Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: Combined arms

 
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] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the West >> RE: Combined arms Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Combined arms - 2/7/2015 10:25:38 PM   
Smirfy

 

Posts: 1057
Joined: 7/16/2004
Status: offline
HMS, JeffK makes excellent points and Ive sent a save in with some of the stuff he is talking about. I have decided to send saves direct rather than attempt to debate. Working my way through Halders Journal (Alanbroke's put me in mind of trying it) and after reading that weekly turns make little sense to be honest. When you think about it the the advances in communication, the widespread application of the internal combustion engine and especialy aviation makes weekly a bit out of whack with divisional and squadron scale. Those guys at IGS and OKH worked by the day.

(in reply to HMSWarspite)
Post #: 31
RE: Combined arms - 2/7/2015 11:43:47 PM   
cmunson


Posts: 5429
Joined: 9/15/2007
From: Austin, Texas
Status: offline
quote:

I sometimes get the feeling that those involved in testing the game are suffering from the Stockholm syndrome. Jeff K.


Perhaps.

quote:

If you dont like Smirfy's or any other owner of this game's comments dont look. Jeff K.


I have no complaint against Smirfy or anyone else pointing out perceived game issues or making suggestions. The frustration comes when vague comments like "Combined arms, it's not working" is thrown out and 20 posts later we finally determine what the issues are. I am sure Smirfy is a fine gentleman and his points may very well be valid but I suspect he throws bombs just to get a response and then the civility of the forums retreats to something many of us don't relish such as the suggestion testers aren't in our right minds.

I love this game and am very grateful so many put so much effort into it. If there is a market for a WWII strategic level game with 1 days turns and micro control of thousands of airplanes I'm sure some developer will deliver. That is the beauty of Adam Smith's invisible hand.

Happy gaming to all.







_____________________________

Chris

(in reply to HMSWarspite)
Post #: 32
RE: Combined arms - 2/7/2015 11:50:21 PM   
Baelfiin


Posts: 2718
Joined: 6/7/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: JeffK

I sometimes get the feeling that those involved in testing the game are suffering from the Stockholm syndrome.


I get the feeling that those involved in complaining about how the game was tested did not do any testing themselves.
And if you think that there is Stockholm syndrome going on, you have not seen the dev forum. I promise you that there are many dedicated individuals with varied backgrounds and experience that have contributed considerable time and effort to War in the West. Many of them of their own free will.
Your complaints are all about the basic fundamental design of the game. It is done on a one week turn. Come to terms with it. Don't say it is wrong to have a one week turn and say it wasn't tested because you don't like a one week turn. I would love to play your game that you want, it sounds a like it would be a lot of fun.

When do you think you will have it released?

_____________________________

"We are going to attack all night, and attack tomorrow morning..... If we are not victorious, let no one come back alive!" -- Patton
WITE-Beta
WITW-Alpha
The Logistics Phase is like Black Magic and Voodoo all rolled into one.

(in reply to JeffroK)
Post #: 33
RE: Combined arms - 2/7/2015 11:54:09 PM   
Baelfiin


Posts: 2718
Joined: 6/7/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Smirfy

HMS, JeffK makes excellent points and Ive sent a save in with some of the stuff he is talking about. I have decided to send saves direct rather than attempt to debate. Working my way through Halders Journal (Alanbroke's put me in mind of trying it) and after reading that weekly turns make little sense to be honest. When you think about it the the advances in communication, the widespread application of the internal combustion engine and especialy aviation makes weekly a bit out of whack with divisional and squadron scale. Those guys at IGS and OKH worked by the day.

Smirfy I think you bring up a lot of interesting points.

It seems to me though that some of your issues are because the game doesn't do what you think it should. I think it would be really cool to play this type of a game on a 1 day or even 3 day turn cycle. I don't know of one out there though. WitW doesn't operate at that scale for sure.

_____________________________

"We are going to attack all night, and attack tomorrow morning..... If we are not victorious, let no one come back alive!" -- Patton
WITE-Beta
WITW-Alpha
The Logistics Phase is like Black Magic and Voodoo all rolled into one.

