Here's the Thing About Long Campaigns
Moderator: MOD_SPWaW
RE: Here's the Thing About Long Campaigns
Looks real ugly for your boys there gunny,probably should have folded the less active zones forces to the HQ and brought the tanks up in small sweeping "c"s threw your weak trenches first, can't really say till I see the end result on this fight???[X(] And wheres your mines gunny? I'd have used them for sure with them having such a long visablity and u such a thin line. I noticed on the mini map that the dogleg u mentioned near the centre should have concaved into your line rather than buldging around that big hill into his. What casualties % do you give each squad before receeding them into the rear?? because the enemy should never be permitted to clear ALL your line before you have layn smoke and pulled back, a 1/2 a squad covering the HQ's withdrawl is better than the HQ running off uncovered.
RE: Here's the Thing About Long Campaigns
I dont really have a favorite unit. I steadily upgrade everything as noticably better equipment comes avaialble.
With my 3 Panzer Companies I aim for eventual upgrade to one Heavy Panzer ( Tigers and Mk IV's) Company and 2 Panther Companies. Depending on what I build the force as I generally have a support Tank company or Stug Bn if I can afford the cost and the units.
Generally, mission requiring and support points available , I get as aux a third SS Company. I do love artillery and try to get as much as I can after the actual needs of the line are met.
Generally I keep one SS company and one Panzer Company as reserve in the middle, depending on map sizes and mission requirements. I try hard to locate the enemy with my Panzer Grenadiers before allowing the tanks to move forward. At some point as the battle develops I generally release the Panzers to over run the rear areas Makeing sure at least a platoon of Panzer Grenadiers or armored Engineers is available on each advance route.
When I release to soon is when I discover the hard way that the enemy has anti tank guns and Artillery set up to ruin my day. Except in the most brutal assaults the Tanks seldom blunder into Infantry unsupressed or undetected.
Scouts and PanzerGrenadiers lead not tanks. The Tanks come up as needed. But the Tanks are the main killing force in my Regiment.
With my 3 Panzer Companies I aim for eventual upgrade to one Heavy Panzer ( Tigers and Mk IV's) Company and 2 Panther Companies. Depending on what I build the force as I generally have a support Tank company or Stug Bn if I can afford the cost and the units.
Generally, mission requiring and support points available , I get as aux a third SS Company. I do love artillery and try to get as much as I can after the actual needs of the line are met.
Generally I keep one SS company and one Panzer Company as reserve in the middle, depending on map sizes and mission requirements. I try hard to locate the enemy with my Panzer Grenadiers before allowing the tanks to move forward. At some point as the battle develops I generally release the Panzers to over run the rear areas Makeing sure at least a platoon of Panzer Grenadiers or armored Engineers is available on each advance route.
When I release to soon is when I discover the hard way that the enemy has anti tank guns and Artillery set up to ruin my day. Except in the most brutal assaults the Tanks seldom blunder into Infantry unsupressed or undetected.
Scouts and PanzerGrenadiers lead not tanks. The Tanks come up as needed. But the Tanks are the main killing force in my Regiment.
Favoritism is alive and well here.
RE: Here's the Thing About Long Campaigns
Hey twotribes your force composition sounds allot like herr Wittmans battalion,fast hardhitting and versitile at a moments notice.
RE: Here's the Thing About Long Campaigns
It ended on turn 18, when the Japanese suddenly broke off the attack. I ended up with only the complete loss of one MG crew, and not a single victory hex was captured by the enemy. I can't pick just one heroic unit -- the entire battalion performed like heroes.
Here's the scoreboard:
Here's the scoreboard:
- Attachments
-
- UO0001.jpg (47.83 KiB) Viewed 126 times
RE: Here's the Thing About Long Campaigns
well since u did a defend with a picket line and no mines I gotta shake your hand for holden them for 18 turns, but I have to ask? did they breach the line anywhere? and if they did what kind of unit was it?and how close to the back VH's were they?.When I did my marine long campaign I got stuck with a wricketty deploy line too and the only thing that saved the proverbial bacon was that I pull back all my main gun damaged units and abandoned crews to the secondary VH's to regroup and consolidate. had a few times where my retreating crews or partial squads riding back on damaged AFV's caught infiltrating recon teams making for the rear VH's
RE: Here's the Thing About Long Campaigns
Riun, the Japanese never achieved any breakthroughs, but they did force many squads out of their entrenchments. I don't usually deploy so close to the forward VHs, but this is where the best defensible terrain was. The thing that saved me was using my tanks and SPMs as mobile reserves to plug gaps, plus my mortars. I used the armor and arty as shields to protect my depleted squads.
