|
Considering Alchenar masterminded the Schlieffen redux that won us that game, I'd imagine this free set up will be great. Please AAR it, folks.
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2015 02:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 05:49 |
|
|
Well it wasn't exactly operation Overlord, but I will give the ATG AI this, it saw me not building any Navy and ran units behind my line. That will teach me to not invest enough in PP to be able to build at least one combat naval unit when I share a body of water with my enemy. Playing Stone Age you really have to evaluate every expenditure of PP really hard. And I really should have invested in subs or something by now. China only holds Tokyo with a small stack of engineers  , and I am certain we will drive them back into the sea on the next turn, but this is all still a...http://youtu.be/dcL5bJuFw4A  The worst part is I saw the cargo ship, and didn't even think twice about it. That is just what I get for rushing my last turn late at night while drunk.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2015 07:18
|
|
|
VendoViper posted:Well it wasn't exactly operation Overlord, but I will give the ATG AI this, it saw me not building any Navy and ran units behind my line. That will teach me to not invest enough in PP to be able to build at least one combat naval unit when I share a body of water with my enemy. I had to come back to realise that I hadn't been reading Grey's WITP thread.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2015 08:21
|
|
|
Playing Sealion on DC:WtP with my opponent enabling every variant, how hosed is he? He disabled Gas Attacks although I'm still able to gas the gently caress out of his units with the card. So do we have all the Goons ready for the Fall Gelb game? I assume Army Group A starts up the game then sends it to people's email on the op thing?
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2015 17:39
|
|
|
I am ready and pumped, my email should be in the google doc thing.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2015 18:11
|
|
|
Yeah whoever pulled Germany A gets to set things up.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2015 21:05
|
|
|
oh god, thats me, what do i do.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2015 21:26
|
|
|
play OKH/W (I forget) and Army Group A, set your poo poo up, end your turn, send the save to the next person (me). And so on.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2015 22:02
|
|
|
Are we using any of the variations?
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2015 22:03
|
|
|
Oh I see, freesetup, no dyle.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2015 23:04
|
|
|
I've been a goon for three and a half years and I just now realized we had a spreadsheet in the OP. Way to go, dublish.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2015 23:22
|
|
|
Ok turn file sent to Maev.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2015 23:23
|
|
|
ElBrak posted:Are we using any of the variations? Fox only, no items, final destination.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2015 23:40
|
|
|
I finally coaxed Tomislav into starting a Developers' Diary, explaining the choices he's making as 2x2 develops the next Unity of Command. Here he talks about why the next Unity of Command game will have units retreating more often instead of being destroyed. Please let us know what you think about this new mechanic. Will the decreased casualties lead greater realism? Will players get bogged down in a sea of half-reformed units? Didn't WitE have a similar mechanic, with the Russians reforming destroyed 'empty' divisions in the rear? How did it work out? Was it annoying? PS Tomislav insists that he hates writing and that he's no good at it, but I think he does a great job. Myoclonic Jerk fucked around with this message at 23:21 on Apr 27, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2015 00:04
|
|
|
IIRC wite had a system where you had a certain percentage of the manpower of destroyed divisions trickled back into the pool simulating men fighting through enemy lines to get back to their own. In the actual war the germans had enough infantry in 41 that when they created those pockets and ground up the divisions therein there wasn't that many successful instances of soviet troops getting back to their lines. By case blue there had been so many casualties that even the so called full strength divisions lacked the infantry manpower to shut down every road so you had a lot more men getting back to their lines and consequently being used in the counterattack that winter. Wite didn't really simulate that, they just did a flat percentage and divorced it from reality.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2015 00:31
|
|
|
ElBrak posted:Ok turn file sent to Maev. Its best to have everyone on the email chain that passes the email so we can tell who's stalled. Also its customary to set your password to 'goon' so if you die or get sent to prison or get cancer ( godspeed happy hedonist) someone else can pick up your part of the game.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2015 00:45
|
|
|
dtkozl posted:IIRC wite had a system where you had a certain percentage of the manpower of destroyed divisions trickled back into the pool simulating men fighting through enemy lines to get back to their own. In the actual war the germans had enough infantry in 41 that when they created those pockets and ground up the divisions therein there wasn't that many successful instances of soviet troops getting back to their lines. By case blue there had been so many casualties that even the so called full strength divisions lacked the infantry manpower to shut down every road so you had a lot more men getting back to their lines and consequently being used in the counterattack that winter. Wite didn't really simulate that, they just did a flat percentage and divorced it from reality. Interesting. We're still waaaaaaaaay early in development, so I don't know yet how these mechanics will shake out. How does War in the West handle encirclements and destroyed units? How does it compare to history?
