairly easy. So this is why I redesigned the German defense in a manner that made positions a bit less vulnerable. More bunkers and trenches were added, (only positions with overhead cover stood a chance at surviving the 152mm and 122mm guns) but the Germans' mortar ammunition and tube count was cut down significantly. The weather remains the same, rainy and misty, and most of the defender's heavier entrenchments like mines, bombs, and barbed wire were credible I felt since this sector of front was fairly static for the months prior.
My logic for all of this is that the weight of artillery on the Russian side is meant to be an abstraction of the huge bombardment the briefing alludes too, making use of Division and Corp level guns which would very much have been around for an offensive the size of Operation Bagration. The rocket artillery was dispensed with, and the German's own artillery has been cut down as German sources frequently cite the ease with which Russian 120mm mortars silenced their own mortars with counter battery fire. It's easy to look at the ToE of a Russian Division and be misled to think it's supposed to look much lighter than this, but Russian infantry did not function like their Western counterparts. Their tactical formations would not have been expected to conduct an attack like this without receiving Division and possibly even Corp' level assets in support. They would've been merely the maneuver elements of the parent formation who's fire-umbrella they were operating under.
My playthrough on this design several months ago revealed a situation balanced in favor of the Russians, but not unduly. The German positions on the map's northern and southern extremities are unchanged, and still very formidable as a result. The center, right, and left positions are fortified heavily enough that a spread out bombardment would fail to neutralize all 3 of them, but limiting the bombardment to mostly fall on 2 of the 3 positions ensured that at least one position was weakened enough to easily seize with infantry while making it likely enough that both positions might be reduced. Bunkers were the only thing that survived usually and if they did, you either brought up an SU-76 or flanked them out, ideally with engineers and flamethrowers. The final strongpoint could then be neutralized with an infantry attack from the forest behind it but if casualties have been high for any reason the player has 120mm mortars to soften this position for the task.
I left the scenario with a note that the majority of my casualties were suffered by sniper fire and bunkers that I missed. An interesting parallel I felt was the American's experiences with both of these things in their own battles through the Pacific and later in Vietnam against the Vietcong. Major firepower would crush enemy strongpoints and infantry would mop them up with flamethrowers, engineers, and tanks, but all the guns in the world won't cover every square inch of forest or ground and frequently a machine gun nest or sniper the main bombardment had missed would prove to be the bane of the infantryman in 1944 just it was in 1917 and would be again in 1967...
Another note is that it was fruitless to retain any ammunition in the field guns and howitzers after the initial bombardment. Only the Russian's Battalion Leader and FO can call in fire from those guns and it takes a loooong time. It's doable, but inefficient. The Russians generally used planned bombardments, tactical bombardments were infrequent and few in the Red Army were qualified to call them anyway. There was little point in leaving rounds unfired (exception here was the mortars) after the planning phase because you want to be sure that you've neutralized the position you were firing at. Another soft factor discouraging (but certainly not ruling out) point missions with an M1938 battery was the size of the explosive, which make spotting rounds potentially dangerous to your own troops. Your men are operating within about a km or so of the German positions and while certainly no concept of "Danger Close" existed back then, prudent Field Officers would still have incorporated a bit of caution into their deployment...
-
There's two files in the unpacker that you copy, "Listing_Layout" and "CMx2 ScAn_CaDe_v2.0". Find your scenario data files, which will not be in the main directory (usually) for the games but in your Documents folder under your user name. Look for a folder under there (another folder might exist that says Games and it might be in there) that says "Battlefront" and you should find files in that for each game that contain scenario and campaign folders. Paste the copied files into each campaign folder and if everything works right you should see all of the game's campaigns populate the folder as .btt files. You then need to move or copy these files to the Scenarios folder and once that's done you have full access to edit them or just play them independent the campaign system!
As for my own redesigns of Crossing the River and Osintorf, i'll do playthroughs of each sometime if you want and highlight my changes. I didn't know how to make or edit the briefing text (probably super easy with a little direction) so I wanted to figure that out before showing much.
-
In the end I did not feel that Red Thunder was a waste because while it contains the single worst campaign I've played in a CM game it also contains the single best campaign I've played so far, "Blunting the Spear". That was worth the price of admission alone. To me it also just highlights how much more accessible German sources were about the war, and also influential they were over the history of the Eastern Front.
Most of the scenarios are pretty good and I believe it was the first game in the series that had master maps? I'm working on my own campaign for it now that I should finish sometime before the year ends maybe but the master maps were crucial for that.
EDIT: I also used the campaign unpacker to "rescue" Hammer's Flank by rebalancing the campaign in the scenario editor. I feel the missions were much more interesting with more artillery support for the Russians, I also redesigned the German defenses so they were less spread out and more concentrated on individual "nodes" or "outposts" to make them less vulnerable to the huge bombardments I made use of. This presented more opportunities for flanking out German defenses but also made unexpected run ins with strong points more punishing although it was difficult for me to find anything "unexpected" when I knew the changes I had made.
-
It's the game's only shipped Russian campaign and few user campaigns exist. We're on mission 3 and the player gets some SU-76s and mortars? I felt I wasn't even getting my money's worth.
-
On 8/19/2017 at 2:28 PM, Apocal said:
So yeah, I didn't really like the scenario that much either. Whenever I replay the campaign I just hit cease fire during the setup phase and save myself the aggravation.