Even though the company 60mm mortars sometimes run out of ammo, I always make sure to buy ammo trucks to keep the 81s supplied. I had five ammo trucks altogether, and moved them around as needed.
When the Marines get pressured, they will retreat, but I seldom do it voluntarily. The rifle squads maintain cohesion even when down to 3 or 4 men. Stacking tanks with these remnant squads kept both intact. That's the trick -- close tank-infantry co-ordination.
When I looked at the after-action map, I was amazed. I was still outnumbered by at least 4-1, so if they had pressed on, no doubt I would've had to withdraw the entire line. The only thing I can figure is that maybe I got lucky and took out the Japanese Btln HQ unit -- I couldn't find it on the map.
Even though the line was thin, every hex on the front line was under observation, which prevented any infiltration -- this kept the rear area VHs safe. As I said, the forward VHs were covered by overwatch. The right flank forward VHs were protected by fire from a section of engineers and 1st Platoon Able Co -- both did excellent work.
BTW -- the 1/5 had a starting avg exp of 64. After the battle, it increased to 67.
Even though the company 60mm mortars sometimes run out of ammo, I always make sure to buy ammo trucks to keep the 81s supplied. I had five ammo trucks altogether, and moved them around as needed.
When the Marines get pressured, they will retreat, but I seldom do it voluntarily. The rifle squads maintain cohesion even when down to 3 or 4 men. Stacking tanks with these remnant squads kept both intact. That's the trick -- close tank-infantry co-ordination.
When I looked at the after-action map, I was amazed. I was still outnumbered by at least 4-1, so if they had pressed on, no doubt I would've had to withdraw the entire line. The only thing I can figure is that maybe I got lucky and took out the Japanese Btln HQ unit -- I couldn't find it on the map.
Even though the line was thin, every hex on the front line was under observation, which prevented any infiltration -- this kept the rear area VHs safe. As I said, the forward VHs were covered by overwatch. The right flank forward VHs were protected by fire from a section of engineers and 1st Platoon Able Co -- both did excellent work.
BTW -- the 1/5 had a starting avg exp of 64. After the battle, it increased to 67.
RE: Here's the Thing About Long Campaigns
I realize that this should be in the AAR area, but my point is to empthasize how tough a long campaign with a historically-constructed core can be.
In my second battle, the 1/5 is advancing against a delaying Japanese force. The terrain is thick jungle, and I only find them by blundering into them. I've taken heavy losses, and once again rely on my arty, mortars and tanks to establish some sort of fire superiority. My infantry is getting shredded, and several squads have been destroyed.
This is now a narrow map, and there's no room for maneuver or subtlety. I have managed to force a couple of gaps in their forward defense line, so I'm forming my survivors into concentrated bludgeons to try to reach the rear VHs.
I have platoon and company HQs in the middle of the fight -- every available rifleman is being brought forward. I have yet to lose a tank -- I keep them covered with infantry. Once again, it becomes a test of endurance.
In my second battle, the 1/5 is advancing against a delaying Japanese force. The terrain is thick jungle, and I only find them by blundering into them. I've taken heavy losses, and once again rely on my arty, mortars and tanks to establish some sort of fire superiority. My infantry is getting shredded, and several squads have been destroyed.
This is now a narrow map, and there's no room for maneuver or subtlety. I have managed to force a couple of gaps in their forward defense line, so I'm forming my survivors into concentrated bludgeons to try to reach the rear VHs.
I have platoon and company HQs in the middle of the fight -- every available rifleman is being brought forward. I have yet to lose a tank -- I keep them covered with infantry. Once again, it becomes a test of endurance.
