A minimum delay of .3 or .4 would be what I might consider optimal... nothing (IMO) shoudl be quicker than that. This instaneous artillery takes the fun out of the game (for me).
It necessitates endless negotiation vis-a-vis how many tubes of what size and how much of this and that and all sorts of other gamey stuff. Forget to specify one category or size and lo and behold, the other guy has a gazillion of those 60mm tubes....
Well, I have said my piece over and over again.
I will live with SPWAW the way it is or becomes because it is better than anything else I have ever ran into (for me, LOL). But I will live with it sans US and USMC. No more pbem like that for me. I don't want to win bad enough to load up with it and I don't want to lose against something for which there is no defense.
Suggestion for workaround to balance US artillery in online and pbem games
Moderator: MOD_SPWaW
The way I see it, the short response times can and does produce some pretty odd results in a turn based evironment.
Example - I´m moving an halftrack at full speed along a road, it gets spotted and the opponent calls down a lot of fast response arty on it, and all of these shells land close to it in no time at all.
I´m sure the US had fast response time in WWII, but constantly hitting something moving at 40mph?
Maybe the response times should be increased for all countries, while keeping an edge for the US, and increasing the effiency a bit to compensate, making default at what is current around 125% for arty vs soft.
Example - I´m moving an halftrack at full speed along a road, it gets spotted and the opponent calls down a lot of fast response arty on it, and all of these shells land close to it in no time at all.
I´m sure the US had fast response time in WWII, but constantly hitting something moving at 40mph?
Maybe the response times should be increased for all countries, while keeping an edge for the US, and increasing the effiency a bit to compensate, making default at what is current around 125% for arty vs soft.
Rats, I was going to let them find out the hard way. Put down all your fire requests then starting with the first to arrive adjust it back and forth untill it is on the same delay as the longest. Now do that to the 2nd to arrive and so on. Obviously, at .02 per adjustment you cannot get a .1 to arrive with a 1.0, but you can get them to land in the same phase, with a little leakage. Is this gaming the system?Originally posted by Kuroshio Apocal:
You can do ToTs in SP:WAW. Just increase the delay to 2 turns and wait for it to hit. Granted, it is a bit slower than RL, but just as good for ripping the guts out of an attack.
T.
"The 15th May, 1948, arrived ... On that day the mufti of Jerusalem appealed to the Arabs of Palestine to leave the country, because the Arab armies were about to enter and fight in their stead."
– The Cairo daily Akhbar el Yom, Oct. 12, 1963.
[IMG]http
– The Cairo daily Akhbar el Yom, Oct. 12, 1963.
[IMG]http
Swagman asks how often a multitude of factors might have slowed down US Arty Support and response times ... I happen to have exact figures on this question ... the answer is .. about as often as it slowed down German, Italian, French, Russian, and Polish Arty support and response times ... seems to me .. especially at little battels like North Africa and Stalingrad, the Germans would have loved to have Pattons temporary supply problems ..LOL .
Arty is fired to support the troops in contact .. In a US Division you end up with about 15 to 24 Mortars and a Battery of 105mm and a Battery 155mm , usually more, in support on a Bn level force .. depends on how many Arty Bde/Regt are attached to the Div ... yes in the German Army under German Doctrine a small ammount of Arty would be assigned , maybe a Battery of 75mm or 105mm with the heavy stuff held back for "operational fires" .. not so with US Doctrine .. every unengaged Battery in range , regardless of unit or echelon could and would fire on request .. inculding the 155mm, 8 in, and 9.4 inch guns .. "operational fires" were handled by the Army Air Corp .. Divsions in Combat did routinely have 2 or 3 addition BRIGADES of arty temporaily attached ..each Brigade could have as many as 3 or 4 BN's of 3 or 4 6 gun batteries .. some of the attached Arty was Independant Brigades ..some was Organic Corp BRIGADES . and this is all in addition to the Arty BN's at CC level and the Bde at Div level ..
Some Nations had Doctrine that pretty much restricted Divisions to using only organic Arty and resricting Arty to fire only on Higher Command permission , all worked out before the start of the Battle .. not so the US ..and Corp Arty was pretty much for "Operational fires" ..not so the US ..
As to logistics each US Gun had an actual truck or track tractor to pull it..as well as two more trucks or tractors to carry ammo .. some German Arty was Horse drawn ..through the entire war .. now true the Germans had more horses that the US .. but few of those horses could carry 2 1/2 tons of ammo at 35 mph .... I'm all for balancing ... but we need to balance the tanks first .
