Simcoe

Sure! Against AI or H2H?

Any update in this one?

Not trying to disrespect any of the great scenario designers here. I've played my fair share of AI battles. the NTC campaign had great AI. I just think at the end of the day, Combat Mission is best played against a human opponent. Verdenne and Victory was great! I really liked that both sides had an objective to attack and there was a lot of room to manuever. I was worried at first (playing the axis) that I only had five panthers but they won every tank duel they faced. I think the scenario does a great job of teaching you to fight for every bit of intelligence. I even resorted to dismounting kubelwagon drivers in forests just to get hearing contacts to know where his tanks were moving.

Damn, I didn't k ow u could move a deployed machine gun to different windows without re deploying. Thanks for the heads up.

Taking a break for the next week or two. The last game took a month of daily rounds. I'll reach out after though!

Recently finished up a great PBEM in Final Blitzkrieg "To Verdenne and Victory" and after having a few multi-player games under my belt single player just feels dull. In the PBEM my opponent was constantly trying to outlflank me while I fought to maintain a screen of scouts to detect his movements. Every turn was fluid and deadly. This isn't a dig against the great AI designers here. Just saying this game really comes alive against an opponent and I'm glad I took the plunge.

This is easily my favorite Combat Mission. You have two factions that have completely different doctrines, strengths and weaknesses. The time period also accentuates the strengths of the engine and game format. WW2 is too slow and Black Sea/SF2 are really stretching the engine too far. Cold War is in that sweet spot.

Thanks for sharing. Another interesting question to ask. If the Russians knew they wouldn't be able to decapitate the government in a quick strike, what would they have done differently? Would they have changed their tank tactics? Artillery? My understanding is their artillery wasn't able to keep pace with the tanks because of the need to hit Kyiv as fast as possible. Would they have used that artillery effectively though?

Fire and Rubble has a massive Soviet campaign but hey, I'll take more Soviet campaigns any day.

That's so funny. I'm in a PBEM to Verdenne and Victory and that's where I had the friendly fire incidents.

I've seen that. What I'm talking about is friendly units shooting at other friendly units without any input of the player and no enemies visible.

Has anyone had friendly fire from the AI before? Playing a PBEM Final Blitzkrieg game and I have had three instances of friendly units attacking other friendlies. 1. HQ team shoots at panther tank commander. No enemy spots 2. Two separate times MG team shoots at panther tank commander. No spots in the area or behind it. I have never experienced this before.

Totally agree. Why would Russia destroy their pipeline? All they need to do is reduce the flow and make up an excuse. This has CIA work written all over it.

Tired of this both sides nonsense. The sickness comes from one network, one party. One party is pushing Putin propaganda, one party tried to overthrow the government. It wasn't CNN, it wasn't the Democrats.

Maybe when my grandchild is born we might see artillery damage tank subsystems other than it's tracks.

I think it would be better to give the player unlimited ammo but restrict the times it can be used. Give us 100 rounds of mortar ammunition but after that's out the mortars need to resupply for 30 minutes. For larger guns you can use 30 rounds until they need to displace and then you're given another 30 rounds 20 minutes later. Each number would be dependent on the scenario.

Maybe it's a bit of a dice roll. None of MLRS did any damage to tanks and the US tanks at the first objective stayed far enough back that infantry couldn't take it alone. I found the US tanks had good spotting. Thank you for your input.

That last question is the big one. Any attack must be mechanized if yoru enemy has artillery. You need a big gun that can engage other big targets from a long distance. It must be heavily armored to give it a better chance of surviving the survivable hits. You can't have anything light because it can't have the last two points. I don't think it's realistic to expect you'll always be able to neutralize enemy artillery and heavy weapons all the time.

Totally agree. If the next engine had nothing else but an artillery rework I would be a happy man. Artillery should be subject to counter battery if fired for too long. Create full fire plans at the deployment phase. Rolling barrage. Artillery redeployment and resupply.

WHT did the BMP2'S do exactly? Did they try to take the first objective themselves? Or hang back, waiting for the tanks to arrive?

Finally someone that has played the scenario H2H. The AT-4's only got three tanks before running out of ammo. I guess I could have hung back with the BMP's and waited until the tanks arrive. My concern was that would give the US forces time to set up hull down positions from all different angles. Once my tanks arrived they wouldn't have a safe avenue to get into range. My plan matched the scenario briefing. Take the closest objective and set up in the hills on the other side of the valley. That way I could make sure the US couldn't use it to ambush the tanks. Are you saying your opponent sat his BMP's at long range and using their ATGM's?

What would you say are the differences between the NATO and Soviet style war at this point? Seems like the only difference at this point is winning fire superiority with artillery and long range missiles vs airpower.

Great! More than happy to help if needed.

Is this for AI or H2H?

Why do we focus so much on the messenger rather than the message? Snowden doesn't matter. What matters is that unelected agencies have carte blanche to circumvent your rights and democracy. I guess nobody cares.