RE: Here's the Thing About Long Campaigns
Example: in the center, I'm pushing a platoon into a gap. This is where my HQ is located. The enemy is gravitating into centers of resistance. IF I can isolate them and reduce them with concentrated fire, I may still have a chance for a decisive victory.
- Attachments
-
- UO0003.jpg (193.25 KiB) Viewed 126 times
RE: Here's the Thing About Long Campaigns
I'm lucky because I've saved every battle on the end screen and will look up some of my results and do the screen shots for the advances so we can point out some of the differances/simularities,and I'd like to compare what the AI generated for their formations with the corrisponding timeframe for battles.
should be interesting considering the AI does its purchase after you've got yours and makes"comparable?" to your force purchases or if we can find its system? between 8.4 that I'm playin and which VER. is the marine scramble your on??
REALLY kinda cheesed at the way the germans right now in my russian camp. are buyin way too much offboard 105 support batteries, its hard to keep your force fleet of foot when ever I move I'm runnin into groups of infantry with what seems like every galldang recon patrol having direct call to the FO or something because I just give them a glimps of any single unit,and they miraculously get hits in the whole platoons area of opps regardless of not seeing what my dispersion is??
should be interesting considering the AI does its purchase after you've got yours and makes"comparable?" to your force purchases or if we can find its system? between 8.4 that I'm playin and which VER. is the marine scramble your on??
REALLY kinda cheesed at the way the germans right now in my russian camp. are buyin way too much offboard 105 support batteries, its hard to keep your force fleet of foot when ever I move I'm runnin into groups of infantry with what seems like every galldang recon patrol having direct call to the FO or something because I just give them a glimps of any single unit,and they miraculously get hits in the whole platoons area of opps regardless of not seeing what my dispersion is??
RE: Here's the Thing About Long Campaigns
Riun, if the poor dumb AI has no other advantage, it DOES have an uncanny ability for arty employment. Mike has said that he's proud of this, and he well should be. It's the only real advantage it has, and it is rightfully maddening.
If you are defending, you're screwed, but if you are advancing fast enough (tough in the jungle), the rounds will often land upon the hex you just vacated. Mike is just forcing upon the human player the value of dispersion and movement.
If you are defending, you're screwed, but if you are advancing fast enough (tough in the jungle), the rounds will often land upon the hex you just vacated. Mike is just forcing upon the human player the value of dispersion and movement.
RE: Here's the Thing About Long Campaigns
double post --sorry
- Attachments
-
- UO0003.jpg (193.25 KiB) Viewed 132 times
RE: Here's the Thing About Long Campaigns
Evidently I play long campaigns very differently from most people.
The AI is so inept that I have to handicap myself severely.
I started a thread 5-6 weeks ago called 'German Long Campaign Extreme Challenge'. Since that is how I play a long campaign, it is impossible for me to compare how I play with how Erwin and Riun T play their campaigns.
The AI is so inept that I have to handicap myself severely.
I started a thread 5-6 weeks ago called 'German Long Campaign Extreme Challenge'. Since that is how I play a long campaign, it is impossible for me to compare how I play with how Erwin and Riun T play their campaigns.
RE: Here's the Thing About Long Campaigns
One more thing about playing in the Pacific -- long ago, I played through an entire 1942-45 USMC campaign, and as the character of the war changed from jungle battles to amphibious assaults on barren coral atolls and later to the varied terrain of the Marianas, Palaus, Iwo Jima and Okinawa, the defenders stopped stacking their troops on the beachheads and switched to a defense-in-depth.
This is portayed by the AI mix in the OOBs. I don't think Alby's team messed too much with the Japanese AI mix, and that's a good thing.
Some OOB history for a moment -- I have to credit Bryan Melvin with much of what my favorite AI opponents became, as he developed the fortification mix that has since caused me so much grief in the latter stages of the war. At my prodding, he kept tweaking it until we got a pretty good mix.
AFAIK, that mix has stayed with us from 8.2 to today. It is solid, and maddening to assault.
With the changes in the Enhanced mech.exe, that effect is even more pronounced.
