Matrix Games Forums

The fight for Armageddon begins! The Matrix Holiday sales are starting today! Warhammer - Weapons of WarFlashpoint Campaigns: Red Storm gets huge update and a Steam release!Battle Academy 2 opens up a new front!Flashpoint Campaigns Featured on weekly Streaming SessionFrontline: The Longest Day - New Screenshots!Deal of the Week: Hannibal Rome and CarthageFlashpoint Campaigns: Red Storm gets Players Edition!To End All Wars gets its first major patch!
Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Questions for Jason

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> John Tiller's Campaign Series >> Questions for Jason Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Questions for Jason - 12/5/2011 9:42:21 PM   
Deputy


Posts: 446
Joined: 9/24/2005
From: Silver City, NM USA
Status: offline
I am gonna try and not make this controversial.

I have some observations about the patches that came after 1.02B....

Something that occured to me when comparing version 1.02B with 1.04. It looks to me like patches after 1.02 were designed to REDUCE the fighting ability of the Germans. In 1.02B the German Army didn't have a lot of problems defeating the Soviets or the Western allies. Especially later in the war when Panther and Tiger tanks appeared. The changes that were made in 1.03 and 1.04 both seemed to be a subtle effort to "balance" the game and make the allies more competitive against the Germans. I was playing 1.04 last night, and to my amazement, Russian TANKS were using hidden fire while in open terrain and remaining unspotted. Now MAYBE I can believe a small, hand-carried anti-tank gun staying hidden pretty well, even a larger 50MM anti-tank gun might stay hiddden for one or two turns, but THREE STACKED platoons of T34/85 tanks in open terrain remaining hidden WHILE FIRING....no way. The Soviets would have to be usng the "Philadelphia Experiement" of making them invisible to achieve an effect like that. This is just another reason why I prefer 1.02B. It is closer to real world experience and not some kind of artificial "play balance" engineered by those who want to see more Allied victories or more "fair" gameplay.

It is also quite obvious that the German OOB has been altered from what it was in the Talonsoft and early Matrix versions of the game. I am regularly seeing a company of tanks, either Tiger or Panther, and 1 of the 4 platoons is always understrength. So you have three platoons at a strength of 4 and one at a strength of 2. Is this some kind of artificial attempt to "balance gameplay", or did someone at Matrix suddenly discover documentation that the German Army always had one platoon understrength?

And of course, we have the notorious anti-tank mortars and artillery. This also looks like another attempt to "balance gameplay" by giving the allies a long range anti-tank weapon in the form of mortars and artillery. The standard answer that everyone posts is to spread out your armor and not stack them in one hex. I tried that. Major catastrophe. It just meant that allied artillery had more targets to hit, not that it was more difficult to hit them. The only real compensation for the current anti-armor artillery is that the German Panther and Tiger tanks can move one hex after firing twice to make sure you disrupt any spotters.


So is Matrix tweaking gameplay to make things "more balanced". Did users complain that they couldn't defeat the German units so things were "adjusted" to help them out? Was this a request by PBEM folks? And why weren't the German units given hidden units and killer mortars and artillery?

Enquiring minds want to know

< Message edited by Deputy -- 12/5/2011 10:30:17 PM >


_____________________________

Squad Battles
John Tiller's Campaign Series: Abandonware and no longer supported. Whata shame.
Post #: 1
RE: Questions for Jason - 12/5/2011 10:31:05 PM   
MrRoadrunner


Posts: 923
Joined: 10/7/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Deputy
Something that occured to me when comparing version 1.02B with 1.04. It looks to me like patches after 1.02 were designed to REDUCE the fighting ability of the Germans. In 1.02B the German Army didn't have a lot of problems defeating the Soviets or the Western allies. Especially later in the war when Panther and Tiger tanks appeared. The changes that were made in 1.03 and 1.04 both seemed to be a subtle effort to "balance" the game and make the allies more competitive against the Germans. I was playing 1.04 last night, and to my amazement, Russian TANKS were using hidden fire while in open terrain and remaining unspotted. Now MAYBE I can believe a small, hand-carried anti-tank gun staying hidden pretty well, even a larger 50MM anti-tank gun might stay hiddden for one or two turns, but THREE STACKED platoons of T34/85 tanks in open terrain remaining hidden WHILE FIRING....no way. The Soviets would have to be usng the "Philadelphia Experiement" of making them invisible to achieve an effect like that. This is just another reaasin why I prefer 1.02B. It is closer to real world experience and not some kind of artificial "play balance" engineered by those who want to see more Allied victories or more "fair" gameplay.


