holoween

I was trying to replicate the P4 vs Stuart test by having both sides use the hulldown command to get into position. I didnt manage to replicate the test but i did find an easily repeatable case of why i never even use the hulldown command anymore. The tanks dont actually move up sufficiently to get a spot or be able to fire.

Since this is something that only really matters against well armored tanks giving a deviation from the center mass aimpoint if the round bounces to simulate the gunner aiming for different areas could help spread the shots around a bit more realistically.

The forward platoon was in defilade so hard to spot but what i was trying to say it that the actual assault on the position took 15min with more additional time needed to scout around before launching the assault. Also while its relatively easy to spot foxholes its quite difficult to spot if they are occupied if the troops are hiding. He did have arty but that was busy supressing atgms covering the position. And arty isnt great against spred out foxholes. It took an abrams platoon and a striker platoon 15 min to clear and thats 1 platoon in defilade and 2 in enfilade positions. in comparison later 2 abrams wiped a similarly positioned platoon in the open in 2min. So yea the resilience there is entirely due to the foxholes.

As an example. This Position was only marginally more expensive by adding the foxholes yet it took an M1A2sep platoon and a striker platoon around 15min to clear on the assault and quite a bit more time to scout out which made a significant contribution to me eventually winning the match.

Fortifications arent useless. I tend to play large or huge QB and at least at that size field fortifications are quite usefull. Foxholes especially provide the best possible cover as far as my testing could determine and only cost 5 points each. And they allow setting up strong defensive positions where there isnt one on the map. Also the lethality of the modern titles is mostly a result of not adjusting to the environment youre fighting in. In ww2 you can sit a tank into hulldown for several minutes and it will most likely be fine because neither itself nor the oponent will spot or hit. In the modern titles simply poking up for 10-15s at a time accomplishes the same.

setup was exactly the same as the previous tests.

I though that much was obvious and didnt exactly need to be specified but i i just ran the test a few times and the platoon in the open always gets wiped out with a max of 4 casualties for the foxholed troops. Keep in ine the 81mm mortars effectiveness is range dependant. this was done at basically point blank range. so Firing it at long range may reult in it matching the offmap version.

yes http://www.thefewgoodmen.com/thefgmforum/threads/cmfb-trench-vs-foxholes.29756/ and while it isnt explicitly stated in there foxholed do provide the best cover to infantry short of bunkers and tied with stonewalls. sandbags and trenches provide less cover with trenches being practically uesless. I never tested buildings so they might provide more cover but ingame experience would suggest they generally dont.

Where the hit was scored does matter quite a lot. I tested a bit and after around 30 hits on strikers with rpg7 ive had only one instance of a hit that got through the slat armour. Every other Ko came from hits above or below it which is exactly as i would expect. If someone would report a 50% loss rate on KVs to 37mm pak id question their tactics far more than the games simulation because a Ko isnt impossible just very unlikely so for that loss rate to occur there had to have been massive user errors.

There are a few other things that lead to excessive casualties. Pixel truppen are excessively bad at using terrain, they bunch up far too much and their rifle accuracy especially drops off far to little over distance.

That was easy. TBH I found this battle to be quite boring. It took 10 min to reach the church while taking almost no casualties and afterwards it was simply a game of waiting for the assault wave to apear and then destroy it with arty. I only actually watched about 15 of the turns since nothing of relevance happened. Either no enemy in sight or they were pounded by arty. This would have been far more interesting if the germans used smoke to cover themselves while crossing the roads. Looking forward to the next one though.

Because the US called Article 5.

even at longer range stg is better There will eventually be a point where the m1 is better but that is at ranges where hmgs, mortars and other heavy weapons dominate. If anything the running away actually helps them because it increases the range. The reason they are running is that they are taking a lot of casualties in a short time and lots of supressive fire. Both are things that significantly effect any battle so i see no reason to exclude them from the effectiveness test.

since the pure stg troops are quite low in numbers i gave them a lmg42 team for each squad short range long range so at short range there was almost no difference between mp40s and stg44s but at longer range the stg just keeps on being deadly. i might later do some more tests at longer range

same range but just stg close range close range mp44 only

What happens when you have stg 44 what happens if you dont Yea i think ill take the stg. (no the M1 Garand doesnt do better)

Nice scenario. Its quite incredible just how bad visibility is in this one. Ive had several instances where squads literally walked into each other before seeing anything resulting in heavy casualties to whoever spotted the opponent a second later. I didnt get the farm objective because there is a single guy just casually sitting in the middle of my men and they had no idea. I was certain the zone was clear but it ended up not being the case. I never even kew there was a second at gun until i read the forum posts after the battle and went back to look for it on the end screen. Turns out i had hit it perfectly with area fire because i expected a mg there. I disagree with this asessment. The Stgs are a significant step up in firepower and vital to a successful mission unless you play very gamey and simply shoot every single piece of decent cover with stugs before moving anywhere close. The americans only apear to have similar firepower because the visibility in this scenario means they almost always get the first shots in against moving oponents in the open at close range.

all trees id show you a screenshot but its from a HvH game that is still running and gives away too much information but as soon as its finished ill post it.

Agred but with trees it isnt the case no matter how you look at them.

To elaborate the issue is that individual trees sometimes matter for example for attack ground targets and for actually shooting through. this leads to the situations i made clips of where aparently there is clear line of fire but my shot gets intercepted by something but the return shot doesnt. especially noticable in the first one where a 90mm ap shot gets absorbed but the return 105mm heat shot works just fine.

As far as i can tell Its a simple save roll if your vehicle is near trees hence magic.

Its quite simple: trees are not to be trusted in this game. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RAhr14xdKGc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w6ygw270QIk Trees are simply magic.

Tbh i think that asessment is entirely wrong. If you want to specify englishj speaking market i would agree. The problem is that in europe the age group 50+ doesnt really speak that much english so if a game isnt translated it wont be picked up.

Being now finally able to look at the map, mission and troops im just confused. Am i supposed to follow the mission laid out in the briefing hoping the designers put victory points in locations that match my plan or simply try to guess what the designer thinks i should do?

Well i did see your post when i was about to make one myself so it worked out quite nicely.