Redleg I agree on the .4 being the fastest onboard response time for Arty .. that would be a happy medium currently .1 actually 2 minutes approx so actually 1.0 for the US/Brits but even going halfway would mean German/ Russian Response times would be 3.0-4.0 (6-8 minutes)..
Everybody wants a chance ..ok .. I can understand that .. So learn the Tactics that your favorite Nation used to win when they won .. and then become as proficent as they were in using them to win ... Different folks play different nations ... dumbing the game down so the Germans can always win, even when the players don't know or understand the tactics , or care to learn them .. but rather chose to think there is something inherent in the German equipment and squads that automagically means they should win , and the game is wrong if it doesn't work that way .. will just make this a fantasy game instead of a WW2 game and screw it up for everybody.
If you want Historical stuff thats good for one side .. then in all that is fair and Holy you should want the stuff that is Historically good for the otherside ...
In PBEM games maybe if folks cared as much about selecting buying and playing their own side as they do about selecting and buying and playing their opponents side.. they would win a few and not have as much to complain about ...
Just play equal points aginst equal points in a meeting engagement and leave it at that .. geeze louise learn the dang tactics that work with your chosen nations gear ...This constant whining and worrying by opponents about what I was buying was about half the reason I quit playing PBEM .. the other half was alot of players tried to imitate the AI, as if it was the only example of tactics they had ever seen .. and I could get that without the whining ... the game is accurate enough for actual tactics to work .. but you have to know the tactics ...
All I have ever seen on this subject on this forum for a year and a half ..is this peice of equipment doesn't work like I think it should .. I have yet to see anybody post that they attempted to use such and such a tactic , just like at the Battle of ( fill in the blank) and it absoultley didn't work because such and such wasn't modeled correctly ...
It is like all the threads about ammo load out .. never enough special AP in the game v. to high load out special AP in the Tanks whatever .. anybody ever consider that their might be WAY to many tanks on the map to start with and not near enough Infantry ... or that most real Bn size combats might take more than a Day (720 turns ) and that niether side would lose more than 20% of their forces in the whole 720 turns and that you would have streches of 183 turns where nobody did anything except just wait for the visibility to change...
The Arty is dumbed down enough ... if you gotta negotiate for PBEM negotiate year /nations /type battle/ map size/time of day ... and let each player buy their own dang units as they wish ... there is no combination of units however weirdly and unbalanced selected that costs 3000-5000 points that an equal number of points can't beat in a meeting engagement if decent tactics are used in this game .
My favorite complaint is the one about to many recon units ... Historically whole battles were fought at Bn level with Bn's of recon .. In fact I would hazard going out on a limb here that your typical 45 minute meeting engaement would be primaraly recon and arty.
Arty is fired to support the troops in contact .. In a US Division you end up with about 15 to 24 Mortars and a Battery of 105mm and a Battery 155mm , usually more, in support on a Bn level force .. depends on how many Arty Bde/Regt are attached to the Div ... yes in the German Army under German Doctrine a small ammount of Arty would be assigned , maybe a Battery of 75mm or 105mm with the heavy stuff held back for "operational fires" .. not so with US Doctrine .. every unengaged Battery in range , regardless of unit or echelon could and would fire on request .. inculding the 155mm, 8 in, and 9.4 inch guns .. "operational fires" were handled by the Army Air Corp .. Divsions in Combat did routinely have 2 or 3 addition BRIGADES of arty temporaily attached ..each Brigade could have as many as 3 or 4 BN's of 3 or 4 6 gun batteries .. some of the attached Arty was Independant Brigades ..some was Organic Corp BRIGADES . and this is all in addition to the Arty BN's at CC level and the Bde at Div level ..
Some Nations had Doctrine that pretty much restricted Divisions to using only organic Arty and resricting Arty to fire only on Higher Command permission , all worked out before the start of the Battle .. not so the US ..and Corp Arty was pretty much for "Operational fires" ..not so the US ..
As to logistics each US Gun had an actual truck or track tractor to pull it..as well as two more trucks or tractors to carry ammo .. some German Arty was Horse drawn ..through the entire war .. now true the Germans had more horses that the US .. but few of those horses could carry 2 1/2 tons of ammo at 35 mph .... I'm all for balancing ... but we need to balance the tanks first .
Redleg I agree on the .4 being the fastest onboard response time for Arty .. that would be a happy medium currently .1 actually 2 minutes approx so actually 1.0 for the US/Brits but even going halfway would mean German/ Russian Response times would be 3.0-4.0 (6-8 minutes)..
