 |
|
N'44:Scenario #20: Proving them Wrong-Error? - Printable Version +- Forums (https://www.theblitz.club/message_boards) +-- Forum: The Firing Line (https://www.theblitz.club/message_boards/forumdisplay.php?fid=1) +--- Forum: Tiller Operational Campaigns (https://www.theblitz.club/message_boards/forumdisplay.php?fid=11) +--- Thread: N'44:Scenario #20: Proving them Wrong-Error? (/showthread.php?tid=37337) Pages:
1
2
|
RE: N'44:Scenario #20: Proving them Wrong-Error? - Jazman - 10-17-2006 RE: N'44:Scenario #20: Proving them Wrong-Error? - Ricky B - 10-17-2006 Just to add one thought, as this subject has come up before. If you look strictly at firepower, then the game will not replicate actions such as Wittman's, or Audie Murphy's, or many others, even with higher fire ratings. But many of these actions are not really due to fire being laid down, and killing enemy vehicles or men, but through "assault". An assault is moving in close to the enemy, using movement and firepower to destroy him. In an action such as Wittman's, this is really an assault that led to the heavy British losses on this day - I believe you could say he used firepower in prepping the target, but then moved on into the town of Viller-Bocage and started destroying British vehicles from relatively close range. I have always felt that it is in the assault portion of the game that you see many of these 'extraordinary' actions happen, in which case the higher firepower (which I still like in a situation such as this) isn't necessary as you still won't see the results that historically happened except in specific situations. When you have a disrupted defender, that can't retreat, then even a small unit, such as Wittman's can replicate the losses that historically happened. The inability to retreat can be due to locking ZOCs, stacking limits, or actual surrounding - in Wittman's case, it could have been either of the first two. The British could have been disrupted due to their actions moving up to the town, artillery fired at them by the Germans - not called in by Wittman probably but there still was artillery fire in the area, surprise which isn't replicated in the game directly but I view as a possible reason for disruption, and Wittman's internal firepower before advancing into the town. I have seen plenty of actions with assaults in these conditions that I would consider worthy of a Wittman, but never just through firepower but including assaulting a disrupted group that can't retreat. Whether the enemy losses would have to be considered lost to the main gun firing at close range during this assault, as with Wittman, or surrender, or other weapons, it is hard telling - but I do think you see plenty of these events, it is just how you look at an assault. But again, I still see the reasons for boosting the firepower of a Wittman unit, I just think it is "required" to get these historical feats, as the game shows them anyway. I guess my best example of this one was in the Bulge where a German recon unit moved up and assaulted a disrupted stack of US units that couldn't retreat and caused massive losses while losing 5 of 7 vehicles. Rick RE:��N'44:Scenario #20: Proving them Wrong-Error? - JonS1 - 10-17-2006 RE:��N'44:Scenario #20: Proving them Wrong-Error? - JonS1 - 10-17-2006 mystery double RE: N'44:Scenario #20: Proving them Wrong-Error? - JonS1 - 10-17-2006 test. RE: N'44:Scenario #20: Proving them Wrong-Error? - Volcano Man - 10-18-2006 Yes, the point is valid about assaulting. But I think I have found a solution that works. In the next update Wittman will be an exclusive unit to the Viller scenario and in the campaign he will be a normal platoon included in the 501. The 501 battalion was raised from B to A morale, since it is arguable that it should be at that level already and I think it was given B morale in the stock campaign so that Wittman would stand out so much. The 501 was considered to be the most elite SS panzer battalion anyway, a fire brigade so to speak that was used for an assault force or to plug a hole where ever it fought on both fronts. Anyway, I digress. The Villers scenario has been reworked for the next ALT update to have more historical deployments. It is true that Wittman basically assaulted the village in his initial attack but I think everything after he gets in it can be represented with direct fire (or must be) lest he be required to assault out of the village to get results or that the British player just simply avoids assault him. I ran it several times and Wittman (with his normal assault rating) can manage to push out an infantry company and a stuart company (new units added to the scenario) in his initial assault and then sit in the village and basically use his direct fire to knock out the enemy as he is gradually and eventually brought down. Historically, of course, his tank was disabled and he fled the area on foot with his tank crew. RE: N'44:Scenario #20: Proving them Wrong-Error? - Elxaime - 10-20-2006 In the newly released first-person-shooter computer game Scarface, they give the Tony Montana character the ability to fly into a "rage" which temporarily gives him invulnerability and unlimited ammo. So just imagine Wittman roaring along the road outside Villers Bocage, hanging out of the top of his Tiger Tank, shouting in German "say hello to my little friend!" Seriously, one thing they should consider for PzC II (if they ever make it) is the ability of units morale state to fluctuate from turn to turn, with some random effects. And also to allow a feature where unit morale for certain classes of units, e.g. early war Soviet infantry regiments, starts unknown, then is revealed and given a quality factor randomly within a set range when it gets into its first combat. They did this with some of the old SPI eastern front board games. You could build in "heroic" moments like Wittman through some sort of single use unit effects. I think VM is doing the best he can within the constraints of the existing PzC system. RE:��N'44:Scenario #20: Proving them Wrong-Error? - Glenn Saunders - 10-20-2006 Elxaime Wrote:I think VM is doing the best he can within the constraints of the existing PzC system. Guys - I promised myself I would stay out of this one but what to hell - may as well jump in. This is a scn which should have never shipped with the game in the first place. I said that before the game released but the designer, Wig Graves thought it was neat. Consider it was created when the only PzC on the market had panzers division with only 15 units - btln strength Panzer units with 50 to 85 tanks in a single non-breakdownable counter. We had two types of fire rules and we didn't even understand the implications on the victory levels if you switched the fire rules. Since then we've come a long way - added a lot to the game - we can do a lot more things - similate a lot of battles better with tons of new feature. But this is a small tactical battle which lasted a very short period of time and should never have been attempted in an operational scale game. That it is yet again the subject of debate such as this is too bad. If you don't like the Values Wig Graves assigned - use Eds. If you don't like Ed, try your own. If you don't have any values you think are better than play one of the other 56(?) scn that shipped with this game. PzC work pretty damn good at simulating many aspects of operational battle. It can't do everything perfectly and it has a lot of generalities built into them which all taken together tend to even out. You have to consider the bigger picture here. Glenn |
){kind=link}