I've never had tanks firing in the open that remain hidden, that would be interesting to see. And, the 50mm German AT gun does stay hidden. Even after firing.
I have not seen invisible destroyers so I do not understand about the "Philadelphia Experiment" reference.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Deputy It is also quite obvious that the German OOB has been altered from what it was in the Talonsoft and early Matrix versions of the game. I am regularly seeing a company of tanks, either Tiger or Panther, and 1 of the 4 platoons is always understrength. So you have three platoons at a strength of 4 and one at a strength of 2. Is this some kind of artificial attempt to "balance gameplay", or did someone at Matrix suddenly discover documentation that the German Army always had one platoon understrength?


I thought the changes were already announced, in every update. You can research it. The 2 strength platoon was the HQ platoon, IIRC. Nothing was done to any of the OOB's to make balance. Everything still fires according to the original fire tables except for artillery which went from a 3% chance to a 5% chance of damaging armor. The version 1.05 patch will fix the smaller caliber mortars from doing damage to armor. BTW, all armor is effected by the tables and not just the German armor.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Deputy And of course, we have the notorious anti-tank mortars and artillery. This also looks like another attempt to "balance gameplay" by giving the allies a long range anti-tank weapon in the form of mortars and artillery. The standard answer that everyone posts is to spreaad out your armor and not stack them in one hex. I tried that. Major catastrophe. It just meant that allied artillery had more targets to hit, not that it was more difficult to hit them. The only real compensation for the current anti-armor artillery is that the German Panther and Tiger tanks can move one hex after firing twice to make sure you disrupt any spotters.


See that above comment regarding the mortars. Also remember that ambush shots are more effective, by the established tables? It makes the mortars and hidden AT guns more effective when they first fire.
I also have/had a problem with the artillery fire. But, as stated version 1.05 or reverting to 1.02 will fix that?
Messing with the fire tables could effect game play but not balance. Unless they make Panthers and Tigers fire like PzKwII's?


quote:

ORIGINAL: Deputy So is Matrix tweaking gameplay to make things "more balanced". Did users complain that they couldn't defeat the German units so things were "adjusted" to help them out? Was this a request by PBEM folks? And why weren't the German units given hidden units and killer mortars and artillery?


All I have seen from the changes to the OOB's were to make them more historically accurate. Changes to the OOB's do nothing toward "balance". Balance of play is in the hands of the scenario designer. You can add or subtract strength points to units as well as replacing units within the OOB to other units, ie trade out soft trucks for half tracks.
PBEM folks mostly wanted more and varied units that actually were used in combat. Some wanted the navy stuff and others wanted the airfields and mobile supply bases.
Personally I do not like the naval units, airfields (on map), and mobile supply units. Nor, do I like the engineers that can build bridges and create minefields in six minutes (but that is a different argument altogether).

The only changes to earlier versions, that I know of, were done to add historical units.

RR


_____________________________

“The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane.”
― Marcus Aurelius, Meditations

(in reply to Deputy)
Post #: 2
RE: Questions for Jason - 12/5/2011 11:18:24 PM   
Otto von Blotto


Posts: 210
Joined: 7/18/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Deputy

to my amazement, Russian TANKS were using hidden fire while in open terrain and remaining unspotted. Now MAYBE I can believe a small, hand-carried anti-tank gun staying hidden pretty well, even a larger 50MM anti-tank gun might stay hiddden for one or two turns, but THREE STACKED platoons of T34/85 tanks in open terrain remaining hidden WHILE FIRING....no way. The Soviets would have to be usng the "Philadelphia Experiement" of making them invisible to achieve an effect like that.


