Jump to content

RMM

Members
  • Content Count

    34
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Everything posted by RMM

  1. Ah. Ok, that's good to hear, because I was hesitant to do that for fear of a conflict
  2. Bummer. Anyone modified them for the full game by any chance? I'll just have to finish my game before switching over I see your scenarios and mods links, and that's a great resource! Thanks
  3. Is this because the demo program/game version has been superceded?
  4. Hi Anderw, Yeh, I did go back and check that from the saved games and no. The extra or unwarranted commands were individual in nature, and it happened a number of times but only in the latter half of the game. It was fairly coincident with my not being able to successfully order a couple of other units into their buildings or to stay there.
  5. That sounds pretty true to life
  6. That's an interesting addition. I have not been aware of such a reputation for the PzIV and V. The one for Sherman I've heard in numerous documentaries and interviews over the years. It's definitely a feather in the cap for the game that real life advise can be applied to it, but I would also include in that attacking tanks with infantry unless they're of a higher calibre and in an urban setting or in possession of afore-mentioned, late-war anti-tank weapons.
  7. Oh, I've gone ahead with the purchase
  8. Yeh, fair enough, but it sounds like the balance could do with some tweaking in favour of the AFV
  9. Makes sense in regards to the Sherman crew. Despite many historical notes, people actually didn't like the Sherman. It was actually regarded as a fire death trap, particularly when up against something like a Panther. The rule of thumb is that you needed at least three Shermans to take out a Panther, and at the end of it, you'd be thankful to still have one Sherman. However, particularly if the infantry just took casualties from the MA, that doesn't ring very true.
  10. That behaviour makes sense for lightly armoured vehicles, but I wouldn't think that infantry would be similarly spooked the same just because a tank appears somewhere. This is more in regards to having one right ontop of or adjacent to you.
  11. I dunno though Erwin. I mean if you hear that stuff hitting the outside, I can't think that would be great motivation to jump out of the protection you have into that environment, particularly if you're not sure what it is. Plus, tank crews in general are pretty well trained an disciplined for that very reason. Personally, I'd think one would want to stay within the protective shield compared to the outside where you've got little more than a pistol at most.
  12. Agreed that in an urban setting, that makes sense and is realistic
  13. Yes, that just doesn't sound right at all. Pity
  14. Sounds like you might be right unfortunately. I watched something similar on of the tactical videos from the former Army officer, and was pretty surprised by a Stuart, M5 tank being taken out by some grenade throwing infantry. I dunno. Sounds like a feedback and suggestion entry might be in order!
  15. Hmm, gotta say that sounds a bit sketchy.
  16. Anyone on here able to confirm whether the game does in fact take into account an intimidation factor for infantry v's AFV's? Perhaps the earlier complaints against such a factor were based on that 'TC' being too restrictive?
  17. Oh absolutely. Combined arms has been proven over and over again. Ironically, it was the Germans who got a serious reminder that AFV's need infantry support, even in the relatively open spaces of the Kursk battlefield, when their much vaunted Elephants were eventually taken out by infantry, albeit at quite a price, but one the communists were content to pay, particularly since they could, sadly replace people a lot easier than AFV's.
  18. I would hope that there is something akin to the TC that ASL used, since any reading of memoires makes it clear how infantry were far more shy of dealing with tanks than vice-versa. Hell, people were given medals for taking out tanks single-handed or in close quarters, so that shows the value placed on such actions in real life. To danfrodo's point, true, some AFV's were vulnerable in the rear, but it still, generally took a well placed grenade to affect such areas, and from mid '43 onwards, the introduction of shape-charged weapons such as PF and bazookas, certainly made tankers, sensibly war
  19. Oh absolutely, once those weapons began to appear on the battlefield, the whole dynamic began to dramatically shift, but the first of those didn't appear until late '43 with the German PF and American Bazooka. Even then, it wasn't until Spring/Summer of '44 that infantry began to be a hitherto much greater threat to armour.
  20. That's some odd observations. Granted, later in the war, the Germans in particular had some potent anti-tank grenades, but even they took some nerves of steel, because you had to get right up against the vehicle to place them! For much of the war, there was very little infantry had against heavy armour like a Panther. Consequently, traditionally, one of the easiest ways for a tank to quell dug in infantry was to literally drive over the entrenchments and then pivot on their tracks, which would bury the troops alive. It was a terrifyingly effective tactic. In addition, accurately throwing an an
  21. That's quite the amusing image!
×
×
  • Create New...