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2015 00:57
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:Its best to have everyone on the email chain that passes the email so we can tell who's stalled. I set my paswords to lljk.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2015 01:00
|
|
|
Myoclonic Jerk posted:I finally coaxed Tomislav into starting a Developers' Diary, explaining the choices he's making as 2x2 develops the next Unity of Command. If I may suggest a title: 2nity of Command  Seriously though, what stood out to me was the mention of a Deliberate Attack mechanic and a No Retreat Defense: one of the problems with WITE was that there was very little control in how much you could attack ask your units to attack or defend with. Technically there was a Hasty and a Deliberate Attack, but the Hasty Attack was never used past the first half-dozen turns of Barbarossa. There was a sort of dynamic they tried to implement with regards to replacements: anything the Germans destroyed before Dec 1941 would be reconstituted for "free", and then anything after that the Soviets would have to pay for with their limited amount of Admin/Political Points, but I don't think it ever really worked out as neatly as it was supposed to because A. the free period caused gamey behavior in terms of whether you would or wouldn't completely overrun Soviet units, B. the Soviet army would turn out to be entirely ahistorical anyway because the Soviets were free to use their Admin Points to "buy" whatever army they wanted and C. the reconstitution still had to go through their incredibly convoluted refit/logistics algorithm where replacements were parceled out on a per-squad, per-gun, per-tank basis. I have a lot of hope that this system will work better simply on the basis of UOC's units being composed of discrete steps.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2015 02:17
|
|
|
Myoclonic Jerk posted:Interesting. Those comments made by the dev seem to be focusing on larger battles or campaigns. If uoc goes big campaigns like Barbarossa and case blue as one big map I will be forever happy.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2015 15:23
|
|
|
Well I can't wait for the DC game to get started, I played a little of the France scenario controlling only Army Group A and did OK.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2015 15:43
|
|
|
Heading home from work now and I'll get my turn done.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2015 15:48
|
|
|
Re: Command Virginia class subs like to hit flank speed and cavitate like hell after launching a torpedo. This can be bad for their health if there's something hunting for them...I assume that it's a decision to quickly move away from the origin point covered by the noisy torp and panicking target. Is there a way to effect this behaviour other than stabbing at the manual controls?
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2015 16:02
|
|
|
Sent over to you Alchenar, do your worst! :Edit: or not, is Alchenar@outlook.com your email? I'm getting it rejected when sent.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2015 17:32
|
|
|
CM:RT is my first CM game, I love the eastern front but I do wonder if Combat Mission doesn't really suit it that well. I normally don't enjoy the whole D-Day thing and western front (too much exposure as a kid) but the demo of CM:BN seemed really fun with all the bocage and poo poo, and after completing two missions on CM:RT in a row which literally involved going across 2km+ of open fields with 50k units I'm starting to feel a bit byelorussianed out.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2015 19:11
|
|
|
Hey gradenko_2000, I see on the spreadsheet you got War Plan Orange, you interested in try a game of that sometime?
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2015 19:34
|
|
|
Hav posted:Re: Command You could turn off the doctrine for automatic evasion.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2015 20:10
|
|
|
I think we (well, Grey Hunter) should officially recognise Ultimate General: Gettysburg by adding it to the OP. What a great little game! I love it. And a great introduction to wargames I think. I'd give anything to see a bunch of other battles recreated in the same engine.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2015 20:20
|
|
|
In all his copious free time he needs to also add CMANO, CM:BS and WITW.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2015 20:31
|
|
|
pthighs posted:In all his copious free time he needs to also add CMANO, CM:BS and WITW. I thought CM:BS was already in?
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2015 20:47
|
|
|
I think that's CM:Shock Force.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2015 21:00
|
|
|
pthighs posted:I think that's CM:Shock Force. No, I meant the column for Combat Mission: Black Sea.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2015 21:03
|
|
|
Baloogan posted:You could turn off the doctrine for automatic evasion. Tried that, and the doctrine for respecting EMCON under attack, but it seems consistent that a short while after the torpedo launch, the sub heads directly for the target at flank, cavitating like mad. I *would* be astonished if the launching platform was evading it's own torpedo, or even if evasion at flank above the themocline is a good idea. I have considered that the sub is trying to keep up with the wire guidance, but it still does it if I switch the torp to terminal guidance with it's own seeker.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2015 21:14
|
|
|
dublish posted:No, I meant the column for Combat Mission: Black Sea. Ah, yes, you are correct. I was referring to the text in the OP with a summary of popular Grog games.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2015 21:23
|
|
|
Hav posted:Tried that, and the doctrine for respecting EMCON under attack, but it seems consistent that a short while after the torpedo launch, the sub heads directly for the target at flank, cavitating like mad. I *would* be astonished if the launching platform was evading it's own torpedo, or even if evasion at flank above the themocline is a good idea. Yeah, it shouldn't be evading its own torp but rather trying to avoid being hit by torps fired in retaliation. The automatic behavior of a sub is governed by its mission, 3 different types of ASuW / ASW . What mission do you have the sub under; and mind uploading or emailing me (baloogan@gmail.com) a save or something?
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2015 21:54
|
|
|
Kieme went and did the T-72B3 and the T-90A skins now: http://community.battlefront.com/topic/117795-kiemes-modding-corner/page-20 Looks pretty sweet.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2015 22:57
|
|
|
In Advanced Tactics Gold, is the terrain type "Forest Loaf" meant to be leaf, ie. deducious forest?
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 16:02
|
|
|
Can I deduce that you mean deciduous? 
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 16:20
|
|
|
I think he means delicious. Delicious loaf.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 16:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 05:49 |
|
|
Goddamn.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 17:13
|
|