Were you playing with variable visibility on ? That may explain this you can take it off in the optional rules (I would advise not having it on if you want a fair game) it should be off by default.

< Message edited by Otto von Blotto -- 12/5/2011 11:19:34 PM >


_____________________________

"Personal isn't the same as important"

(in reply to Deputy)
Post #: 3
RE: Questions for Jason - 12/5/2011 11:28:43 PM   
Warhorse


Posts: 3676
Joined: 5/12/2000
From: Birdsboro, PA, USA
Status: offline
That arty is vicious across the board, the German arty sometimes even takes out K'talan MBT's!!!! These are the equivalent of modern T-90 tanks. The result is "Disabled" meaning tracks knocked off, crew stunned beyond capability of a viable combat-ready unit, and other such results. I learn to not leave ANY unit in one hex for very long, LOL!! Kinda sucks some times, but there you have it!!

Mike

_____________________________

Mike Amos

Meine Ehre heißt Treue

(in reply to Otto von Blotto)
Post #: 4
RE: Questions for Jason - 12/5/2011 11:43:15 PM   
Jason Petho


Posts: 5369
Joined: 6/22/2004
From: Calgary, AB, Canada
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: Deputy


Something that occured to me when comparing version 1.02B with 1.04. It looks to me like patches after 1.02 were designed to REDUCE the fighting ability of the Germans. In 1.02B the German Army didn't have a lot of problems defeating the Soviets or the Western allies. Especially later in the war when Panther and Tiger tanks appeared. The changes that were made in 1.03 and 1.04 both seemed to be a subtle effort to "balance" the game and make the allies more competitive against the Germans. I was playing 1.04 last night, and to my amazement, Russian TANKS were using hidden fire while in open terrain and remaining unspotted. Now MAYBE I can believe a small, hand-carried anti-tank gun staying hidden pretty well, even a larger 50MM anti-tank gun might stay hiddden for one or two turns, but THREE STACKED platoons of T34/85 tanks in open terrain remaining hidden WHILE FIRING....no way.

The Soviets would have to be usng the "Philadelphia Experiement" of making them invisible to achieve an effect like that. This is just another reason why I prefer 1.02B. It is closer to real world experience and not some kind of artificial "play balance" engineered by those who want to see more Allied victories or more "fair" gameplay.


The general hidden when attack rule changed with West Front, the original one, from Talonsoft and was included with East Front II and the follow on packages as part of the game.

While a rarity that you are describing, it is actually part of the game.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Deputy


It is also quite obvious that the German OOB has been altered from what it was in the Talonsoft and early Matrix versions of the game. I am regularly seeing a company of tanks, either Tiger or Panther, and 1 of the 4 platoons is always understrength. So you have three platoons at a strength of 4 and one at a strength of 2. Is this some kind of artificial attempt to "balance gameplay", or did someone at Matrix suddenly discover documentation that the German Army always had one platoon understrength?


Read Mr RR's response, as it is correct.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Deputy
So is Matrix tweaking gameplay to make things "more balanced". Did users complain that they couldn't defeat the German units so things were "adjusted" to help them out? Was this a request by PBEM folks?


The Germans are actually really easy to beat, especially later in the war. They have been since the original version of East Front, in my experiences anyway.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Deputy
And why weren't the German units given hidden units and killer mortars and artillery?


Try playing as the Russians, you'll see the same things happening. The rules are the same for all the countries.

Jason Petho



_____________________________

Petho Cartography

Mapping Military History

(in reply to Deputy)
Post #: 5
RE: Questions for Jason - 12/6/2011 12:00:40 AM   
Deputy


Posts: 446
Joined: 9/24/2005
From: Silver City, NM USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Otto von Blotto

quote:

ORIGINAL: Deputy

to my amazement, Russian TANKS were using hidden fire while in open terrain and remaining unspotted. Now MAYBE I can believe a small, hand-carried anti-tank gun staying hidden pretty well, even a larger 50MM anti-tank gun might stay hiddden for one or two turns, but THREE STACKED platoons of T34/85 tanks in open terrain remaining hidden WHILE FIRING....no way. The Soviets would have to be usng the "Philadelphia Experiement" of making them invisible to achieve an effect like that.


