Matrix Games Forums

Space Program Manager Launch Contest Announced!Battle Academy 2 is out now on iPad!A closer look at rockets in Space Program ManagerDeal of the Week - Pride of NationsA new update for Piercing Fortress EuropaNew screenshots for War in the West!Pike & Shot is now available!Server Maintenance Battle Academy 2 gets updated!Deal of the Week: Advanced Tactics Gold
Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Build 4.4.258 Feedback

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

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Command Ops Series >> Build 4.4.258 Feedback Page: [1] 2 3 4   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Build 4.4.258 Feedback - 3/12/2013 10:50:40 PM   
Arjuna


Posts: 17790
Joined: 3/31/2003
From: Canberra, Australia
Status: offline
Hi all,

So what do you think of the latest build? How is it playing? Are their any showstopper issues? We need your feedback here. Thanks.

_____________________________

Dave "Arjuna" O'Connor
www.panthergames.com
Post #: 1
RE: Build 4.4.258 Feedback - 3/13/2013 12:12:59 AM   
miya

 

Posts: 95
Joined: 1/8/2011
Status: offline
I got my first CTD after issueing move orders to the 3.502 in the Eindhoven scenario.





Attachment (1)

< Message edited by miya -- 3/13/2013 12:14:49 AM >

(in reply to Arjuna)
Post #: 2
RE: Build 4.4.258 Feedback - 3/13/2013 12:16:41 AM   
miya

 

Posts: 95
Joined: 1/8/2011
Status: offline
the saved game, please change the file extension from .txt to .zip

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by miya -- 3/13/2013 12:17:10 AM >

(in reply to miya)
Post #: 3
RE: Build 4.4.258 Feedback - 3/13/2013 1:10:32 AM   
dazkaz15


Posts: 1272
Joined: 12/14/2012
Status: offline
Hi Dave

The formations are great. I saw an arrowhead formation do exactly what it is meant to do. The point Coy made contact, and the two flanks moved round to envelop it. Very nicely done.

I have had two crashes so far, both times when using the Del key to delete an order waypoint. Both times on the saves I was not able to replicate it

Having been playing the old released version, I am still finding it hard to get to grips with the ammo expenditure. It's just so different from that version.

To that end I have been doing some testing of my own, from a scenario I made up just to test this out. I deleted all the Arty from the map so it was pure Inf on Inf engagement and also deleted the supply depots. The results are in my screenshot.

It takes a whole Bn 45 min or normal ammo expenditure to completely burn through its supply of ammo. In that time they will have done minimal damage to an Enemy Coy dug in. I actually did three tests using dug in, entrenched and deployed.
Bizarrely the entrenched ones took more damage, but I only did one test of each so it was probably just a random thing.

This ammo problem can have very extreme consequences.
It almost completely prohibits any kind of deep penetration of the enemy lines, any paras out of supply, are almost completely useless as they don't even have enough ammo to take a single enemy Coy position. Worst of all though is if your supply line is cut even a Bn with full supplies would not have enough ammo to come back and clear a Coy from the route if it was on the wrong side of it.

Which brings me to another balance problem. The units are far to resilient now, they hardly ever rout, but worst is they will just fight to the death if surrounded or more usually they just retreat and pass right through the envelopment. This results in ping ponging, units that you can never pin down, and walk all over your rear lines, which brings you back to the ammo problem

Maybe I'm just finding it tricky because I'm use to the old version, and just need to adapt to the new.

What do you other guys think?

Edit:
I have just noticed the stubbornness is Tenacious on that unit. Maybe I should test with some other settings. I guess Tenacious means they will fight to the death right?




Attachment (1)

< Message edited by dazkaz15 -- 3/13/2013 1:16:54 AM >

(in reply to miya)
Post #: 4
RE: Build 4.4.258 Feedback - 3/13/2013 1:25:02 AM   
wodin


Posts: 8018
Joined: 4/20/2003
From: England
Status: offline
Surely you don't want units routing often again? We say they rout to much Dave sorts it..then say they don't rout enough...he is in a no win situation. I much prefer units retreating to routing it feels more realistic. Maybe when they are surrounded they should surrender more..but they wouldn't rout anyway as there is no where to route too.

As for the ammo situation..some tweaking for ammo conservation needs to be looked at..and maybe be more lethal with the ammo they spend. Also units be give more ammo maybe esp if defending? Some German MG teams in WW1 on July 1st went through 20,000 rounds..just one MG team 5 barrel changes..each one after 5,000 rounds!