(in reply to Smirfy)
Post #: 34
RE: Combined arms - 2/8/2015 12:49:28 AM   
Smirfy

 

Posts: 1057
Joined: 7/16/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Baelfiin


quote:

ORIGINAL: Smirfy

HMS, JeffK makes excellent points and Ive sent a save in with some of the stuff he is talking about. I have decided to send saves direct rather than attempt to debate. Working my way through Halders Journal (Alanbroke's put me in mind of trying it) and after reading that weekly turns make little sense to be honest. When you think about it the the advances in communication, the widespread application of the internal combustion engine and especialy aviation makes weekly a bit out of whack with divisional and squadron scale. Those guys at IGS and OKH worked by the day.


Smirfy I think you bring up a lot of interesting points.

It seems to me though that some of your issues are because the game doesn't do what you think it should. I think it would be really cool to play this type of a game on a 1 day or even 3 day turn cycle. I don't know of one out there though. WitW doesn't operate at that scale for sure.


Its just an observation and as you admit the correct one. But as you say we have got weekly turns ,I would not waste time and energy trying to change that. It would be as silly as tilting at the ten mile hexes windmill, though if you want to save on processing (just like if it were shorter turns) you could make production monthly. I tend to look at things from a practical standpoint and then decide, I tend to err on the playability side and have little time for redundant feature sets. If it dont do anything lose the chaff and have a CRT roll, if it does, make it work in a rational way. But thats just me.



< Message edited by Smirfy -- 2/8/2015 1:51:54 AM >

(in reply to Baelfiin)
Post #: 35
RE: Combined arms - 2/8/2015 7:24:17 AM   
HMSWarspite

 

Posts: 1394
Joined: 4/13/2002
From: Bristol, UK
Status: offline
Monthly production probably would be a minimal effect on the feel of the game, you are right. However I suspect it is also a minimal effect on the cpu as well. The time will be all the supply calcs moving all that stuff to depots and units.

I am curious about what people find undesirable about weekly turns? Traditionally games like this would be 2 weekly or monthly. What is missing with 1 week? If you shorten the turn you run the risk of movement being about 1 hex per turn, and that is just a poor mans WEGO, isn't it? If this goes daily I am out of here. 100 turns to break a line in Italy? 10 turns to build up supply while doing little? No thanks!

_____________________________

I have a cunning plan, My Lord

(in reply to Smirfy)
Post #: 36
RE: Combined arms - 2/8/2015 9:02:43 AM   
Smirfy

 

Posts: 1057
Joined: 7/16/2004
Status: offline

The benefits for campaigns whether North Africa, France 40, Norway, any one in Russia or Normandy are obvious, dont think supply would be a problem mechanics are our friend though inactivity for the western allies could be. But then again if they ever decide to do daily turns and have naval and air you will still have something to do. But like I say that is an aside. Where were we? Combined arms I believe

(in reply to HMSWarspite)
Post #: 37
RE: Combined arms - 2/8/2015 9:35:20 AM   
HMSWarspite

 

Posts: 1394
Joined: 4/13/2002
From: Bristol, UK
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Smirfy


The benefits for campaigns whether North Africa, France 40, Norway, any one in Russia or Normandy are obvious, dont think supply would be a problem mechanics are our friend though inactivity for the western allies could be. But then again if they ever decide to do daily turns and have naval and air you will still have something to do. But like I say that is an aside. Where were we? Combined arms I believe


Good point, and sorry if I have contributed to the little detour.

On Combined arms, I get that you find the damage causedby individual elements is a little odd sometimes (from your AAR), but is the overall effect off? And if so, how often? I haven't got a suitable game on at present (not invaded It yet vs AI in my latest), but the next time I get one, I am going to take a combat and repeat it several times (restoring from save). I need to know the 'norm' and the variation before I can comment on that detail.

In another game I play I am always amazed at how often someone complains about an ahisorical effect happening. When we test it under controlled conditions, it is amazing how often it turns out to be a very rare result, the majority of outcomes being just what people expect. It is human nature to remember the one time their game was 'ruined' by 'broken' results and forget (or not notice) the preceding many that go just as expected...