Everybody wants a chance ..ok .. I can understand that .. So learn the Tactics that your favorite Nation used to win when they won .. and then become as proficent as they were in using them to win ... Different folks play different nations ... dumbing the game down so the Germans can always win, even when the players don't know or understand the tactics , or care to learn them .. but rather chose to think there is something inherent in the German equipment and squads that automagically means they should win , and the game is wrong if it doesn't work that way .. will just make this a fantasy game instead of a WW2 game and screw it up for everybody.
If you want Historical stuff thats good for one side .. then in all that is fair and Holy you should want the stuff that is Historically good for the otherside ...
In PBEM games maybe if folks cared as much about selecting buying and playing their own side as they do about selecting and buying and playing their opponents side.. they would win a few and not have as much to complain about ...
Just play equal points aginst equal points in a meeting engagement and leave it at that .. geeze louise learn the dang tactics that work with your chosen nations gear ...This constant whining and worrying by opponents about what I was buying was about half the reason I quit playing PBEM .. the other half was alot of players tried to imitate the AI, as if it was the only example of tactics they had ever seen .. and I could get that without the whining ... the game is accurate enough for actual tactics to work .. but you have to know the tactics ...
All I have ever seen on this subject on this forum for a year and a half ..is this peice of equipment doesn't work like I think it should .. I have yet to see anybody post that they attempted to use such and such a tactic , just like at the Battle of ( fill in the blank) and it absoultley didn't work because such and such wasn't modeled correctly ...
It is like all the threads about ammo load out .. never enough special AP in the game v. to high load out special AP in the Tanks whatever .. anybody ever consider that their might be WAY to many tanks on the map to start with and not near enough Infantry ... or that most real Bn size combats might take more than a Day (720 turns ) and that niether side would lose more than 20% of their forces in the whole 720 turns and that you would have streches of 183 turns where nobody did anything except just wait for the visibility to change...
The Arty is dumbed down enough ... if you gotta negotiate for PBEM negotiate year /nations /type battle/ map size/time of day ... and let each player buy their own dang units as they wish ... there is no combination of units however weirdly and unbalanced selected that costs 3000-5000 points that an equal number of points can't beat in a meeting engagement if decent tactics are used in this game .
My favorite complaint is the one about to many recon units ... Historically whole battles were fought at Bn level with Bn's of recon .. In fact I would hazard going out on a limb here that your typical 45 minute meeting engaement would be primaraly recon and arty.
"For Americans war is almost all of the time a nuisance, and military skill is a luxury like Mah-jongg. But when the issue is brought home to them, war becomes as important, for the necessary periods, as business or sport. And it is hard to decide which
There are many ways to beat the americans even with their .01 I have had most of them done to me. First and formost is winning the scout battle. Hw can't shoot what he can't see. As the german you should use your prepositioned arty requests. Figuring on a .02 delay for adjusting fires, a grid pattern can give you a path 6 hexes by 18 hexes that can be hit on the same turn (I think a .03 will do that. And you will have 1 request left for doing dirty deeds. Or you can spread out the pattern and get .05 responce on a 12 x 36 hex area. Plus that American unit hauling a$$ across the map is going somewhere. Figure out where it is going and have a present waiting. That is not any more difficult then figuring out how to trick a german into driving his shiny new Tiger into the woods to play hide and seek with your Aitborne squads. And if the US loses it's .01 then the germans need to go to a 3 or 4 turn delay for non pre-registared requests. Then you guys will really start to whine. And not to start any more fights, but Patton got no gas because it was sent to Monty, who never did know what to do with it. Ike stepped on his dick. Gas to Patton and he hits the sigfried(?) line before it's manned. That puts the 3rd army in the Ruhr valley, running wild in September. No forest fighting or hold up at Nancy, the Rhine is crossed in October and the units used in the battle of the bulge are desperatly trying to defend Berlin. Aren't the Soviets still in Poland until Janurary of '45?
T.
T.
"The 15th May, 1948, arrived ... On that day the mufti of Jerusalem appealed to the Arabs of Palestine to leave the country, because the Arab armies were about to enter and fight in their stead."
– The Cairo daily Akhbar el Yom, Oct. 12, 1963.
[IMG]http
– The Cairo daily Akhbar el Yom, Oct. 12, 1963.
[IMG]http
-
brianleeprice
- Posts: 134
- Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2001 8:00 am
The topic of this thread says it all, key words 'Suggestion' and 'workaround'.