Please look at other things..but lets leave rout alone for abit. It's taken this long to stop them routing all the time and I'd rather see units have abit of backbone than too weak.

< Message edited by wodin -- 3/13/2013 1:27:53 AM >


_____________________________

My Tactical wargame facebook page.

https://www.facebook.com/Tacticalwargame


(in reply to dazkaz15)
Post #: 5
RE: Build 4.4.258 Feedback - 3/13/2013 1:46:48 AM   
dazkaz15


Posts: 1272
Joined: 12/14/2012
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: wodin

Surely you don't want units routing often again? We say they rout to much Dave sorts it..then say they don't rout enough...he is in a no win situation. I much prefer units retreating to routing it feels more realistic. Maybe when they are surrounded they should surrender more..but they wouldn't rout anyway as there is no where to route too.

As for the ammo situation..some tweaking for ammo conservation needs to be looked at..and maybe be more lethal with the ammo they spend. Also units be give more ammo maybe esp if defending? Some German MG teams in WW1 on July 1st went through 20,000 rounds..just one MG team 5 barrel changes..each one after 5,000 rounds!

Please look at other things..but lets leave rout alone for abit. It's taken this long to stop them routing all the time and I'd rather see units have abit of backbone than too weak.


Yeah I absolutely agree with you wodin.
It's the surrender thing that needs looking at I think not the routing.
I think I'm right in saying that most units historically when surrounded, surrendered rather than fight to the death, not including the Japanese that is,
I must say it was a real LOL moment when I noticed that unit I was testing with was set to Tenacious while reading the post after it was posted

I think the ammo does need a tweak, but like I said, I have got used to the old version again where the ammo lasts for ever, so maybe Dave feels its right now?

(in reply to wodin)
Post #: 6
RE: Build 4.4.258 Feedback - 3/13/2013 1:50:46 AM   
dazkaz15


Posts: 1272
Joined: 12/14/2012
Status: offline
Oh yeah the bombardment box is open ended instead of square. but I expect you know that by now

(in reply to dazkaz15)
Post #: 7
RE: Build 4.4.258 Feedback - 3/13/2013 1:56:05 AM   
Arjuna


Posts: 17790
Joined: 3/31/2003
From: Canberra, Australia
Status: offline
daz,

First off, 45 minutes of fire is what I would expect line units to be able to maintain. In fact if they were firing each and every minute they might not have that much. Your average foot MG team had 500 rounds with them. At 20 rds per min this would give them 25 minutes. However, once they get to 25% they will drop to low rates of 10 rpm so they should be able to last 31 minutes. But there will be times within that firefight that they don't fire. moreover, not all of the weapons in a unit get to fire because of their formation and deployment etc. So 45 minutes sounds pretty right.

Now you say these were against dig in and entrenched units. I would be interested to see what the cas effect on the defenders were for deployed units. There is a reason why units dug in. It offers very significant reduction to enemy direct and indirect fire. The code now reduces this effect if the units are very close or overlapping, but even so I would expect a big difference. That's why if you encounter a dug in enemy you do need to soften them up with arty and have supporting direct fire as well as the moving assault force. There is some scope to further tweak the reduction in effect of dug in and entrenched and fortified units. But first, lest see what results you get from a test against deployed defenders and see if this is resonable. If it's not then perhaps we need to look at something else.

< Message edited by Arjuna -- 3/13/2013 2:00:32 AM >


_____________________________

Dave "Arjuna" O'Connor
www.panthergames.com

(in reply to wodin)
Post #: 8
RE: Build 4.4.258 Feedback - 3/13/2013 1:57:22 AM   
Arjuna


Posts: 17790
Joined: 3/31/2003
From: Canberra, Australia
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: dazkaz15

Oh yeah the bombardment box is open ended instead of square. but I expect you know that by now

No I had not. Thanks.

Daz,

I have just checked and opn mu machine if you order a bombardment you get a closed bombardment box, not an opened one. Are you sure you are not getting confused with the box drawn around the arty unit when you give it a defend order with a specific facing. then it will have an open ended box, but that's its task perimeter for defending at its location.




Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Arjuna -- 3/13/2013 2:15:00 AM >


_____________________________

Dave "Arjuna" O'Connor
www.panthergames.com

(in reply to dazkaz15)
Post #: 9
RE: Build 4.4.258 Feedback - 3/13/2013 2:01:26 AM   
wodin


Posts: 8018
Joined: 4/20/2003
From: England
Status: offline
Dave wouldn't some of the halftracks lets say carry lots of spare ammo for the units? 500 round son hand sounds right..but surely they had access to far more ammo during a sustained attack alot closer than the supply depot?

Or maybe units should be calling in resupply when down to say 30% or 40% ammo..so when they run out it's more or less turning up to be issued.

< Message edited by wodin -- 3/13/2013 2:02:24 AM >


_____________________________

My Tactical wargame facebook page.

https://www.facebook.com/Tacticalwargame


(in reply to Arjuna)
Post #: 10
RE: Build 4.4.258 Feedback - 3/13/2013 2:07:30 AM   
RockinHarry


Posts: 2948
Joined: 1/18/2001
From: Germany
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: dazkaz15

Oh yeah the bombardment box is open ended instead of square. but I expect you know that by now


Confirming. IIRC I already noticed that in the last build, but somehow thought it was a new feature (ARTY shell fall pattern something)

_____________________________

RockinHarry in the web:

http://www.myspace.com/rockinharryz
http://www.youtube.com/user/rockinharryz
https://www.facebook.com/harry.zann

(in reply to dazkaz15)
Post #: 11
RE: Build 4.4.258 Feedback - 3/13/2013 2:16:09 AM   
Arjuna


Posts: 17790
Joined: 3/31/2003
From: Canberra, Australia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: RockinHarry


quote:

ORIGINAL: dazkaz15

Oh yeah the bombardment box is open ended instead of square. but I expect you know that by now


Confirming. IIRC I already noticed that in the last build, but somehow thought it was a new feature (ARTY shell fall pattern something)

Show me - I need a screen dump.

_____________________________

Dave "Arjuna" O'Connor
www.panthergames.com

(in reply to RockinHarry)
Post #: 12
RE: Build 4.4.258 Feedback - 3/13/2013 2:18:39 AM   
Arjuna


Posts: 17790
Joined: 3/31/2003
From: Canberra, Australia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: wodin

Dave wouldn't some of the halftracks lets say carry lots of spare ammo for the units? 500 round son hand sounds right..but surely they had access to far more ammo during a sustained attack alot closer than the supply depot?

In mechanised units you will often see them with more ammo on hand but I was talking about a bog standard leg inf unit.


quote:

Or maybe units should be calling in resupply when down to say 30% or 40% ammo..so when they run out it's more or less turning up to be issued.

They do start requesting supplies once the level falls below 50%. It just takes a lot of time to get to them.

_____________________________

Dave "Arjuna" O'Connor
www.panthergames.com

(in reply to wodin)
Post #: 13
RE: Build 4.4.258 Feedback - 3/13/2013 2:47:13 AM   
RockinHarry


Posts: 2948
Joined: 1/18/2001
From: Germany
Status: offline
Sort of glitch I think. Just fired up St vith, german side and with game paused at H0, I test ordered bombardement with all german mortars and IG units one after a time. Sometimes the odd open ended box appears and next time it does not, with varying units. As said, also saw that happen in running game.



_____________________________

RockinHarry in the web:

http://www.myspace.com/rockinharryz
http://www.youtube.com/user/rockinharryz
https://www.facebook.com/harry.zann

(in reply to Arjuna)
Post #: 14
RE: Build 4.4.258 Feedback - 3/13/2013 2:56:04 AM   
RockinHarry


Posts: 2948
Joined: 1/18/2001
From: Germany
Status: offline
It´s not always that mortar unit in Steinebrück. Could also be any other, or vanishes entirely before happenening to another unit. I control clicked units and bombard markers, to show that it also mixes with the normal footprints.



_____________________________

RockinHarry in the web:

http://www.myspace.com/rockinharryz
http://www.youtube.com/user/rockinharryz
https://www.facebook.com/harry.zann

(in reply to RockinHarry)
Post #: 15
RE: Build 4.4.258 Feedback - 3/13/2013 2:59:14 AM   
Arjuna


Posts: 17790
Joined: 3/31/2003
From: Canberra, Australia
Status: offline
RH,

Thanks for that. Interesting. We'll have to see if we can get to the bottom of it.