Yes, I can still get decisive victories most of the time, as is historically accurate, but those victories are very costly.
I may be reaching here, but I fully believe that if one wants to play a long campaign in a historical manner, with realistic challenges and desperate fighting, then any Pacific War campaign should give you that.
I lobbied for this theater for a long time, as I felt it was underappreciated and underplayed.
It still isn't the most popular, but I'm proud that I kept badgering my co-gamers with a single-minded stubborness until we, collectively, got a pretty good resemblance of it.
I know many of you got tired of my continuous rants, demands and changes (Alby, Flashfyre, Mike Wood AND Bryan Melvin), but I offer my sincere thanks to all of you.
You put up with me and gave me everything I wanted.
[&o][&o][&o][&o][&o] and a big
PS I can't leave out Goblin, who produced a classic island battlefield for the showdown between me and Afrika Korps. That was really something. Too bad our DAR can no longer be found.
This is portayed by the AI mix in the OOBs. I don't think Alby's team messed too much with the Japanese AI mix, and that's a good thing.
Some OOB history for a moment -- I have to credit Bryan Melvin with much of what my favorite AI opponents became, as he developed the fortification mix that has since caused me so much grief in the latter stages of the war. At my prodding, he kept tweaking it until we got a pretty good mix.
AFAIK, that mix has stayed with us from 8.2 to today. It is solid, and maddening to assault.
With the changes in the Enhanced mech.exe, that effect is even more pronounced.
Yes, I can still get decisive victories most of the time, as is historically accurate, but those victories are very costly.
I may be reaching here, but I fully believe that if one wants to play a long campaign in a historical manner, with realistic challenges and desperate fighting, then any Pacific War campaign should give you that.
I lobbied for this theater for a long time, as I felt it was underappreciated and underplayed.
It still isn't the most popular, but I'm proud that I kept badgering my co-gamers with a single-minded stubborness until we, collectively, got a pretty good resemblance of it.
I know many of you got tired of my continuous rants, demands and changes (Alby, Flashfyre, Mike Wood AND Bryan Melvin), but I offer my sincere thanks to all of you.
You put up with me and gave me everything I wanted.
[&o][&o][&o][&o][&o] and a big
PS I can't leave out Goblin, who produced a classic island battlefield for the showdown between me and Afrika Korps. That was really something. Too bad our DAR can no longer be found.
RE: Here's the Thing About Long Campaigns
ORIGINAL: Twotribes
I dont really have a favorite unit. I steadily upgrade everything as noticably better equipment comes avaialble.
With my 3 Panzer Companies I aim for eventual upgrade to one Heavy Panzer ( Tigers and Mk IV's) Company and 2 Panther Companies. Depending on what I build the force as I generally have a support Tank company or Stug Bn if I can afford the cost and the units.
Generally, mission requiring and support points available , I get as aux a third SS Company. I do love artillery and try to get as much as I can after the actual needs of the line are met.
Generally I keep one SS company and one Panzer Company as reserve in the middle, depending on map sizes and mission requirements. I try hard to locate the enemy with my Panzer Grenadiers before allowing the tanks to move forward. At some point as the battle develops I generally release the Panzers to over run the rear areas Makeing sure at least a platoon of Panzer Grenadiers or armored Engineers is available on each advance route.
When I release to soon is when I discover the hard way that the enemy has anti tank guns and Artillery set up to ruin my day. Except in the most brutal assaults the Tanks seldom blunder into Infantry unsupressed or undetected.
Scouts and PanzerGrenadiers lead not tanks. The Tanks come up as needed. But the Tanks are the main killing force in my Regiment.
Twotribes,
Have you taken a look at the way I set up and implement a German Long Campaign?
-
Titanwarrior89
- Posts: 3282
- Joined: Thu Aug 28, 2003 4:07 pm
- Location: arkansas
- Contact:
RE: Here's the Thing About Long Campaigns
Nice battle. Enjoying the read on it.[:)]
note: One question guys. Why do the battle results to the right of the Men Line- battle/total- Why are they always the same? Don't understand why it seems to never change.[:(]
note: One question guys. Why do the battle results to the right of the Men Line- battle/total- Why are they always the same? Don't understand why it seems to never change.[:(]
"Before Guadalcanal the enemy advanced at his pleasure. After Guadalcanal, he retreated at ours".
