12-31-2015, 11:56 PM,
|
|
Hadge
Grumpy Old Man
|
Posts: 173
Joined: May 2005
|
|
RE: Is assaulting Bunkers too hard ?
(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
Hello All,
I have to support Ricks position and points made - I finished the Omaha scenario a couple of days ago (vs the AI) and I thought it played very accurately vrs the actual events of the day.
Here is a link http://vierville.free.fr/index.htm to the Vierville Village Council website for some very detailed background info and some amazing photos - many of which I had never come accross previously.
Anyway - Happy new year to all
Cheers
Chris
|
|
|