< Message edited by HMSWarspite -- 2/8/2015 10:36:01 AM >


_____________________________

I have a cunning plan, My Lord

(in reply to Smirfy)
Post #: 38
RE: Combined arms - 2/8/2015 9:51:25 AM   
JeffroK


Posts: 6328
Joined: 1/26/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: HMSWarspite

quote:

ORIGINAL: JeffK

I sometimes get the feeling that those involved in testing the game are suffering from the Stockholm syndrome.

I'm not one to go into the minutae like Smirfy but having 3-4 attempts at the DDay campaigns do not get the right "feel" out of the game.

IMVHO, the 7 day turn is wrong.

Why? You want 1 day turns? 1 month turns?
quote:



The air game lacks the control that you want, and you are forced to attack targets which rip out VP instead of you making the choice. Losses are too hign, Ive had the RAF with a majority of Hurricane IIC & the USAAF with stacks of P40 in early/mid 44.

What control do you want then? You can control who flies, where and when. The only think you cant do is jump into the cockpit! Vastly better than WitE.
quote:


Stacking is off, You can have 3 GS Engineer Rgts concentrated on rail line repair, or 2 US "Heavy" Armoured Divs, 1 British Infantry Div plus another 9 Battalions, at total of approx 50 Battalions, all in a 10 mile hex. But the these troops cant project enough force to inhibit movement through their ZOC (Or as an AI game is this WAD? An Amphib unit, hopefully with its LST's parked at sea, takes up stacking limits. If you want to control the size of invasion, limit the lift capability.

Reserve movement is wierd, Ive seen reserves coming in from 50 miles away. Of course they can travel this distance in a week, but as they dont move it doesnt affect their defensive position.

Prepping for an invasion takes too long, coming from WITPAE I;m used to it. However most invasions were planned by HQ, Combat units were not required until much later in the process, maybe a speeded Prep if stacked or adjaecent to your HQ.

Movement, I know this is feel only, but with no roads your troops "appear" to chose their own way. Feels odd.

Have you any idea of how many roads, lanes, paths, bridges there are in W Europe (even in the 40's. I challenge you to find a single 10 mile circle without roads going pretty much everywhere. The scale is just way too big for roads to figure
quote:


Armoured units seem to be too effective in Mountains, maybe they should not be permitted at all or "cost double sttacking"?
Advance after combat, I assumed that my troops were fighting like the devil to evict the enemy from the hex they occupy, only to find that they stopped at the hex edge and let them flee!!! If the wanted to enter I had t pay again. Why not auto advance after combat with the ability to not advance if you wish, or make it really cheap to enter as you have already advances "halfway"

Not a bad idea... a 0 point move for units already in the successful attack.
quote:


Theres lots more, but I dont keep notes. The game has so much potential but just falls short.

As for Smirfy, Ive lots of games out of the Gary Grigsby stables and while most introduce challenging system its been the players, modders & developers who have picked up the game and raised it to a higher plane. If you dont like Smirfy's or any other owner of this game's comments dont look. Devs & Modders, look closely, they may not be perfevt in their communication styles but regularly see things which are wrong or need tweaking.


No one is saying that things are perfect. It is just that we should goon data and facts (not least facts about what the game does, and the ranges of possible outcomes) not gut feel and issues that are from 'bad play'

How on earth do you kill the AFs? You need to learn how to pace them and not attack continuously at full bore... AFs (in RL) are fragile. Rest them, avoid death traps, read the forum and rules. If it aint working, try something else.


Rather than just repeat the posts

Turns - I think 2 or 3 day turns would be better, but dont think 1 day turns impossible.
(Having played WITP, WITPAE, & John Tillers France 14 & East Prussia 14 it would be relativly short.

Havent played WITE, cant compare, played plenty of GG's BTR & board gamed a few others. Maybe a shorter game turn would help.

Stacking, Prepping, Reserve, didnt get a comment.

As I said, movement is a "feel" only, after poring over US Army topographical maps for a few years I do have some idea of the road net. I would also bet you would struggle to funnel a Panzer Division down most of them.

Not everybody can be bothered to sit down and write copious notes and spout data about what the find dubious. But my $100 has again been spend on something 80% right, despite having WITE out there testing much of the engine.

PS The AI is so great, too till end of Oct to capture Sicily, landed 10+ Divisions on Sardinia and is struggling to clear the at start Axis forces.

I may go elsewhere.