Were you playing with variable visibility on ? That may explain this you can take it off in the optional rules (I would advise not having it on if you want a fair game) it should be off by default.


I don't think so. Is that one of the check boxes at the very begining of a scenario? I'll look and see, but I don't have any of the boxes checked right now.

_____________________________

Squad Battles
John Tiller's Campaign Series: Abandonware and no longer supported. Whata shame.

(in reply to Otto von Blotto)
Post #: 6
RE: Questions for Jason - 12/6/2011 12:03:37 AM   
Deputy


Posts: 446
Joined: 9/24/2005
From: Silver City, NM USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Warhorse

That arty is vicious across the board, the German arty sometimes even takes out K'talan MBT's!!!! These are the equivalent of modern T-90 tanks. The result is "Disabled" meaning tracks knocked off, crew stunned beyond capability of a viable combat-ready unit, and other such results. I learn to not leave ANY unit in one hex for very long, LOL!! Kinda sucks some times, but there you have it!!

Mike


I wish I could get the German arty to do that!!!! Even with direct fire, 105s and 150s just seem to make noise and nothing else. They work against infantry and trucks and headquaters, but not against tank armor (in my experience). I move my tanks on every turn now. Even just moving them 1 hex helps.

_____________________________

Squad Battles
John Tiller's Campaign Series: Abandonware and no longer supported. Whata shame.

(in reply to Warhorse)
Post #: 7
RE: Questions for Jason - 12/6/2011 12:05:34 AM   
Deputy


Posts: 446
Joined: 9/24/2005
From: Silver City, NM USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jason Petho


quote:

ORIGINAL: Deputy


Something that occured to me when comparing version 1.02B with 1.04. It looks to me like patches after 1.02 were designed to REDUCE the fighting ability of the Germans. In 1.02B the German Army didn't have a lot of problems defeating the Soviets or the Western allies. Especially later in the war when Panther and Tiger tanks appeared. The changes that were made in 1.03 and 1.04 both seemed to be a subtle effort to "balance" the game and make the allies more competitive against the Germans. I was playing 1.04 last night, and to my amazement, Russian TANKS were using hidden fire while in open terrain and remaining unspotted. Now MAYBE I can believe a small, hand-carried anti-tank gun staying hidden pretty well, even a larger 50MM anti-tank gun might stay hiddden for one or two turns, but THREE STACKED platoons of T34/85 tanks in open terrain remaining hidden WHILE FIRING....no way.

The Soviets would have to be usng the "Philadelphia Experiement" of making them invisible to achieve an effect like that. This is just another reason why I prefer 1.02B. It is closer to real world experience and not some kind of artificial "play balance" engineered by those who want to see more Allied victories or more "fair" gameplay.


The general hidden when attack rule changed with West Front, the original one, from Talonsoft and was included with East Front II and the follow on packages as part of the game.

While a rarity that you are describing, it is actually part of the game.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Deputy


It is also quite obvious that the German OOB has been altered from what it was in the Talonsoft and early Matrix versions of the game. I am regularly seeing a company of tanks, either Tiger or Panther, and 1 of the 4 platoons is always understrength. So you have three platoons at a strength of 4 and one at a strength of 2. Is this some kind of artificial attempt to "balance gameplay", or did someone at Matrix suddenly discover documentation that the German Army always had one platoon understrength?


Read Mr RR's response, as it is correct.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Deputy
So is Matrix tweaking gameplay to make things "more balanced". Did users complain that they couldn't defeat the German units so things were "adjusted" to help them out? Was this a request by PBEM folks?


The Germans are actually really easy to beat, especially later in the war. They have been since the original version of East Front, in my experiences anyway.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Deputy
And why weren't the German units given hidden units and killer mortars and artillery?


Try playing as the Russians, you'll see the same things happening. The rules are the same for all the countries.