As many of you are aware this is one aspect of SP:WAW that is very unlikely to be addressed in an official change - they evidently tried it at one point and had severe problems. Thus we are left with either taking the game in this regards as it is - some do and like it that way - or trying various workarounds - to this point mostly pregame negotiations on unit limits. Alternatively, as some people choose, is to just not play the game with US forces involved when playing versus humans.
When it comes to what is historical and what is not, I am by no means an expert in the field. Luckily for me there are quite a few here who are and when they speak, I listen. If I've insulted anyone with my personal views on what is socially acceptable in the game, so be it - I stand by my views. I've been a gamer long enough to know that it is possible to exploit flaws in any gaming system - I personally find the practice abhorrent.
As to the effects of my suggested workaround - turning Characteristics off makes 0.4 the default response time for all nations involved - removing the worst case abuse of the game flaw in this regard. Granted it still isn't correct. Along with turning Characteristics off, restricting FOs to only the US further increases the response time for other nations and gives the US an increased accuracy to fire upon targets in los of an observer.
I didn't stress the third part, but in negotiations on artillery limits when using this workaround, the US should be allowed to purchase more artillery than the other side unless playing a non WWII non semi-historical battle. This reflects the doctrinal and logistical advantages of the US in this regards.
This is by no means a perfect solution or a 'one size fits all' solution. I am not recommending that it become an official modification to a future SP:WAW version. It is just another tool to put in the box for helping to get the most we can out of what we have. Put it in the same category as the common pre game unit limit negotiations and use it or not as you see fit.
Speaking tactically for a moment, as I understand it, while relatively rare, the use of superior mobility to gain local surpremacy did occur in some WWII battles. Even with the 0.4 response time, artillery seems far to effective at preventing proper exploitation of an extreme mobility advantage. Example being mechanized infantry versus infantry where the mechanized force initially attacks at one point, disengages, and maneuvers to attack at another point a substantial distance away. Although I still make use of this tactic with some effect, it seems I am always caught by artillery, gain surpression/lose vehicles, and lose the mobility advantage. If response times were along the lines that AmmoSgt suggests, this tactic would be far more effective - although the use of it might be somewhat ahistorical (I'd be interested to hear comments by the historians among us about this).
In closing, as I have noticed in prior discussions, this entire topic generates some rather heated opinion on both sides of the fence. We all have high hopes for CL and I hope that with regards to this issue CL uses a much more flexible and accurate model. Still though, by the differing viewpoints I see expressed I will be very surprised if Matrix is able to please everyone on this.
Best of luck to Matrix,
Sincerely,
Brian Price
As many of you are aware this is one aspect of SP:WAW that is very unlikely to be addressed in an official change - they evidently tried it at one point and had severe problems. Thus we are left with either taking the game in this regards as it is - some do and like it that way - or trying various workarounds - to this point mostly pregame negotiations on unit limits. Alternatively, as some people choose, is to just not play the game with US forces involved when playing versus humans.
When it comes to what is historical and what is not, I am by no means an expert in the field. Luckily for me there are quite a few here who are and when they speak, I listen. If I've insulted anyone with my personal views on what is socially acceptable in the game, so be it - I stand by my views. I've been a gamer long enough to know that it is possible to exploit flaws in any gaming system - I personally find the practice abhorrent.
As to the effects of my suggested workaround - turning Characteristics off makes 0.4 the default response time for all nations involved - removing the worst case abuse of the game flaw in this regard. Granted it still isn't correct. Along with turning Characteristics off, restricting FOs to only the US further increases the response time for other nations and gives the US an increased accuracy to fire upon targets in los of an observer.
I didn't stress the third part, but in negotiations on artillery limits when using this workaround, the US should be allowed to purchase more artillery than the other side unless playing a non WWII non semi-historical battle. This reflects the doctrinal and logistical advantages of the US in this regards.
This is by no means a perfect solution or a 'one size fits all' solution. I am not recommending that it become an official modification to a future SP:WAW version. It is just another tool to put in the box for helping to get the most we can out of what we have. Put it in the same category as the common pre game unit limit negotiations and use it or not as you see fit.
Speaking tactically for a moment, as I understand it, while relatively rare, the use of superior mobility to gain local surpremacy did occur in some WWII battles. Even with the 0.4 response time, artillery seems far to effective at preventing proper exploitation of an extreme mobility advantage. Example being mechanized infantry versus infantry where the mechanized force initially attacks at one point, disengages, and maneuvers to attack at another point a substantial distance away. Although I still make use of this tactic with some effect, it seems I am always caught by artillery, gain surpression/lose vehicles, and lose the mobility advantage. If response times were along the lines that AmmoSgt suggests, this tactic would be far more effective - although the use of it might be somewhat ahistorical (I'd be interested to hear comments by the historians among us about this).
