ORIGINAL: dazkaz15
I managed to play a quick scenario over the weekend.
Thanks for the feedback Daz. But we need something more concrete regarding the following:
ORIGINAL: dazkaz15
This latest patch really does slow the game down again.
Progress is slowed to roughly the same pace as before the big patch with all the supply work.
It makes the game far more challenging than v4.6.270, and allows the AI more time to defend
.
Here we need a more concrete assessment of how the timing of outcomes have changed. Are we talking about a variation of "same outcome required 50% more time to happen" or "required several times more time to happen"?
ORIGINAL: dazkaz15
Routed recovering units do tend to hang around longer, when in close contact with the enemy.
There might be a bit of a problem there, but as my units in close contact with them were not taking damage I role played it as time taken to process prisoners, and send them to the rear.
When you say "close contact" what do you mean? Distances below 1 km but above 200 meters? Note that units retreat as an effect of enemy
action, not just mere
presence (i.e. they're aware of enemy units presence nearby). Having units actively engaged is a requirement for a unit to retreat, and "passive" tasks such as rest or defend, will make units much less likely to engage enemies (unless those enemies are deemed to be active i.e. advancing on one's position).
ORIGINAL: dazkaz15
What ever it was you did to slow the casualty rate, could even be used as a difficulty setting option in Command Ops 2.
The most important change was to be much more conservative when it comes to assess the accuracy of fires. We checked some sources - specifically the
WO 291/476 study conducted by the British Army in 1944-45 - and saw to our surprise, that the average rifleman hardly hit a target 50% of the time at a distance below 100 meters, automatic weapons being more "accurate" - as in achieving more hits per unit of time - due to having higher rates of fire. These studies were conducted on firing ranges, so they don't factor battle stress or fatigue.
Indeed, that was the British experience in World War 2, that with some provisions I reckon can be safely extrapolated to all other major combatants in World War 2. Armies with poorer standards when it came to training - such as the Red Army - should indeed feature poorer "average performance". We reckon this can be accounted for by setting Training and Experience levels to a suitable value.
When it comes to asses contemporary experiences - that is anything after WW2 - I would expect units to feature much higher training levels than was common in a time of mass drafting.