Jason Petho




Thanks Jason. That clears up a lot.
I mainly play as the Germans and am quite good with them. Not bragging, just saying



_____________________________

Squad Battles
John Tiller's Campaign Series: Abandonware and no longer supported. Whata shame.

(in reply to Jason Petho)
Post #: 8
RE: Questions for Jason - 12/6/2011 12:07:32 AM   
Deputy


Posts: 446
Joined: 9/24/2005
From: Silver City, NM USA
Status: offline
Almost forgot...I do see where the 4th tank platoon in 1.02B is also a strength of 2. So I guess it was implemented pretty early. My apologies on that complaint

_____________________________

Squad Battles
John Tiller's Campaign Series: Abandonware and no longer supported. Whata shame.

(in reply to Deputy)
Post #: 9
RE: Questions for Jason - 12/6/2011 12:08:44 AM   
barker


Posts: 1213
Joined: 7/6/2008
Status: offline
Give me my 2nd Armored with what I sent you and I would give you a run for your dineros' amigo de apollo

_____________________________

games:
1. AGEOD Blue and Gray
2. John Tiller's Battleground Series
3. Combat Mission: Beyond Overlord
4. Combat Mission: Barbarossa to Berlin
5. V for Victory Games
6. Silent Hunter III
7. Silent Hunter IV
8. Rise and Fall of the Third Re

(in reply to Deputy)
Post #: 10
RE: Questions for Jason - 12/6/2011 12:09:57 AM   
Deputy


Posts: 446
Joined: 9/24/2005
From: Silver City, NM USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: barker

Give me my 2nd Armored with what I sent you and I would give you a run for your dineros' amigo de apollo


No thanks. You are too good at those OOBs.

_____________________________

Squad Battles
John Tiller's Campaign Series: Abandonware and no longer supported. Whata shame.

(in reply to barker)
Post #: 11
RE: Questions for Jason - 12/6/2011 12:11:37 AM   
barker


Posts: 1213
Joined: 7/6/2008
Status: offline
nah just an oob that is from stanton's us army handbook...i was building german oob's from nafzigers trinity but lost the books from a tragedy

< Message edited by barker -- 12/16/2011 9:43:51 PM >


_____________________________

games:
1. AGEOD Blue and Gray
2. John Tiller's Battleground Series
3. Combat Mission: Beyond Overlord
4. Combat Mission: Barbarossa to Berlin
5. V for Victory Games
6. Silent Hunter III
7. Silent Hunter IV
8. Rise and Fall of the Third Re

(in reply to Deputy)
Post #: 12
RE: Questions for Jason - 12/6/2011 12:14:00 AM   
barker


Posts: 1213
Joined: 7/6/2008
Status: offline
built US V corps with rotating troops...elements of the 2d French Armored, Rotating British Troops, Battalions getting Detached when you least can afford them in a clutch DCG

_____________________________

games:
1. AGEOD Blue and Gray
2. John Tiller's Battleground Series
3. Combat Mission: Beyond Overlord
4. Combat Mission: Barbarossa to Berlin
5. V for Victory Games
6. Silent Hunter III
7. Silent Hunter IV
8. Rise and Fall of the Third Re

(in reply to barker)
Post #: 13
RE: Questions for Jason - 12/6/2011 12:45:52 AM   
MrRoadrunner


Posts: 923
Joined: 10/7/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Deputy
I wish I could get the German arty to do that!!!! Even with direct fire, 105s and 150s just seem to make noise and nothing else. They work against infantry and trucks and headquaters, but not against tank armor (in my experience). I move my tanks on every turn now. Even just moving them 1 hex helps.


I've been on the receiving end of German artillery. Indirect is the same all around.
The Direct Fire tables for artillery need tweaking. Artillery is much less effective firing direct at armor as they probably should be. Though, if you play in the desert and get close to 25 pdrs you'll wish you did not get that close.
Firing direct against soft targets artillery is devastating. Look at the fire tables and see how hard they hit even at range.

Firing from ambush, directly, makes them even more effective.



