First Impressions, please!

[Rake]

ORIGINAL: Fascist Dog


One final suggestion. Smoke. The chances of placing it are so low that it's unlikely that I'll waste a unit's turn often to try placing it. Perhaps it would be good to create a Smoke Canister SW counter that could be placed with 100% reliability instead? But I guess that's not in the 'real' game.

I wasted a couple of turns in Partisan Defense trying to place smoke... I don't know that 100% is accurate, but I would think pioneers should have better than a 50% cahnce

[aaatoysandmore]

The one thing I really miss though is the Les the Sarge counter from SL. It was always my favorite counter and the story behind my aar's back in the day.

[moet]

Let's talk about improving the (board and video) game instead of realism. Why not:

- Make possible a "suppressive fire" order on an unspotted hex to give an eventual enemy there a -2 penalty (or so) to his opportunity fire in the same turn. It feels strange that a MG (even worse in case of a tank!) can't neutralize a building from which could come enemy fire.
- Let any shaken enemy react , with a -2 penalty (or so), to any first melee in its hex. It's hard to believe that no guys will use their weapons against enemies entering their hex.

With this, IMO, players would get all the tools they are used to use in WWII context without altering the character of LnL BoH series.

[Barthheart]

ORIGINAL: moet

Let's talk about improving the (board and video) game instead of realism. Why not:

- Make possible a "suppressive fire" order on an unspotted hex to give an eventual enemy there a -2 penalty (or so) to his opportunity fire in the same turn. It feels strange that a MG (even worse in case of a tank!) can't neutralize a building from which could come enemy fire.
- Let any shaken enemy react , with a -2 penalty (or so), to any first melee in its hex. It's hard to believe that no guys will use their weapons against enemies entering their hex.

With this, IMO, players would get all the tools they are used to use in WWII context without altering the character of LnL BoH series.

But both of those change do alter the character of the LnL BoH series. They have never been in the game before.

[moet]

It could improve the game while maintaining its consistency. [:)]

[markhwalker]

Perhaps it would be good to create a Smoke Canister SW counter that could be placed with 100% reliability instead? But I guess that's not in the 'real' game.

Hmmm... That is a VERY good idea. Let's see what I can do for future scenarios.

[Noypi53]

Two questions:

1. For those who have played the board game, how does the PC version compare to that?
2. What's the next planned expansion for Lock 'N Load PC?

[Werewolf13]

ORIGINAL: z1812

ORIGINAL:
Well, good for you! But did you beat it by applying realistic military tactics such as suppression fire and maneuver, keeping one foot on the ground etc? I was an infantry officer for 10 years and trust me, I NEVER sent a squad forward to draw the enemy's fire and uncover his positions - the surest way to get yourself fragged, by the way. In this game I can't even employ MG fire on possible enemy positions, THE MOST FUNDAMENTAL INFANTRY TACTIC. But there I go again, taking on the Pandora gamers and expecting a sensible conversation about WW2 combat. Happy 'GAMING' LOL

Hence my question about area fire in another post. I enjoy games where, given the limitations of a wargame, real world tactics such as fire and maneuver are rewarded.

This doesn't mean to say it is not a fun game. It doesn't even mean I won't buy it. It does mean I will watch the forum closely to be sure of what I am getting should I decide to buy.

^^^^
Same camp that I am in...

And I do agree with RedMarkus - having to send a unit out to draw enemy fire in order to spot them is an unnecessarily gamey technique to have to use. Area fire that suppresses enemy units to a lesser degree if not spotted than if spotted is more realistic and IMO a more satisfying tactic.

The beauty of PC gaming is one can dispense with the gamey stuff that was necessary with a board game because now the PC can do all the calculations no one wanted to do with a board game.

[Sabre21]

When I first played the game a dew days ago it caught me a bit off guard that the Soviet AI would send a single squad out and once I fired on it they would send another out until all my units fired then the rest would move. Having spent much time in the army (26 years - 8 in the infantry), I thought that's not really the tactical way you would do things. So it is pretty gamey to send a squad out to draw fire. It would be nice to be able to use suppressive fires of some type.

Regardless, I am getting a hoot of the game

[Jeffrey H.]

ORIGINAL: Werewolf1326

ORIGINAL: z1812

ORIGINAL:
Well, good for you! But did you beat it by applying realistic military tactics such as suppression fire and maneuver, keeping one foot on the ground etc? I was an infantry officer for 10 years and trust me, I NEVER sent a squad forward to draw the enemy's fire and uncover his positions - the surest way to get yourself fragged, by the way. In this game I can't even employ MG fire on possible enemy positions, THE MOST FUNDAMENTAL INFANTRY TACTIC. But there I go again, taking on the Pandora gamers and expecting a sensible conversation about WW2 combat. Happy 'GAMING' LOL

Hence my question about area fire in another post. I enjoy games where, given the limitations of a wargame, real world tactics such as fire and maneuver are rewarded.

This doesn't mean to say it is not a fun game. It doesn't even mean I won't buy it. It does mean I will watch the forum closely to be sure of what I am getting should I decide to buy.

^^^^
Same camp that I am in...

And I do agree with RedMarkus - having to send a unit out to draw enemy fire in order to spot them is an unnecessarily gamey technique to have to use. Area fire that suppresses enemy units to a lesser degree if not spotted than if spotted is more realistic and IMO a more satisfying tactic.