In closing, as I have noticed in prior discussions, this entire topic generates some rather heated opinion on both sides of the fence. We all have high hopes for CL and I hope that with regards to this issue CL uses a much more flexible and accurate model. Still though, by the differing viewpoints I see expressed I will be very surprised if Matrix is able to please everyone on this.
Best of luck to Matrix,
Sincerely,
Brian Price
-
ubertechie
- Posts: 135
- Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2001 8:00 am
- Location: Rye, East Sussex, UK
- Contact:
Another thing i hate is the allied air supremacy - you plan the battle - how your tigers, panthers, Mark IV's and panzergrenadiers are going to crush the allies in their puny tanks and then all of a sudden your colums are ripped up by Typhoon's or P-47's or worse still B-17's. It is soo frustrating - but then you stop and think about what you are doing.....
Your playing a simulation of WWII - a very good one at that (i'm sure no-one disagrees with that - and even better its free - thanks Matrix) - so the game should portray what happenend - okay so did this sort of thing occur - well how about Falaise as one of countless examples - the germans had superior kit on the ground but got stuffed from above.
So the Americans also had better control over there arty - hey how do you think the commander of a Sherman felt when ordered to attack an area that Tigers where in - pretty bad - do we also dumb down tigers because they make our 'rush straight at them shooting' AI'esque tactics fail - i dont need to answer that.
This is the way it was - or pretty close to it - if we start changing things so they are radically ahistoricl we might as well call the game 'Space invaders' and change all the troops to little green men.
Thats my 2 pennies worth anyway
Ubertechie
Your playing a simulation of WWII - a very good one at that (i'm sure no-one disagrees with that - and even better its free - thanks Matrix) - so the game should portray what happenend - okay so did this sort of thing occur - well how about Falaise as one of countless examples - the germans had superior kit on the ground but got stuffed from above.
So the Americans also had better control over there arty - hey how do you think the commander of a Sherman felt when ordered to attack an area that Tigers where in - pretty bad - do we also dumb down tigers because they make our 'rush straight at them shooting' AI'esque tactics fail - i dont need to answer that.
This is the way it was - or pretty close to it - if we start changing things so they are radically ahistoricl we might as well call the game 'Space invaders' and change all the troops to little green men.
Thats my 2 pennies worth anyway
Ubertechie
I don't think arty response times need to be adjusted but perhaps limiting the amount of arty- say to 10%- would be the way to lessen the effects. Having been the victim of many barrages, I have to think that its the number of tubes that does the damage, not the response time.The 10% limitation has been used in pbem for some time and it is usually acceptable to all parties (I've never had the suggestion turned down).
Col Saito: "Don't speak to me of rules! This is war! It is not a game of cricket!"
I am reading Ambrose's Citizen Soldiers right now, and when reading of the defense of some hill held by the 2nd Ranger battalion, it was able to call on the entire corps complement of artillery while trying to hold the hill until relieved. They had 18 battalions of artillery available for what was the equivalent of a company left on the hill.Originally posted by Drex:
I don't think arty response times need to be adjusted but perhaps limiting the amount of arty- say to 10%- would be the way to lessen the effects. Having been the victim of many barrages, I have to think that its the number of tubes that does the damage, not the response time.The 10% limitation has been used in pbem for some time and it is usually acceptable to all parties (I've never had the suggestion turned down).
Any German player who saw a ranger company backed by 18 battalions of arty would claim the US player was gaming the system, but it actually happened, and the rangers were able to hold until relieved. Later a regiment of regular troops lost the hill.
Those who complain about masses of artillery, are they perhaps playing with limited ammo off, c&c off, etc?
When testing artillery, I have noticed that very soon you run out of orders to call it in, that matched with out of contact problems will limit what you can call in, as long as you play with all the realism settings on.
thanks, John.
I never asked any of my opponents in PBEM to restrict thier purchase in any way ... this is a long time running thread over many threads ...OK I have made fun of my oponents that wanted to fight US/Brits v Germans in July and August 43 or wanted to use Panthers at Salerno, stuff like that .. but I never said they couldn't ..