_____________________________

Dave "Arjuna" O'Connor
www.panthergames.com

(in reply to RockinHarry)
Post #: 16
RE: Build 4.4.258 Feedback - 3/13/2013 3:02:59 AM   
RockinHarry


Posts: 2948
Joined: 1/18/2001
From: Germany
Status: offline
Beside the box sometimes beeing open ended, I did not notice any side effects and actual bombardment appears to be resolved normally. I keep an eye on it during next test runs...

_____________________________

RockinHarry in the web:

http://www.myspace.com/rockinharryz
http://www.youtube.com/user/rockinharryz
https://www.facebook.com/harry.zann

(in reply to Arjuna)
Post #: 17
RE: Build 4.4.258 Feedback - 3/13/2013 8:07:14 AM   
Renato

 

Posts: 186
Joined: 10/22/2006
From: Milano, Italy
Status: offline
The order cancellation bug is still present: now and then during play, some units cancel their order and remain still.

This should be quite visible by a human player; of course, if the test is performed with a computer, it may go undetected because the AI will do a replan after some time.

(in reply to Arjuna)
Post #: 18
RE: Build 4.4.258 Feedback - 3/13/2013 8:20:58 AM   
loyalcitizen


Posts: 204
Joined: 2/9/2004
Status: offline
When I give a command unit a Defend order, the Auto button is unchecked under the FACING compass. Intentional?
I've always preferred that the commander decides that unless I step in. Prefer it was left checked.

(in reply to Renato)
Post #: 19
RE: Build 4.4.258 Feedback - 3/13/2013 8:39:12 AM   
wodin


Posts: 8018
Joined: 4/20/2003
From: England
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Renato

The order cancellation bug is still present: now and then during play, some units cancel their order and remain still.

This should be quite visible by a human player; of course, if the test is performed with a computer, it may go undetected because the AI will do a replan after some time.


Just check your not trying to give an order to a wheel unit to impassable terrain for a wheel unit..just a thought

_____________________________

My Tactical wargame facebook page.

https://www.facebook.com/Tacticalwargame


(in reply to Renato)
Post #: 20
RE: Build 4.4.258 Feedback - 3/13/2013 9:52:58 AM   
Bletchley_Geek


Posts: 3065
Joined: 11/26/2009
From: Living in the fair city of Melbourne, Australia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: loyalcitizen

When I give a command unit a Defend order, the Auto button is unchecked under the FACING compass. Intentional?
I've always preferred that the commander decides that unless I step in. Prefer it was left checked.


That shouldn't happen if one hasn't changed the facing.

(in reply to loyalcitizen)
Post #: 21
RE: Build 4.4.258 Feedback - 3/13/2013 9:53:31 AM   
dazkaz15


Posts: 1272
Joined: 12/14/2012
Status: offline
Thanks for your reply Dave.

I have run 2 more tests using same setup with deployed setting.

As you can see its very different results from the one I had last night during my deployed test (not the one above that is dug in, but one I did but never posted, as the results were much the same as dug in)
What I think I may have done is change to deploy then forget to click ok on the box so they stayed as dug in during my test.
In my defence I was very tired

The result of this one is very much how I imagine it should be. Just to confirm I did another in post below.





Attachment (1)

< Message edited by dazkaz15 -- 3/13/2013 9:54:20 AM >

(in reply to wodin)
Post #: 22
RE: Build 4.4.258 Feedback - 3/13/2013 10:05:13 AM   
dazkaz15


Posts: 1272
Joined: 12/14/2012
Status: offline
So it would seem I need to change my tactics to account for the new changes. I can do that

Pay more attention to supply line, a mobile reserve to keep it clear. and maintain a cohesive FLOT.

Deep penetrations will be a problem, but I bet the wife will be pleased to hear that

Can you look at whether an entrenched/dugin, and completely surrounded enemy is surrendering when it runs out of ammo though please, if you feel it should that is? I can't see how much ammo the entrenched/surrounded enemy has to do any tesing for it.

Maybe a unit set to Tenatious should fight to the death even in that situation. It's your call.




Attachment (1)

(in reply to dazkaz15)
Post #: 23
RE: Build 4.4.258 Feedback - 3/13/2013 11:19:56 AM   
wodin


Posts: 8018
Joined: 4/20/2003
From: England
Status: offline
Just notice that German unit is Crack and really top of the line. I see no issue a unit like that not surrendering that much and fighting to the death. Very few units in game have those sorts of stats. Infact it's good to see that it can really make a difference these settings. That way you can get historical results where a small amount of men held up large forces usually units that would have those sorts of stats.