"Mama, There's Rabbits in the Garden"
"Mama, There's Rabbits in the Garden"
RE: Here's the Thing About Long Campaigns
Hey guys, this is sort of a reply to vahauser and Gunny on my interpretations of a historical or challanging long campaign.
I did read your post weeks ago and don't think I would enjoy tieing my hands with the way your settings and dispersion rules and most of all only sole sellection on original country's and no allies to that nations purchase limits. I like the paratroops and special ops infiltrators or conquered territorys conscripts and believe that history has shown in so many instances that groups of partisans on either side Like the Morrow tribesmen as scouts for the marines or the German repatriated cossacks riding cover for mechinized german scouting units, have proven their worth as assisting to my cores abbilitys and versitility. No one can argue that amung the french units that fought along side of the B.E.F. in 1940 that french 75mm batteries were the most efficient in their deploy eventhou french armour and infantry were lacking BUT THEY STILL USED THEM,, and some have argued the usefulness of the romanian and hungarian forces that fought under german rule and seem to if I recall correctly had made a beutiful showing of their use in defending stalingrad. and your deploying inline with the last group of VH's,is that just for advances on the first battle or does that startline rule before my forces get to move apply to all the fights?? Get back to me on your reasons for this??
I did read your post weeks ago and don't think I would enjoy tieing my hands with the way your settings and dispersion rules and most of all only sole sellection on original country's and no allies to that nations purchase limits. I like the paratroops and special ops infiltrators or conquered territorys conscripts and believe that history has shown in so many instances that groups of partisans on either side Like the Morrow tribesmen as scouts for the marines or the German repatriated cossacks riding cover for mechinized german scouting units, have proven their worth as assisting to my cores abbilitys and versitility. No one can argue that amung the french units that fought along side of the B.E.F. in 1940 that french 75mm batteries were the most efficient in their deploy eventhou french armour and infantry were lacking BUT THEY STILL USED THEM,, and some have argued the usefulness of the romanian and hungarian forces that fought under german rule and seem to if I recall correctly had made a beutiful showing of their use in defending stalingrad. and your deploying inline with the last group of VH's,is that just for advances on the first battle or does that startline rule before my forces get to move apply to all the fights?? Get back to me on your reasons for this??
RE: Here's the Thing About Long Campaigns
Riun, Vahauser and I only differ in that he knows that the Germans are popular, BUT everyone wants to load up on tanks and stack the deck in their favor from the start. He established these restrictions for several reasons, but he can explain his reasoning.
As for me, I simply restrict my purchases to a fairly realistic equivalent of a Battalion Landing Team circa 1942, with a few ahistoric alterations to simplify the upgrade path.
The USMC (using Enhanced 8.403) has some 4300 purchase points in August 1942. There's no way I can use all of them. The core force that I buy (with true troop cost ON) costs me approx 2350.
In reality, a given historical BLT would probably only have the support of a single tank platoon. I give them three platoons, with engineer/recon attachments to each rifle company. In effect, the battalion is divided into three maneuver elements, each capable of operating independently.
The ratio of 1:3 for tanks/infantry is really the only restriction that I would insist upon for a long campaign, regardless of theater/nation. A BIG difference is whether or not you decide to make your infantry element mechanized -- the formation/unit limit could restrict you.
My Marines don't have that problem -- the infantry are strictly foot-sloggers. What truly sets them apart from anyone else is the amount of firepower those rifle platoons can bring to bear, especially with support from the assault sections. From mid-1943 onward, each rifle platoon can have dedicated support from bazookas, flamethrowers and demolitions, plus the tanks and flame-tanks. THIS is why I love them -- their ability to inflict destruction is simply unmatched.
"When a target has to be absolutely, positively destroyed overnight -- call the US Marine Corps." [:D]
As for me, I simply restrict my purchases to a fairly realistic equivalent of a Battalion Landing Team circa 1942, with a few ahistoric alterations to simplify the upgrade path.