RR



_____________________________

“The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane.”
― Marcus Aurelius, Meditations

(in reply to Deputy)
Post #: 14
RE: Questions for Jason - 12/6/2011 1:26:44 AM   
Otto von Blotto


Posts: 210
Joined: 7/18/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Deputy

quote:

ORIGINAL: Otto von Blotto

Were you playing with variable visibility on ? That may explain this you can take it off in the optional rules (I would advise not having it on if you want a fair game) it should be off by default.


I don't think so. Is that one of the check boxes at the very begining of a scenario? I'll look and see, but I don't have any of the boxes checked right now.


Then it must be the fire and hidden rule Jason mentioned that came in with West Front, odd as I can't say I've noticed it in any game I've played.

As you normally play against the AI and are good at playing the Axis why not try as the Allies or think about using some of the optional rules, especially the Extreme Assault one to make it more challenging, the EA rule is great to make play against the AI more interesting and could have been made with players like you in mind. You could also set the slider to help out the allies if your finding it too easy.

If you have indirect fire by map off you shouldn't be getting caught by artillery and mortar blind fire as the AI shouldn't be able to target hexes it can't see.


_____________________________

"Personal isn't the same as important"

(in reply to Deputy)
Post #: 15
RE: Questions for Jason - 12/6/2011 2:44:43 AM   
scottgibson

 

Posts: 163
Joined: 1/25/2008
Status: offline
I knocked out 3 T34's between yesterday and today.

The main way to keep tanks from being knocked out by artillery, including mortars is to not stack more the 12 points in a hex.

Scott in tAcoma


(in reply to Deputy)
Post #: 16
RE: Questions for Jason - 12/6/2011 9:05:53 AM   
barker


Posts: 1213
Joined: 7/6/2008
Status: offline
makes sense more units in a 250 meter hex has a higher probability of being hit thereby causing secondary damage due to proximity of other units in the same area

_____________________________

games:
1. AGEOD Blue and Gray
2. John Tiller's Battleground Series
3. Combat Mission: Beyond Overlord
4. Combat Mission: Barbarossa to Berlin
5. V for Victory Games
6. Silent Hunter III
7. Silent Hunter IV
8. Rise and Fall of the Third Re

(in reply to scottgibson)
Post #: 17
RE: Questions for Jason - 12/6/2011 10:51:24 AM   
MrRoadrunner


Posts: 923
Joined: 10/7/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: scottgibson

I knocked out 3 T34's between yesterday and today.

The main way to keep tanks from being knocked out by artillery, including mortars is to not stack more the 12 points in a hex.


Hex density is important. I overlooked that.
Couple density with ambush and it's even more deadly.

When you play versus the AI it always seems that the units tend to collect in certain places. Well stacked, fully packed, fire at will!

Nice call Scott.



RR


_____________________________

“The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane.”
― Marcus Aurelius, Meditations

(in reply to scottgibson)
Post #: 18
RE: Questions for Jason - 12/6/2011 3:10:29 PM   
Deputy


Posts: 446
Joined: 9/24/2005
From: Silver City, NM USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: scottgibson

I knocked out 3 T34's between yesterday and today.

The main way to keep tanks from being knocked out by artillery, including mortars is to not stack more the 12 points in a hex.

Scott in tAcoma




This has not been my experience at all. I tried using single units in a hex and the artillery that missed the primary target took out the scattered units quite easily. I'm back to stacking them and moving them one square every turn.

_____________________________

Squad Battles
John Tiller's Campaign Series: Abandonware and no longer supported. Whata shame.