_____________________________

Interdum feror cupidine partium magnarum Europae vincendarum

(in reply to HMSWarspite)
Post #: 39
RE: Combined arms - 2/8/2015 11:29:37 AM   
Smirfy

 

Posts: 1057
Joined: 7/16/2004
Status: offline
Good points again JeffK especially with regards the maturity and evolution issues of WiTW with WiTE being out for ages in relation to its cost. Your comment on stacking are bang on.

Like I said I'm just sending my saves direct now without debate here when things are broke, saves time.

< Message edited by Smirfy -- 2/8/2015 12:45:01 PM >

(in reply to JeffroK)
Post #: 40
RE: Combined arms - 2/8/2015 1:29:34 PM   
Wild


Posts: 321
Joined: 12/10/2007
Status: offline
Jeff,

It is only your opinion that you have paid $100 for a game that is only 80% right. I may feel the game to be 95% right. Others less. The point is that your observation is subjective.
I personally love the game. I can only suggest that people that don't move on to something else. But complaining about design decisions such as 1 week turns, or no roads makes no sense. These decisions have already been made and it's highly doubtful that they will be or even can be changed.
This is the game we have. Enjoy it!

(in reply to Smirfy)
Post #: 41
RE: Combined arms - 2/8/2015 6:58:47 PM   
Chuske


Posts: 385
Joined: 7/6/2010
From: Exeter, UK
Status: offline
I think this blog post on the "Kerbal Space Program" game forum explains a lot about the ideal way of making suggestions to developers or debating game issues. Even though it is for a different game it is a general description of how to communicate criticism effectively. It really can help to approach your communication in the right way and increase the chances of your ideas being listened to.

http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/entries/3184-On-criticism

In the end though a game is not the property of the players but the developers, it is an artform and form of entertainment, meaning they don't have to change anything if they don't want. Good developers like 2by3 listen to their customers but always stay true to their vision and what is achievable.


By all means make suggestions and discuss ideas to help the devs improve the game but please remember to be constructive and clear, that way you are more likely to get listened to. The devs are human beings too who have worked really hard.


"Not everybody can be bothered to sit down and write copious notes and spout data about what the find dubious."

Smirfy and JeffK both of you make a lot of good points, but if you can just write enough so we know exactly what you are talking about and in a constructive manner you'll have much better response.

As Wild says some design decisions like turn length cannot be changed as they would need a whole re-design. If you want 1 day turn game you'll have to look elsewhere or go back to WITP:AE or make it yourself . I personally find 1 week turns suit me as I can actually finish a campaign in a few weeks rather than years. I like WITP:AE but never have time to finish a campaign.

Your other suggestions on prepping, stacking and reserves and also on armour in mountains are interesting thoughts. I'm not sure there a huge amount that can be done about the stacking, but maybe ZOC and the combat delay can be tweaked? I too find it odd that successful attacks can't occupy a hex of a battle they won and feel that it would help if the combat delay only applied to units that didn't fight for that hex. I guess this is harder to do in code though.

Prepping seems reasonable to me as you can launch a second invasion only a few turns after a previous one. It's cases like this where you do need to be more specific and cite examples so we can understand why you think that is ahistorical. If you remember to use a big port you can get 1 division per amphib HQ invasion prepped pretty quick.

Anyway do keep suggesting ideas but do be constructive and realistic.

< Message edited by jonboym -- 2/8/2015 10:11:23 PM >


_____________________________

The user formally known as jonboym

WITP:AE - Useful Info for Beginners

WitW Tutorials

WitW Beta/Alpha Tester

(in reply to Wild)
Post #: 42
RE: Combined arms - 2/8/2015 7:32:33 PM   
cmunson


Posts: 5429
Joined: 9/15/2007
From: Austin, Texas
Status: offline
jonboym

Excellent, a well stated, well reasoned post. We could not expect any less from our cultured English cousins.

_____________________________

Chris

(in reply to Chuske)
Post #: 43
RE: Combined arms - 2/8/2015 8:04:31 PM   
RedLancer


Posts: 4072
Joined: 11/16/2005
From: UK
Status: offline
Good phraseology always helps.....'when things are broke'.....assuming they are of course and it's not just some other factor in play.