Which I also found myself do in "Osintorf or Bust" later on in the campaign. Another forced, really braindead attack into the teeth of an unmolested German defense. What's the point in featuring the huge buffet of artillery the Soviet's had in their park if designers insist on avoiding it????
-
Oh i'd pay twice as much as normal for a CM game covering the Invasion of Poland and Fall of France. Plenty of tactical scenarios to be had in a Spanish Civil War game too.
On 8/16/2019 at 10:46 AM, Freyberg said:I would love to see an early war title, either Western on Eastern Front, but as for whether the market for a 'France falls' game exists, I'd note a couple of things.
I'm a less expert and less knowledgeable player than many on this forum, and these days I always play against the AI (I don't have the time to dedicate to PBEM). Playing the AI, I only like to play on the attack; and I much prefer to play Allies. My perception is that serious grogs like playing the Germans; while we less serious players prefer shooting at Nazis to commanding them.
I would enjoy early War for historical reasons, but it's the late War where you have the most fun playing Allies on the attack. I don't know what percentage of BFC's customers think and play as I do, but that may have something to do with the smaller market.
Defensive campaigns are possible in CM, the best example of which I think was "A Moment in Time" from Market Garden module. Campaigns starring the Allies as attackers have context in the time though, such as the Saar offensive. The Allies conducted plenty of attacks and actions during May 1940 that would fit in the scale of a CM game, and continued to do so even when the situation was as hopeless as June 1940 when the Weygand line was breached.
The way the Allies were functioning in 1940 would have them much resembling Syria in CMSF I think. The tools, men, and even surprising cases of willpower are there, but for various reasons the Allies' defense of the Low Countries is a very dysfunctional affair. Thing is this can still be an interesting way to play, in a "making the best of the situation" sort of way. Lots of scenarios with an Allied defense or attack compromised by a poor balance of infantry/armor/artillery/air support.
1940 was also the ultimate year of the "Tank Army" when infantry anti-tank weapons were very limited, consisting of anything from improvised bombs to artillery guns pressed into service as anti-tank guns. For their part the Germans were also operating formations that were far too "tank heavy" so lots of bizarre scenarios with tons of Panzer Is charging down a forest road into a nice Belgian hamlet with a single infantry company arriving 30min into the scenario to secure it from your counter attack. Ohhh I could go on all day.
-
On 8/24/2019 at 7:03 AM, Bulletpoint said:
Yes, this was the idea. Basically setting it up as three smaller scenarios in one.
But I was thinking about giving the whole battalion to the player at game start. Letting him decide whether to follow the plan of committing the companies one at a time, or leading with two companies, one in reserve, or any other combination. I think many scenarios are a bit too "scripted".
Also, I was thinking about doing something I call "armour on demand". You start the game with, say, 5 tanks/assault guns in reserve, and the enemy gets points for spotting them. So if you think you need armour support, it's your choice to commit the tanks, but it will decrease your final score. This would be to emulate you as the battalion commander having a bit more to say than a company commander who just has to accept and play the cards he's dealt.
Some people don't like this approach since it presents a lot of management and exposes your troops (and mission score) to casualties but I personally like the sound of it. Having an "on map reserve" gives the player something Commanders had realistically, a reserve, and it was up to them to commit it or not. You can then contextualize scenarios further by either having your reserve available to stop counter attacks or optionally commit to seize final objectives or finish off pesky SS holdouts determined to die for the Fatherland.
I can imagine a scenario where seizure of the main objectives is more or less practical with one Company and for bonus points and maybe altering the campaign direction you could commit your reserve company to seizing the last objective, but in doing so you are risking casualties that might push your score back down making the whole endeavor moot. Another scenario's briefing implies the ominous presence of a nearby Kampfgruppe so you might want to keep one of your Companies back to "slide" it in front of a potential counter attack route.
-
1 hour ago, Battlefront.com said:
If this is the way you respond to someone who posted a challenge to your assertions, you're not going to last very long here. Especially if your post seems deliberately crafted to illicit a response.
Consider this (for now) a friendly warning.
Steve
What challenge? He didn't answer anything he just accused me of lying and based it on nothing more than that he disagreed with me.
1 hour ago, Battlefront.com said:Consider this (for now) a friendly warning.
This is how you respond to community grievances?! You know what. Just hit that ban button now because your forum is endangering my interest in future purchases. I already had to stomach Sgt.Slackhead's unintelligible wails over what was just a customer service issue and I see your attitude toward that is not much more enlightened. Good to know. I won't make the mistake of describing this forum as a legitimate outlet for customer outreach to anyone else. I see it's primarily a frat.
What Are You Reading?
in General Discussion Forum
Posted
The Hapsburg Empire, Pieter M. Judson.
This is the best single volume history of Austria-Hungary (in spite of the name, it is not about the Austrian Hapsburgs) written in the west, and it should deflate a lot of the notions we have about the Austro-Hungarian state. Much of its history has been colored by the politics of the World Wars and later by Communist rule and the author is really highlighting how much English historians have again done a major disservice to audiences in the west by sticking with the tired and hypocritical "Sick man of Europe" line to describe the Austrian state.
Potential readers should be advised. It's a huge book (500+ pages) and a lot of the subject matter is extremely dense sociology and anthropology.