You need to do these tests with standard troops I feel.

_____________________________

My Tactical wargame facebook page.

https://www.facebook.com/Tacticalwargame


(in reply to dazkaz15)
Post #: 24
RE: Build 4.4.258 Feedback - 3/13/2013 12:50:54 PM   
Arjuna


Posts: 17790
Joined: 3/31/2003
From: Canberra, Australia
Status: offline
Yes I try and avoid using units with too extreme settings for my test scenarios. I usually just grab the units and in the ScenMaker set all their effectiveness values to the normal or standard setting plus or minus 5%.

_____________________________

Dave "Arjuna" O'Connor
www.panthergames.com

(in reply to wodin)
Post #: 25
RE: Build 4.4.258 Feedback - 3/13/2013 12:54:47 PM   
dazkaz15


Posts: 1272
Joined: 12/14/2012
Status: offline
Your right it is a high quality unit.

What made me do the tests in the first place though is I have been playing the Elsenborn Ridge scenario to see what changes have taken place because it's the one I am most familiar with, and those Platoons entrenched on the edge of the woods are a b**** to kill.
There not crack there just standard green troops, but they are entrenched.

You can bomb them for hours, virtually with no effect which is realistic for troops with overhead cover I guess, and if you attack across an open field with even a Bn, you should expect to get mown down by MG, and Arty, but what I don't think is realistic is like in the tests above, that once they have been outflanked, and completely surrounded as well being suppressed by mortar, and hundreds, probably even thousands of rounds of Arty fire, a small platoon of 50 guys, maybe without ammo, I can't tell, will still fight to the death.
quote:



German attack
As the German forces moved through Lanzerath and in front of their positions, Bouck and his men allowed lead members of the unit to pass, hoping to surprise the Germans. They were preparing to fire on three men who they believed were the Regiment's officers when a girl from the village emerged from one of the homes. Talking to the officers, she pointed in their general direction. An officer yelled a command, and the paratroopers jumped for ditches on either side of the road. The Americans thought she had given their position away and fired on the Germans, wounding several. (In October 2006, more than 50 years later, a writer found the now adult woman, still living in the village. She told him she did not know the Americans were still in the area, and was pointing out the direction the Tank Destroyer unit had departed, towards Bucholz Station.

Four members of a Forward Observation Team from Battery C, 371st Field Artillery had been in the village when the Tank Destroyer unit withdrew. Lieutenant Warren Springer and the other three men, Sergeant Peter Gacki, T/4 Willard Wibben, and T/5 Billy Queen joined Bouck's unit on the ridge where they could continue to observe the enemy movement. Bouck distributed them among the foxholes to help reload magazines and reinforce their position.

The German infantry deployed and about two platoons of the 2nd Company, 1st Battalion, then attacked the Americans head-on, bunched together in the open and charging straight up the hill, directly at the platoon's hidden and fortified positions. The Americans were surprised at the inexperienced tactics. For the Americans, it was like "shooting clay ducks in California at an amusement park.

Several attackers were killed trying to climb over the 4 feet (1.2 m)-high barbed wire fence that bisected the field, often shot at close range with a single shot to the heart or head. Lt. Springer used his jeep-mounted SCR-610 radio to call in coordinates for artillery fire. A few shells landed near the road outside Lanzerath, but they did not hinder the German attack. His jeep was then struck by machine gun fire or mortar shrapnel and his radio was destroyed.

Slape and Milosevich fired continually, as fast as they could reload. Slape thought the Germans were mad to attack in such a suicidal manner, straight across the open field. He later recalled that it was one of the "most beautiful fields of fire" he had ever seen. After only about 30 seconds, the firing stopped. Nearly all of the attacking Germans had been killed or wounded. McConnell, shot in the shoulder, was the only American casualty.

During a second attack made around 11:00 am, Milosevich fired the .50 caliber jeep-mounted machine gun until enemy fire drove him back into his foxhole. In both the first and second attack that morning no German soldier got past the fence in the middle of the field. Bodies were piled around it. German medics waved a white flag late in the morning and indicated they wanted to remove the wounded, which the American defenders allowed. The Americans again suffered only one wounded on the second attack, when Pvt. Kalil was struck in the face by a rifle grenade that failed to explode.