(For the record I don't have Stockholm Syndrome as I'm not a hostage and I haven't been intimidated, harassed or abused by 2by3 - although my experience of PBEM Games against Joel does come close .)

_____________________________

John
WitE2 Asst Producer
WitE & WitW Dev

(in reply to cmunson)
Post #: 44
RE: Combined arms - 2/10/2015 12:48:02 PM   
heliodorus04


Posts: 1624
Joined: 11/1/2008
From: Denver Colorado
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: JeffK

I sometimes get the feeling that those involved in testing the game are suffering from the Stockholm syndrome.

Priceless... I think I have a new signature...

_____________________________

Spring 2018-Playing: Demyansk Shield: Frozen Fortress; Advanced Squad Leader,
Reading: Bonhoeffer
Rulebooks: ASL (always ASL), Holland'44, Demyansk Shield: Frozen Fortress

(in reply to JeffroK)
Post #: 45
RE: Combined arms - 2/10/2015 1:24:42 PM   
KWG


Posts: 1249
Joined: 9/29/2012
Status: offline
"I sometimes get the feeling that those involved in testing the game (WitW) are suffering from the Stockholm syndrome."

well at least they unchained me, and gave me tv privileges.




Attachment (1)

< Message edited by KWG -- 2/10/2015 2:27:10 PM >

(in reply to heliodorus04)
Post #: 46
RE: Combined arms - 2/10/2015 1:41:07 PM   
KWG


Posts: 1249
Joined: 9/29/2012
Status: offline
"Combined arms..."

in EVERY battle, especially lopsided ones, not everyone who goes to the party dances.

every battalion commander is not Hannibal.

the way the elephants were used at Krusk was a major bug.

in WITE i put both battalions of elephants in the 98sturm division and their defense power is up there with, or greater than, the Grossdeutschland,


The Dieppe Raid...had Churchills amongst other support .


maybe more... distinction... between deliberate attacks and hasty attacks

< Message edited by KWG -- 2/10/2015 3:23:48 PM >

(in reply to KWG)
Post #: 47
RE: Combined arms - 2/10/2015 5:17:39 PM   
HMSWarspite

 

Posts: 1394
Joined: 4/13/2002
From: Bristol, UK
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: KWG

every battalion commander is not Hannibal.

the way the elephants were used at Krusk was a major bug.



Sorry, which Consul was he fighting at Kursk?

_____________________________

I have a cunning plan, My Lord

(in reply to KWG)
Post #: 48
RE: Combined arms - 2/10/2015 8:37:50 PM   
gmsitton

 

Posts: 80
Joined: 10/25/2012
Status: offline
With one day turns, infantry units would have movement allowances of two?

(in reply to HMSWarspite)
Post #: 49
RE: Combined arms - 2/10/2015 10:36:45 PM   
HMSWarspite

 

Posts: 1394
Joined: 4/13/2002
From: Bristol, UK
Status: offline
And the number of attacks making 10 miles in a day is remarkably few... other than breakouts, attacks would be very difficult to model.

_____________________________

I have a cunning plan, My Lord

(in reply to gmsitton)
Post #: 50
RE: Combined arms - 2/11/2015 3:07:23 PM   
Smirfy

 

Posts: 1057
Joined: 7/16/2004
Status: offline
Kursk is an interesting example especially with regards all arms. An infantry and artillery inferiority coupled with no sustainable logistics and a definite schedule dictated how the battle would be fought. Air supremacy that might have offset those hurdles just was not there. The defences could therefore not be suppressed and an immature design (and freak) in the Elephant was left to fend for itself. Contrast with British & CW at Alamein.


I agree with KWG that there should be more grading of attacks and defences

(in reply to HMSWarspite)
Post #: 51
RE: Combined arms - 2/11/2015 11:41:49 PM   
LiquidSky


Posts: 2799
Joined: 6/24/2008
Status: offline


The battle of Aachen is a prime example of how combined arms can take a built up objective. A smaller force of Americans defeats a much larger force of Germans..fortified in a city, by using tanks paired with infantry.

