RT with more tank/vehicle combat compared to BN or FI?

[canuck97]

Hey guys,

 

currently I'm still playing the campaigns of BN (all modules) and FI (all modules). I'm going to buy RT for sure but I'd like to know if there's more tank/vehicle combat (especially over long distances) in RT compared to the other two? I watched lots of clips of RT and it seems that the maps are way more open than in BN or FI. So it would be good knows if the stock campaign/scenarios would feel pretty different/fresh compared to the more infantry/close quarter battles of BN (and FI to some extend). 

 

Cheers

[mirekm61]

Yes, more open terrain armored battles at 1000m and more. It looks very interesting off target shot, ricochets, etc.

[womble]

Yes, more open terrain armored battles at 1000m and more. It looks very interesting off target shot, ricochets, etc.

There are plenty of misses and ricochets in my BN/FI games...

[BLSTK]

I'm currently playing the third mission of the RT campaign as the Germans. The battlefield is equal parts wrecking yard and traffic jam...strewn with flaming tanks...mostly Russian. 

 

I never encountered this many tanks on a BN map. The size and openness of the field in RT is well suited to this type of battle. I'm seeing tank icons in my sleep!

[canuck97]

I'm currently playing the third mission of the RT campaign as the Germans. The battlefield is equal parts wrecking yard and traffic jam...strewn with flaming tanks...mostly Russian. 

 

I never encountered this many tanks on a BN map. The size and openness of the field in RT is well suited to this type of battle. I'm seeing tank icons in my sleep!

This sounds like the nice diversion from the narrow hedgerows/bocage country of Normany and steep hills of Italy I was hoping for. Thank you.

[Sublime]

Its a lot different. I like the Ost front better anyways.  But yes, more armored combat, however Russian infantry has more trouble taking on tanks on their own. This is made up however by the cheapness and good quality of their armor and anti tank guns.

There are vast open maps (with plenty of not so obvious gullies, trenches, and hiding spots) but also closer in forested maps, cities, towns, etc.  You have two different types of terrain ,eastern europe and soviet union in the QB generator that affect the flora and building types, also maps you can choose. Id go for RT - BN was great, so was FI. Id only ever go with FI again AFTER Gustav, that MADE the game, before I was sorta disappointed.  BN was great. I wish I had money for the battle pack and MG module.  I simply dont. Doubtful Ill have the money for Black sea and or any RT modules any time soon either. =(

But I got off topic - RT also, unless you pay to upgrade has features the others dont. Flames, anti air craft fire, etc etc.

 

I do, however feel the campaigns, most especially in BN were better done.  PT's Road to Montbourg being the best, beside a glorious gem of a user made one called Devils Descent. IT had a choose your own adventure aspect. Focussed on a platoon to company of Airborne troops in DDay. But in between battles you often had the choice of cease firing and losing or advancing to an unopposed objective. This would allow campaign branching (do you wait for reinforcements or storm the village) which allowed replayability and really made you feel like you were in command.  Best CM campaign I ever played in X2 with PTs Road to Montbourg a close second.

I wish the guy who made Devils Descent would make a couple for RT - maybe one around a german straggler group. Another perhaps around a Russian tank rider unit. Who knows.

Edited December 30, 2014 by Sublime

[canuck97]

Thanks Sublime, you've just convinced me to buy it. I'll also try out Devil's Descent. Thanks again.

[sburke]

Its a lot different. I like the Ost front better anyways.  But yes, more armored combat, however Russian infantry has more trouble taking on tanks on their own. This is made up however by the cheapness and good quality of their armor and anti tank guns.

There are vast open maps (with plenty of not so obvious gullies, trenches, and hiding spots) but also closer in forested maps, cities, towns, etc.  You have two different types of terrain ,eastern europe and soviet union in the QB generator that affect the flora and building types, also maps you can choose. Id go for RT - BN was great, so was FI. Id only ever go with FI again AFTER Gustav, that MADE the game, before I was sorta disappointed.  BN was great. I wish I had money for the battle pack and MG module.  I simply dont. Doubtful Ill have the money for Black sea and or any RT modules any time soon either. =(

But I got off topic - RT also, unless you pay to upgrade has features the others dont. Flames, anti air craft fire, etc etc.

 

I do, however feel the campaigns, most especially in BN were better done.  PT's Road to Montbourg being the best, beside a glorious gem of a user made one called Devils Descent. IT had a choose your own adventure aspect. Focussed on a platoon to company of Airborne troops in DDay. But in between battles you often had the choice of cease firing and losing or advancing to an unopposed objective. This would allow campaign branching (do you wait for reinforcements or storm the village) which allowed replayability and really made you feel like you were in command.  Best CM campaign I ever played in X2 with PTs Road to Montbourg a close second.

I wish the guy who made Devils Descent would make a couple for RT - maybe one around a german straggler group. Another perhaps around a Russian tank rider unit. Who knows.

check your PM.