The Germans mounted a third attack late in the afternoon, around 3:00. Several times German soldiers attempted to penetrate the American lines. The Americans left their foxholes and in close combat fired on the attackers to push them back down the hill. At one point PFC Milsovech spotted a medic working on and talking to a soldier he felt certain was already dead. As mortar fire on his position got more accurate, Milsovech noticed a pistol on the supposed medic's belt, and decided he must be calling in fire on their position. He shot and killed him.

Bouck contacted Regimental Headquarters once more, seeking reinforcements. At 3:50, Fort sent the unit's last update to Regimental headquarters in Hünningen. He reported they were still receiving some artillery fire but were holding their position against an estimated enemy strength of about 75, who were attempting to advance from Lanzerath towards the railroad to the northwest.

As dusk approach and their ammunition ran dangerously low, Bouck feared they could be flanked at any time. He planned to pull his men back just before dusk, when they would have enough light to escape through the woods. Bouck ordered his men to remove the distributor caps from their Jeeps and to prepare to evacuate to the rear. He dispatched Corporal Sam Jenkins and PFC Preston through the woods to locate Major Kriz at Regimental HQ and seek instructions or reinforcements.

Bouck tried to contact Regimental headquarters on the SCR-300 radio for instructions. A sniper shot the radio as Bouck held it to his ear. The sniper also hit the SCR-284 radio mounted in the Jeep behind Bouck, eliminating any possibility of calling for reinforcements or instructions.

The German troops were reluctant to attack head on once again, and Sergeant Vinz Kulbach pleaded with the officers of the 9th Fallschirmjaeger Regiment to allow his men to flank the Americans in the dusk. Fifty men from Fusilier Regiment 27 of the 12th Volksgrenadier Division were dispatched to attack the American's southern flank through the woods.

Just as Bouck was about to blow his whistle to indicate withdrawal, German soldiers penetrated their lines and began overrunning their foxholes. Several attackers were killed by grenades rigged to wires and triggered by Americans in their foxholes. Each of the positions spread out over the ridge top were overrun in turn. Surprisingly, the Germans did not simply kill the defenders in their foxholes.

Bouck was pulled from his foxhole by an officer with a machine gun, and he thought he would be shot when the German put his weapon in his back and pulled the trigger; it was empty. Both Bouck and the German officer were then struck by bullets. The German fell seriously wounded, while Bouck was struck in the calf. Sergeant Kuhlbach asked Bouck who was in command, and Bouck replied that he was. Kuhlbach asked him why the Americans were still shooting, and Bouck said it was not his men doing it. Bouck surrendered and helped carry his wounded men down to the village.

Conclusion

During their dawn to dusk fight, the 15 remaining men of the I&R platoon plus the four men of the 371st Artillery Forward Observation Team repeatedly engaged elements of the 1st Battalion, 9th Fallschirmjaeger Regiment, 3rd Fallschirmjaeger Division of about 500 men. The Germans reported 16 killed, 63 wounded, and 13 missing in action.

Other reports say the Americans inflicted between 60 and five hundred casualties on the Germans. Only one American, forward artillery observer Billy Queen, was killed; in Bouck's platoon, 14 out of 18 men were wounded. The small American force had seriously disrupted the schedule of the entire 6th Panzer Army's drive for Antwerp along the entire northern edge of the offensive. After virtually no sleep during the preceding night and a full day of almost non-stop combat, with only a few rounds of ammunition remaining, flanked by a superior enemy force, the platoon and artillery observers were captured.

German armor advance


Peiper's troops on the road to Malmedy
Kampfgruppe Peiper, the lead element of the Sixth Panzer Army's spearhead, 1st SS Panzer Division, consisted of 4,800 men and 600 vehicles. On December 16, it started as much as 36 kilometres (22 mi) to the east in Tondorf, Germany, and was unable to advance at its scheduled rate because of road congestion.

The road from Scheid to Losheim was one solid traffic jam, in part due to two blown railroad overpasses blocking access to Losheimergraben, but also due to American resistance. Peiper's lead units did not reach Losheim until 7:30 pm, when he was ordered to swing west and join up with the 3rd Fallschirmjaeger Division, which had finally cleared the route through Lanzerath. Peiper was furious about the delay.