_____________________________

“My logisticians are a humorless lot … they know if my campaign fails, they are the first ones I will slay.” – Alexander the Great

(in reply to Smirfy)
Post #: 52
RE: Combined arms - 2/13/2015 12:20:39 AM   
IronDuke_slith

 

Posts: 1595
Joined: 6/30/2002
From: Manchester, UK
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: LiquidSky



The battle of Aachen is a prime example of how combined arms can take a built up objective. A smaller force of Americans defeats a much larger force of Germans..fortified in a city, by using tanks paired with infantry.


But combined arms is a tactical concept. Pairing infantry and armoured formations doesn't guarantee that a tactical combined arms assault is implemented. The current model seems fine to me, because if you want to truly model combined arms, then you need a whole new set of rules. Attached SUs should have more chance of being effective if they have been attached to the same parent unit for a while, for instance. National differences would also have to be modelled. The British had mixed results integrating infantry and armour. The highpoint was probably Bluecoat, but there were lots of lows and modelling that in a game would lead to more frustration than anything else.

The only combined arms that really matters for the allies is the infantry / air / artillery set up.

Regards,
ID

_____________________________


(in reply to LiquidSky)
Post #: 53
RE: Combined arms - 2/13/2015 2:12:02 AM   
PaulWRoberts

 

Posts: 886
Joined: 4/22/2001
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Smirfy
Working my way through Halders Journal (Alanbroke's put me in mind of trying it) and after reading that weekly turns make little sense to be honest. When you think about it the the advances in communication, the widespread application of the internal combustion engine and especialy aviation makes weekly a bit out of whack with divisional and squadron scale. Those guys at IGS and OKH worked by the day.


That's all well and good--it just means that the player's turn represents several rounds of OKH working by the day.

What matters for scale isn't whether Eisenhower used a calendar or a stopwatch--what matters is whether the player can accomplish in a couple of turns what Eisenhower might have accomplished in a couple of weeks.

(in reply to Smirfy)
Post #: 54
RE: Combined arms - 2/13/2015 8:05:21 AM   
Smirfy

 

Posts: 1057
Joined: 7/16/2004
Status: offline

What matters is if the game plays well and as I and other have said weekly turns dont really cut it *but* like I said (post 36) I'm not tilting at windmills with 10 mile hexes, weekly turns, victory points. The tilt in this thread is COMBINED ARMS benefits for game play as opposed to the present humongous stack attacks. If you want to debate the benefits of weekly turns sure be my guest start another thread.

(in reply to PaulWRoberts)
Post #: 55
RE: Combined arms - 2/13/2015 8:29:28 AM   
Smirfy

 

Posts: 1057
Joined: 7/16/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: IronDuke


quote:

ORIGINAL: LiquidSky



The battle of Aachen is a prime example of how combined arms can take a built up objective. A smaller force of Americans defeats a much larger force of Germans..fortified in a city, by using tanks paired with infantry.


But combined arms is a tactical concept. Pairing infantry and armoured formations doesn't guarantee that a tactical combined arms assault is implemented. The current model seems fine to me, because if you want to truly model combined arms, then you need a whole new set of rules. Attached SUs should have more chance of being effective if they have been attached to the same parent unit for a while, for instance. National differences would also have to be modelled. The British had mixed results integrating infantry and armour. The highpoint was probably Bluecoat, but there were lots of lows and modelling that in a game would lead to more frustration than anything else.

The only combined arms that really matters for the allies is the infantry / air / artillery set up.

Regards,
ID


I think its an operational concept given the basic unit in game is a divsion and we have got attachemnt .Nope it does not, but I would strongly disagree the that the present system is representing in combat anything that happened in Europe 1943-45. If they are releasing new modules there is every opportunity to change the combat system. The first British Infantry Tank units did not get to Normandy till 26th June. The armoured divisions wernt good at close infantry co-operation. British armour infantry coperation worked fine in Italy and After Normandy the tank divisions improved dramatically when it became apparent Panzerfausts etc were now the tanks most deadly enemy. The storming of the Channel Ports, clearing the Scheldt, Reichwald and even getting XXX Corps along the road to Arnhem tells you even through a cursory study the present system needs refined down the all arms route rather than attack of the uber stack.

I include Artillery in combined arms, presently its not working niether is air outside interdiction in support of ground operations.

(in reply to IronDuke_slith)
Post #: 56
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the West >> RE: Combined arms Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]
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

0.164