I have agreed in the past to play with 10 and 15% arty limits or limited air .. or even with equal Air ( like that happened alot in late '44) ..But I think most folks who agree to some others players limits, and ask for none themselves , if they were actually honest, would tell you they only do it to cut down on the whining and the lame excuses that are offered to excuse the high losses and rediculiously unbalanced scores that happen when PBEM'ers try and rely on limiting their opponent instead of trying to actually learn to play well.
I mean are you going to play stud poker or are ya gonna play 7's wild and first face card after the 2nd delt 9 is wild and you can use clubs as spades or hearts as diamonds if you have a pair to make it a flush ?
I think what really needs to be done in negotiations is for the russians to get to set Armor v armor at 150 and armor v infantry at 150 and the germans need to agree to set thier Armor v armor to about 60 and armor v infantry to about 50 to balance out that annoying advantage that Tigers have over BT-5's ..that would make it a lot more fun for the russian player and it would be politically correct too and save folks the trouble of having to learn Russian tactics so they can play and win ...
geeze louise ..oh and lets make all the moral and experience ratings exactly the same and by all means turn off national characteristics so it is fair and balanced .. that way total lack of understanding of a particular nations tactics won't be a handicap and everybody can use any tactics they want or happen to have seen on TV and they might work ... cuz we all know only tanks kill tanks and you can't do anything about stoping nasty evil arty .. and if you use battlefield deception it is gaming .. but if you exploit the smoke signature of firing arty that you couldn't see in real life thats not gaming ..that cool tactics .. LOL gawds
I have agreed in the past to play with 10 and 15% arty limits or limited air .. or even with equal Air ( like that happened alot in late '44) ..But I think most folks who agree to some others players limits, and ask for none themselves , if they were actually honest, would tell you they only do it to cut down on the whining and the lame excuses that are offered to excuse the high losses and rediculiously unbalanced scores that happen when PBEM'ers try and rely on limiting their opponent instead of trying to actually learn to play well.
I mean are you going to play stud poker or are ya gonna play 7's wild and first face card after the 2nd delt 9 is wild and you can use clubs as spades or hearts as diamonds if you have a pair to make it a flush ?
I think what really needs to be done in negotiations is for the russians to get to set Armor v armor at 150 and armor v infantry at 150 and the germans need to agree to set thier Armor v armor to about 60 and armor v infantry to about 50 to balance out that annoying advantage that Tigers have over BT-5's ..that would make it a lot more fun for the russian player and it would be politically correct too and save folks the trouble of having to learn Russian tactics so they can play and win ...
geeze louise ..oh and lets make all the moral and experience ratings exactly the same and by all means turn off national characteristics so it is fair and balanced .. that way total lack of understanding of a particular nations tactics won't be a handicap and everybody can use any tactics they want or happen to have seen on TV and they might work ... cuz we all know only tanks kill tanks and you can't do anything about stoping nasty evil arty .. and if you use battlefield deception it is gaming .. but if you exploit the smoke signature of firing arty that you couldn't see in real life thats not gaming ..that cool tactics .. LOL gawds
"For Americans war is almost all of the time a nuisance, and military skill is a luxury like Mah-jongg. But when the issue is brought home to them, war becomes as important, for the necessary periods, as business or sport. And it is hard to decide which
CC on solves a lot of the problems in this game. I don't mind playing with no restrictions as long as CC is on. And shame on you people who purchase Coastal Guns in battles where no shoreline or even meeting engagements. 10inch Naval guns mounted on 10 metre hills is not funny. sick puppies you know who you are ehheh
-
brianleeprice
- Posts: 134
- Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2001 8:00 am
Ever hear of counter battery fire - gee wonder how they ever figured out where to fire... and a shame those darn radios the commanders have are only one way...... also a shame the scouts have no ears to hear with nor eyes to see flashes - and a shame smoke doesn't rise.Originally posted by AmmoSgt:
about stoping nasty evil arty .. and if you use battlefield deception it is gaming .. but if you exploit the smoke signature of firing arty that you couldn't see in real life thats not gaming ..that cool tactics .. LOL gawds
blah - it was a suggestion for a workaround - if you don't like it - don't use it.
As for anything else - if a potential opponent can't reach agreement with me about the terms of the game we usually just don't play - simple as that.
Greetings, Well you American cowards should use no air or arty (get rid of those darn bazookas too) You should just take .03 Springfield equipped Infantry and Stuarts (OK you can have a few Shermans to make it fair) Meanwhile the good Germans get to use Tigers and Panthers and Wurfermen sitting on ammo dumps. Americans should not be allowed flamethrowers (they are always mis-using them) Doesn't this sound more fun?
I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!