En route to Lanzerath, Peiper's unit lost five tanks and five other armored vehicles to American mines and anti-tank weapons. Kampfgruppe Peiper finally reached Lanzerath near midnight.
Lt. Bouck, held in Café Scholzen, turned 21 years old at midnight on December 17. At midnight, he watched as a senior German officer (who he later identified as Peiper) attempted to obtain accurate information about the U.S. Army's strength in the area. Peiper was told by Obersturmbannführer i.G. von Hoffman, a former Luftwaffe general staff officer from Berlin and commanding officer of the 9th Fallschirmjaeger Regiment, 3rd Fallschirmjaeger Division, that his men had run into stiff resistance. He reported that the woods and road ahead were packed with American troops and tanks. He had bedded his troops down for the night and planned to probe the forest for Americans at first light.

Their expectations of further resistance was all based on the stiff defense offered by Bouck's force of just 18 men.

Peiper asked the Battalion commander and a Hauptmann (captain) in the same unit about the American resistance. Both said they had not personally seen the Americans, but that the woods were heavily fortified. Peiper learned that no patrols had been conducted into the woods and no one had personally reconnoitered the area.

Disgusted, Peiper demanded that von Hoffman give him a battalion of paratroops to accompany his tanks. At 4:30 on December 17, more than 16 hours behind schedule, the 1st SS Panzer Division rolled out of Lanzareth and headed east for Bucholz Station. The entire timetable of their advance on the River Meuse and Antwerp had been seriously slowed, allowing the Americans precious hours to move in reinforcements.

Peiper's lead units entered Bucholz Station without resistance at 5:00 am. They found only two rifle companies from the 3rd Battalion, 394th Infantry Regiment had been left to defend it; these were quickly captured, except for a headquarters company radio operator. Hidden in a cellar, he called in reports to division headquarters until he was finally captured.

Driving east, the Germans entered Honsfield at 6:00 am where his column merged in the dark with an American column. In Honsfield, they encountered one of the 99th Division's rest centers, which was clogged with still sleeping, confused American troops. They killed many, destroyed a number of American armored units and vehicles, and took several dozen prisoners, who were later executed by elements of his force.

Based on the noise to the northeast, Peiper decided that the 12th SS Panzer Division Hitlerjugend was encountering more resistance than expected. Unable to contact his division headquarters, and with his vehicles low on fuel, Peiper decided to switch his planned route to the south through Büllingen, where he believed an American fuel depot existed.

His units entered the town at 8:00 am and easily captured 50,000 US gallons (190,000 l; 42,000 imp gal) of fuel for his vehicles. He was apparently unaware he had nearly taken the town and unknowingly bypassed an opportunity to flank and trap the entire 2nd and 99th Divisions. Peiper turned south to detour around Hünningen, interested only in hurrying west as quickly as he could.
The unit gained notoriety when on this route they encountered a lightly armored American convoy and apparently murdered 84 U.S. prisoners of war in what became known as the Malmedy massacre.

The German advance never recovered from its initial delay, and Kampfgruppe Peiper only got as far as Stoumont, where the remaining vehicles ran out of fuel and came under heavy attack from American artillery and tanks. Having advanced less than half-way to the River Meuse, they were forced to abandon more than a hundred vehicles in the town, including six Tiger II tanks. The soldiers were left to find their own way back to the east on foot.

Having started the offensive with about 5,800 men, 60 tanks (some Tigers), 3 flak tanks, 75 half-tracks, 14 20mm Flak Wagons, 27 75mm assault guns, plus 105 and 150mm SP Howitzers, Hitler's prized Kampfgruppe was reduced to 800 S.S. troopers creeping through the brush at night, trying to get back to their own line.

The task of defeating the 99th Division was the objective of 12th SS Panzer Division reinforced by additional Panzergrenadier and Volksgenadier divisions. On December 17, German engineers repaired one of the road bridges over the railroad along the Losheim-Losheimergraben road and the 12th Division's armor began advancing towards the key road junction at Losheimergraben and the twin villages of Rocherath and Krinkelt. However, in more than ten days of intense battle, they were unable to dislodge the Americans from Elsenborn Ridge, where elements of the V Corps of the First U.S. Army prevented the German forces from reaching the road network to their west.

Due to the determined resistance of the 99th Division, which was composed of relatively inexperienced troops, along with the 2nd and 23rd Divisions, the northern shoulder of the Battle of the Bulge was a sticking point for the entire offensive operation. Had the Americans given way, the German advance would have overrun the vast supply depots around Leige and Spa[1] and possibly have changed the outcome of the Battle of Bulge.