The USMC (using Enhanced 8.403) has some 4300 purchase points in August 1942. There's no way I can use all of them. The core force that I buy (with true troop cost ON) costs me approx 2350.
In reality, a given historical BLT would probably only have the support of a single tank platoon. I give them three platoons, with engineer/recon attachments to each rifle company. In effect, the battalion is divided into three maneuver elements, each capable of operating independently.
The ratio of 1:3 for tanks/infantry is really the only restriction that I would insist upon for a long campaign, regardless of theater/nation. A BIG difference is whether or not you decide to make your infantry element mechanized -- the formation/unit limit could restrict you.
My Marines don't have that problem -- the infantry are strictly foot-sloggers. What truly sets them apart from anyone else is the amount of firepower those rifle platoons can bring to bear, especially with support from the assault sections. From mid-1943 onward, each rifle platoon can have dedicated support from bazookas, flamethrowers and demolitions, plus the tanks and flame-tanks. THIS is why I love them -- their ability to inflict destruction is simply unmatched.
"When a target has to be absolutely, positively destroyed overnight -- call the US Marine Corps." [:D]
RE: Here's the Thing About Long Campaigns
Riun T,
I think you are asking me why I set up a WWII Long Campaign the way I do.
First and foremost, the computer AI does not know how to use tactics and combined arms. In other words, veteran/expert SPWAW players realize that the computer AI is stupid and predictable and easy to beat. Also, the computer AI does not know how to attack except using massed stupid suicide charges. This means that the computer AI cannot reasonably approximate the skill and tactical finesse of the Germans. This means that choosing an historical enemy of the Germans will result in a silly and ridiculous campaign because the computer AI cannot play the Germans with any skill at all. So, what nations CAN the computer AI play and still make a campaign not completely ridiculous? The Japanese and the Soviets and the early-war French and the early-war British all attacked historically with the same stupid massed suicide charges that the computer AI is capable of performing.
So, you want to choose a nation that fights against the Japanese or the Soviets or the early-war French or the early-war British. That means you have only two reasonable choices: you must play either the USMC or the Germans. The primary reason I choose the Germans instead of the USMC is because with the Germans I get to fight in a variety of combat situations that are impossible for USMC vs. Japan. By this I mean that I get to fight in the desert, and in the winter, and in cities, etc. when playing the Germans that I do not get to fight when playing the USMC.
Another reason I choose the Germans instead of the USMC is because as the campaign drags on, the enemies of the Germans get stronger and stronger (better artillery and airpower mainly). But choosing the USMC means that the USMC gets stronger the longer the campaign lasts. I want the campaign to get harder and not easier over time. So choosing the USMC is too easy.
So, if you want a campaign that gets harder over time and if you want a campaign where the computer AI can almost approximate the kinds of attacks used by the enemies of the nation you are playing (massed suicide charges), then the only reasonable choice for a veteran/expert human player is the Germans.
I hope I answered your question. If you have more questions, I’ll do my best to answer them.
I think you are asking me why I set up a WWII Long Campaign the way I do.
First and foremost, the computer AI does not know how to use tactics and combined arms. In other words, veteran/expert SPWAW players realize that the computer AI is stupid and predictable and easy to beat. Also, the computer AI does not know how to attack except using massed stupid suicide charges. This means that the computer AI cannot reasonably approximate the skill and tactical finesse of the Germans. This means that choosing an historical enemy of the Germans will result in a silly and ridiculous campaign because the computer AI cannot play the Germans with any skill at all. So, what nations CAN the computer AI play and still make a campaign not completely ridiculous? The Japanese and the Soviets and the early-war French and the early-war British all attacked historically with the same stupid massed suicide charges that the computer AI is capable of performing.
So, you want to choose a nation that fights against the Japanese or the Soviets or the early-war French or the early-war British. That means you have only two reasonable choices: you must play either the USMC or the Germans. The primary reason I choose the Germans instead of the USMC is because with the Germans I get to fight in a variety of combat situations that are impossible for USMC vs. Japan. By this I mean that I get to fight in the desert, and in the winter, and in cities, etc. when playing the Germans that I do not get to fight when playing the USMC.
