|
RE: WW2 Artillery vs. Armor
I'm all for adjustments that will reward players for using armor as it was historically. From my readings WW2 armor rarely, if ever at the operational level acted alone, without supporting infantry. I think the temptation is to use armor's superior mobility to the max, whether the supporting infantry can keep up or not. That's why motorized/mechanized infantry is such a valuable asset when you have to move far & fast to achieve an objective(s) & coincidentally, a win. Armor hits hard, the mech infantry secures the objective. The challenge of using the units together successfully is what will keep PzC interesting to me for some time to come.
OTOH, I'm not ready condemn the stock scenarios. I'm currently in the middle of one of VM's ALT scenarios (Stalingard '42) & have already noted some operational adjustments I needed to make. But this is my first PBEM foray into the McNamara DB & I don't think it's unreasonable to allow for more time for the general PzC gaming population to see how it works before pronouncement is made on one system over the other.
:soap:
|
Archived Forums
Help
Calendar
Member List
Search
){kind=link}