The beauty of PC gaming is one can dispense with the gamey stuff that was necessary with a board game because now the PC can do all the calculations no one wanted to do with a board game.

It does seem to be a gap going from board to computer, that is hidden units. It's never really 'fun' IMO in a FTF board game to have to track hidden units or to deal with some of the other compromises, (cover counters, false unit stacks, sighting rolls, etc) but somehow on a computer game, it's expceted to have the AI or your opponnet using hidden units.

I do agree about the supressive fire option when there are truly hidden units. Of course you reveal yourself doing so, but hey at least you can keep the heads down of anyone unlucky enough to in that hex. Cover an advance for instance. Does make sense.

[markhwalker]

The beauty of PC gaming is one can dispense with the gamey stuff that was necessary with a board game because now the PC can do all the calculations no one wanted to do with a board game.

Nothing gamey about it. You wouldn't waste that ammo in real life, you shouldn't in the game. Real life you scout, game you scout. It's purfect.

[midgard30]

Playing mostly bear and bretzel strategy game in my younger time, I started to be interested in the tactical scale not even with a strategy game, but with the shooter Brothers in Arms (played all of them). At first, I played it like Call of Duty, and of course, got killed many times. But when I understood how to use the fire team to support the assault team, wow, I got hooked by the tactical scale. If I remember correctly, there was a mission where I didn't kill any enemy, just a bit of suppression fire, and giving orders to my teams, calling targets on one and sending the other on the flank or throwing grenades. The German were constantly moving to backward positions, loosing one man or two in the process...

Back to HoS, the game is well done, it's fun, the rules are efficient and easy to learn, and I certainly do not yet master all the details, but yes, I do miss suppression fire.

[markhwalker]

I love Brothers in Arms. Played the first one through to the end. An aquaintence of mine, John Antal was the advisor, and wrote the script for the game.

There are three scenarios in the Soviet campaign that allow fire at unseen targets, but there's a reason. You'll see. [;)]

[SilliusSodus]

So far Stalingrad is exactly what I wanted to see in a digital lock n load game. It’s a very good representation of the board game. Even where it is different, I might see how some of those small changes would work in the board game. The AI is competent enough and I still have to use the same kind of tactics I would use face to face. The release is very stable as well I haven’t encountered any bugs (although I have mostly been playing the stand alone scenarios)
In other words I’m biased I love the board game and wanted Stalingrad to be a representation of that and that’s what I got with a reasonably clean interface and passable AI so yeah I’m really happy with the game

[Harv]

ORIGINAL: markhwalker

I love Brothers in Arms. Played the first one through to the end. An aquaintence of mine, John Antal was the advisor, and wrote the script for the game.

There are three scenarios in the Soviet campaign that allow fire at unseen targets, but there's a reason. You'll see. [;)]

I remember working through some "game books" back in the 90‘s to do with small unit tactics (infantry and armour I believe), and I think they were written by a John Antal. They were very interesting, and if I remember right, I died a lot with them too. Same Fellow I assume, and now I wish I'd played Brothers in Arms.

[midgard30]

ORIGINAL: markhwalker

I love Brothers in Arms. Played the first one through to the end. An aquaintence of mine, John Antal was the advisor, and wrote the script for the game.

There are three scenarios in the Soviet campaign that allow fire at unseen targets, but there's a reason. You'll see. [;)]

Hell's Highway is the best! [;)] Characters feel less like robots.

What are the reasons behind the spotting rule? Why not allowed units to fire at target, at least when we know they are there? At first, it seems strange not to be able to shoot at a position where I strongly suspect the presence of enemy units.

Can't wait to know the reason why we're allowed in those three scenarios!

[midgard30]

ORIGINAL: Harv

I remember working through some "game books" back in the 90‘s to do with small unit tactics (infantry and armour I believe), and I think they were written by a John Antal. They were very interesting, and if I remember right, I died a lot with them too. Same Fellow I assume, and now I wish I'd played Brothers in Arms.

Are you talking about that book?
http://www.amazon.ca/Armor-Attacks-Inte ... Leadership

Funny, because it was in my wish list.

[76mm]

ORIGINAL: markhwalker
Nothing gamey about it. You wouldn't waste that ammo in real life, you shouldn't in the game. Real life you scout, game you scout. It's purfect.

Not sure about that, as far as I know it was a pretty standard tactic, at least in the US and Russian armies, to spray suspected enemy positions with fire, often lots of fire.

And this is not to mention that we can't even area fire on units that we've fired on in previous impulses but haven't spotted yet in this impulse.

[midgard30]

I recall in the movie Full Metal Jacket that marines were shooting a lot of bullets through windows not even knowing what and how much force was behind. Remember the young Vietnamese girl?

[z1812]

In regards to area fire.

ORIGINAL: markhwalker

Nothing gamey about it. You wouldn't waste that ammo in real life, you shouldn't in the game. Real life you scout, game you scout. It's purfect.

You are mistaken. It is a commonly known tactic that in addition to being called area fire, is known as speculative fire, recon by fire, covering fire, or suppressive fire. It is used as a tactic for a defined purpose and would not be considered as a waste of ammunition.