The key points from this extract are the two Coy that surrendered at the Station, and the brave actions of the guys from the I&R Platoon, and the fact that once they where flanked it was game over.

My tactic in the initial stage of this scenario is to advance to contact over the open ground with gaps between my units. What happens is one of the Coy will make contact then deploy to pin down the position of the entrenched platoon.

The other 2 Coy will advance into the forest just outside of LOS of the enemy position. They then turn, and attack using the cover of the trees to get very close to the trenches occupied by the US troops, thus completely surrounding them, and over running their trenches. That's about 300-400 men against 50 suppressed enemy in the forest.

All this time they will be under continuous Artillery, then mortar fire as my troops get to close for Artillery to be brought in safely.

What I then imagine should happen is, as there completely surrounded, and being pressed on all sides they either surrender, or die very quickly.

This cahnge in tactic, instead of the repeated frontal attacks across the field, can completely chnage the outcome of the battle for Peiper, but I don't feel the holding out by the small platoons once my tactics have been implimented is very realistic.

Maybe I'm wrong?


(in reply to wodin)
Post #: 26
RE: Build 4.4.258 Feedback - 3/13/2013 1:31:46 PM   
jimcarravallah

 

Posts: 577
Joined: 1/4/2006
Status: offline
Got right into a saved game with the build release installed.

No major discrepancies forced by alterations of the original plan, continued smooth anticipated play toward the decision points for the next review of the battlefield situation, seemingly more cohesive and robust action toward established goals and no game play jumps or fits caused by interim corrections of plans, reactions to newly discovered threats, easy insertion of task groups into plans and removal of them when the task is completed, and fully intelligible feedback on the "line" situation through the staff functions to "command central" as anticipated.

In this next personal phase of game play I'm going to try to explore the commander capabilities and their influence on assigned units, looking at how the unit level attributes or training, battle knowledge, cohesion and fatigue tolerance could be altered by commanders of better and / or poorer quality being assigned leadership tasks.

Pass the variables of how a commander affects his unit's (or assigned units') morale, cohesion and ability to stay focused on assigned goals and another level of design is opened up for those interested in how individual commanders improved or harmed a relatively "vanilla" gathering of soldiers and that gathering's ability to fight.

Has the potential to take the engine from exploring the era where a commander serves as a battlefield "manager" back to where battles were decided on a commander's personality and relationship with the men he commanded.

_____________________________

Take care,

jim

(in reply to Arjuna)
Post #: 27
RE: Build 4.4.258 Feedback - 3/13/2013 1:35:09 PM   
Renato

 

Posts: 186
Joined: 10/22/2006
From: Milano, Italy
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: wodin


.....
Just check your not trying to give an order to a wheel unit to impassable terrain for a wheel unit..just a thought


That's not the case, wodin: I'm referring to orders accepted and partially performed.

It's quite easy to perform a test:
- choose a scenario and give all the orders you like,
- verify that every unit has an order (pressing the key "-"),
- start the scenario at maximum speed without intervening,
- after some time check again (pressing the key "-").

Some units will be without any order.

(in reply to wodin)
Post #: 28
RE: Build 4.4.258 Feedback - 3/13/2013 2:33:57 PM   
wodin


Posts: 8018
Joined: 4/20/2003
From: England
Status: offline
I've never checked before to be honest using the - key.

_____________________________

My Tactical wargame facebook page.

https://www.facebook.com/Tacticalwargame


(in reply to Renato)
Post #: 29
RE: Build 4.4.258 Feedback - 3/13/2013 4:24:04 PM   
dazkaz15


Posts: 1272
Joined: 12/14/2012
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Renato


quote:

ORIGINAL: wodin


.....
Just check your not trying to give an order to a wheel unit to impassable terrain for a wheel unit..just a thought


That's not the case, wodin: I'm referring to orders accepted and partially performed.

It's quite easy to perform a test:
- choose a scenario and give all the orders you like,
- verify that every unit has an order (pressing the key "-"),
- start the scenario at maximum speed without intervening,
- after some time check again (pressing the key "-").

Some units will be without any order.


Have you checked the message log Renato? Not the unit one but the main Flash, Routine, Urgent one. It may say in there that he was abandoing task due to lack of time, or another reason?

(in reply to Renato)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2 3 4   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Command Ops Series >> Build 4.4.258 Feedback Page: [1] 2 3 4   next >   >>
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

0.117