So I would not worry it is just we have not got off the beaches yet 

(12-31-2015, 06:04 PM)Dog Soldier Wrote: If you have a unit starting in deep water at Omaha, it could be that this simulates assault craft that were sunk before getting to the shallows.  These unit appear, but have no boats nor do you lose VP for their sunken craft.  Just a bit of chrome really.

After you drop off the first wave you should have plenty of empty boats to pick up those guys stranded in the deep water.  Have fun with it.

Dog Soldier

(12-31-2015, 02:37 PM)Strela Wrote: PS I hope some of you are playing the scenarios beyond D-Day because it appears you are damning the game based on one aspect - bunkers, that are in play for the first day scenarios. That would be a huge disappointment for me and would to be honest, require a fresh look at what breadth we would provide in any future games. Having seen posters in other forums damn Kursk based upon perceptions they had picked up from this forum, I'm disappointed to see the same sentiments and posts here that Normandy has flaws in its overall execution. Myself & the team have played the game a lot and believe that some of the current fixations are misguided and you're missing the focus of the game. I'm starting to believe that we have built a simulation that is too complex for most and the subtle interplay of units types, fire strengths, terrain and opportunity fire is too much for the average gamer. If that's the case, I'll pull back two steps and make a decision on the validity of any future projects. Please view this not as a knock on any commentary, it's welcome, but for me there is a strong trend apparent that is indicating we have failed to build something that is logical to players.

(12-31-2015, 03:02 PM)Ricky B Wrote: Anyway, appreciate the discussion, my only thought, and it is really more based on play since the release, is that the higher morale formations do seem to avoid disruption too long - the lower morale units don't though, I know from playing the Germans in Cherbourg! I never really saw that in testing, but maybe because most of what I tested was the US/Allied in the scenarios I worked on, and there seemed to be plenty of disruptions.

My guess as to the lack of broken units is that, to break, it must reach max fatigue. I think most units are destroyed before max fatigue is reached, so maybe it is as simple a change as to double fatigue or something, to bring in more disruptions and broken units - I see lots of yellow fatigue units but rarely a red, so rarely a chance of reaching the point of breaking. This may need tweaked, but I don't know what drives that, I think it is internal to the engine rather than a parameter.

Rick

(12-31-2015, 11:12 PM)ComradeP Wrote: The assault system (or the bunkers) itself isn't the problem, the problem is each unit having to disrupt which can make small units more resilient than they should be.

(12-31-2015, 03:02 PM)Ricky B Wrote: I have little but my thoughts to contribute to this subject, overall. First, has anyone played Omaha to the end yet, against the AI (or HTH but I would expect that to take too long to be done already)? I played that one probably 5 times against the AI and a couple of times HTH to try and get it right. From all of my plays, even early on, I found that it played very historically in both timelines and where the action unfolded, finding it frequently ended with a similar situation at the end to what the US found them in at the end of the day. So to me, that was always a good indication that the Bunkers played just about right.

Now that was a year ago that I did that testing and minor tweaking. It is possible something changed that led to issues with bunkers being too hard tough now, but only a play through to the end will mean anything to me.

As to 10 men stopping 150+ engineers, I just have to say sorry, it happened. Just because you order these men to assault doesn't mean they were going to swarm in there like the elite German engineers did in the wonderful movie Stalingrad, shoulder to shoulder, and try to overwhelm the defenders, however few. The men will go to ground when taking fire, and depending on the situation begin to work out a relatively safe way to move in and eliminate the problem. But that takes time.

I agree a unit that started with 100 men is often not going to put up much fight when down to 10, but again, it happened. Especially in a fight such as this, what happens in a different area is going to have little impact on the forces fighting in a different area of the complex. And the way the finishing off works, it is fewer than 10 men, not 10%. Someone up above mentioned it maybe not working correctly based on it being under 10% I believe, and that is not how it works.

By the way, there were some bunkers at Omaha that were abandoned by their German army defenders at nightfall. These were small groups that fought all day without quitting, probably because the attacks bypassed them.

Anyway, appreciate the discussion, my only thought, and it is really more based on play since the release, is that the higher morale formations do seem to avoid disruption too long - the lower morale units don't though, I know from playing the Germans in Cherbourg! I never really saw that in testing, but maybe because most of what I tested was the US/Allied in the scenarios I worked on, and there seemed to be plenty of disruptions.

My guess as to the lack of broken units is that, to break, it must reach max fatigue. I think most units are destroyed before max fatigue is reached, so maybe it is as simple a change as to double fatigue or something, to bring in more disruptions and broken units - I see lots of yellow fatigue units but rarely a red, so rarely a chance of reaching the point of breaking. This may need tweaked, but I don't know what drives that, I think it is internal to the engine rather than a parameter.

Rick