Another reason I choose the Germans instead of the USMC is because as the campaign drags on, the enemies of the Germans get stronger and stronger (better artillery and airpower mainly). But choosing the USMC means that the USMC gets stronger the longer the campaign lasts. I want the campaign to get harder and not easier over time. So choosing the USMC is too easy.
So, if you want a campaign that gets harder over time and if you want a campaign where the computer AI can almost approximate the kinds of attacks used by the enemies of the nation you are playing (massed suicide charges), then the only reasonable choice for a veteran/expert human player is the Germans.
I hope I answered your question. If you have more questions, I’ll do my best to answer them.
RE: Here's the Thing About Long Campaigns
It's pointless to debate the merits of one campaign over another, but not everyone is a veteran/expert. Heck, I'M a veteran, but I wouldn't be so pretentious as to declare myself an expert player.
For my purposes, the game is an adjunct to my historical studies, rather than an end unto itself.
To vahauser -- yes, the USMC gets stronger, but the character of the war changed. Also, to be perfectly honest, I LIKE winning. [;)]
The Germans ARE a definite challenge, so it could be argued that they are indeed the ultimate choice for a long campaign. The battle is the thing, but you will still lose the war, regardless of the number of decisive victories you can achieve.
It all depends on how you want to utilize the game -- some feel that playing against the AI is just a way to sharpen one's skills before embarking on PBEM games.
I think it should be an educational tool -- to play out the situations and compare your experiences to the real-life history.
No one method is better than any other -- we make of it what we put into it. That is why the game is so great.
For my purposes, the game is an adjunct to my historical studies, rather than an end unto itself.
To vahauser -- yes, the USMC gets stronger, but the character of the war changed. Also, to be perfectly honest, I LIKE winning. [;)]
The Germans ARE a definite challenge, so it could be argued that they are indeed the ultimate choice for a long campaign. The battle is the thing, but you will still lose the war, regardless of the number of decisive victories you can achieve.
It all depends on how you want to utilize the game -- some feel that playing against the AI is just a way to sharpen one's skills before embarking on PBEM games.
I think it should be an educational tool -- to play out the situations and compare your experiences to the real-life history.
No one method is better than any other -- we make of it what we put into it. That is why the game is so great.
RE: Here's the Thing About Long Campaigns
I just have to say that my playing of this game does involve alot of scabbing together what I see as fitting the bill for what tactics I'm going to enploy for each individual battle, and as gunny said eventhou my sector of the divisions front line may end up only fighting to DV's the overall war can be lossed for your Battalion sized core in just a couple of battles,ANd you can't tell me with the AI getting unpurchaseable by me special units to augment or upgrade and extra offboard Arrty that the AI is that feeble,{ in the last three battles of my russian long camp. on version 8.4 the germans had no less than 3 sections of elephants, nashhorns, and jagdpanzer/70's with engineers in halftracks riding in amungst the tanks which were loaded with "SS"and heavy MG's,and panzerschrecks } IF THAT ISN"T THE AI's way of changing its deploy and advance tactics from the massed charges you seem to think its only capable of I wanna see what is the AI does a beutiful blitzcreig as the germans and late in the war they had the best really powerful toys so hows my hodgepodge gradgesale collection keep beating them ?? THEY moved against me in unison and I just had to trust that I had kept enough of the vetrans experience,and battlehardness dispersed across the forground of enemy units that I observed weren't as well situated or prepared for the verocity or direction that I presented to them. The AI makes comparable purchases to your core force and your upgrades affect the AI's upgrades as well, I'll post my core for the last three battles and then the enemy force screen at the end from each and you'll see that it made pretty good buying and stacking of its strike platforms
I think the AI only lacks some patiants and can't flank very well but usually puts up a marvelously entertaining scrum and thats what we really do this for isn't it??[:D]
I think the AI only lacks some patiants and can't flank very well but usually puts up a marvelously entertaining scrum and thats what we really do this for isn't it??[:D]