(in reply to scottgibson)
Post #: 19
RE: Questions for Jason - 12/7/2011 9:09:33 AM   
barker


Posts: 1213
Joined: 7/6/2008
Status: offline
I sacrified a few halftracks to draw out an ambush then move infantry to suppress the move armor to over take. But I have encountered heavy losses due to the arty and hidden armor. So you adapt and overcome so goes the dogs of war

_____________________________

games:
1. AGEOD Blue and Gray
2. John Tiller's Battleground Series
3. Combat Mission: Beyond Overlord
4. Combat Mission: Barbarossa to Berlin
5. V for Victory Games
6. Silent Hunter III
7. Silent Hunter IV
8. Rise and Fall of the Third Re

(in reply to Deputy)
Post #: 20
RE: Questions for Jason - 12/7/2011 1:57:15 PM   
Deputy


Posts: 446
Joined: 9/24/2005
From: Silver City, NM USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: barker

I sacrified a few halftracks to draw out an ambush then move infantry to suppress the move armor to over take. But I have encountered heavy losses due to the arty and hidden armor. So you adapt and overcome so goes the dogs of war


Well said! When I encounter hidden anti-tank guns I also sacrifice infantry to locate them if I have any nearby. Occasionally I sacrifice a Mark II tank to find the exact location. I have my replacement numbers on the East Front campaign set at 25, so I usually get them replenished on the next turn.

_____________________________

Squad Battles
John Tiller's Campaign Series: Abandonware and no longer supported. Whata shame.

(in reply to barker)
Post #: 21
RE: Questions for Jason - 12/8/2011 3:28:46 AM   
scottgibson

 

Posts: 163
Joined: 1/25/2008
Status: offline
I stack all the time as well. The concentrated fire on a target seems to have better luck then just fire a couple of units. I just realize that by stacking I might be increasing my losses.

(in reply to Deputy)
Post #: 22
RE: Questions for Jason - 12/8/2011 9:14:49 AM   
barker


Posts: 1213
Joined: 7/6/2008
Status: offline
also you notice to with the screaming mimi's you can drastically reduce the opposing armor. You can knock out a complete platoon with one salvo, as well as a platoon oh Heavy SS Infantry. I also concentrate counter battery fire and wipe that out as soon as possible. Helps in keeping my losses, armor, at a minimum

_____________________________

games:
1. AGEOD Blue and Gray
2. John Tiller's Battleground Series
3. Combat Mission: Beyond Overlord
4. Combat Mission: Barbarossa to Berlin
5. V for Victory Games
6. Silent Hunter III
7. Silent Hunter IV
8. Rise and Fall of the Third Re

(in reply to scottgibson)
Post #: 23
RE: Questions for Jason - 12/8/2011 2:05:20 PM   
GHQ

 

Posts: 14
Joined: 1/2/2007
Status: offline
Trouble is with, "I mainly only play the Germans," is they lost the war with Russia and the Allies, yet you still think you can win it so everything you don't agree with in PC Wargames then must be wrong.
My experience is German artillery is just as effective as Russian artillery and that comes from playing both sides equally

(in reply to barker)
Post #: 24
RE: Questions for Jason - 12/8/2011 2:56:05 PM   
Deputy


Posts: 446
Joined: 9/24/2005
From: Silver City, NM USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: GHQ

Trouble is with, "I mainly only play the Germans," is they lost the war with Russia and the Allies, yet you still think you can win it so everything you don't agree with in PC Wargames then must be wrong.
My experience is German artillery is just as effective as Russian artillery and that comes from playing both sides equally



I don't play PC wargames to be on the "winning side" or for political or philosophical reasons. I play for enjoyment. In the CS, NOTHING you do while playing as EITHER side affects the outcome of the war. Just as you can win EVERY battle as a German and lose the war, you can LOSE every battle as the Allies and still win the war. Playing the CS is not about the final outcome of the war. If you think it is, you are missing the point of the game. That does bring up another point, though. It would be cool if you could get a message at the end of a successful German campaign to the effect "Congradulations, your efforts have won the war in Europe for the Axis powers".

If German artillery is just as effect as Soviet artillery, then that only shows that artillery is TOO effective and needs to be adjusted accordingly. Which was my point all along. And it is DEFINITELY the case when it comes to mortars.

< Message edited by Deputy -- 12/8/2011 2:59:07 PM >


_____________________________

Squad Battles
John Tiller's Campaign Series: Abandonware and no longer supported. Whata shame.

(in reply to GHQ)
Post #: 25
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> John Tiller's Campaign Series >> Questions for Jason Page: [1]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.193