EET is......kinda neat

[Steelwhip]

Recently picked the game off Steam. Always been a fan of the Cold War gone hot.

Played through the tutorial a time or 2 to get a hang of things. Then started off with the Small scenarios. Did Blackhorse 3 times. Props for making a game that I actually want to replay the scenarios and props to making scenarios that I wanted to play more than once.

Got my ass handed to me all 3 times. Best I managed was a draw. Those damn Hinds. 20 tanks dead and 14 killed by the Hinds in my last game. Was getting a bit frustrated so moved onto EET. Did this one 5 times (a record for scenario replay on my part I think).

FINNALY managed to eek out a 48% victory. My forces were forced to withdraw. No tanks left alive. 4 scattered infantry steps and a couple of their APCs. 2 Avengers and 1 AH64. All arty and main HQ undamaged. But I did it. Took blowing pretty much every bridge there was to slow them down and some lucky artillery strikes. But I did it

Probably some of the most frustrating-albeit fun time I have had in a long time with a computer wargame. Look forward to playing more of them!

[davidoux]

this is my first scenarion too, and I also got my ass handed.
How can you have 20 tanks dead ? I have at most 10 M1, the rest are infantry, arty, AD, reco and cobras

I had the feeling I was winning, leading in the damaged unit score, then suddenly I was wiped out in almost 1 single turn. I still have to figure out how to play this game and that 's good

[Mad Russian]

If you play NATO anything you can do to slow the Warsaw Pact tempo down is a good thing. The longer the fight lasts the more damage your artillery can do. Or course the same holds true for Pact artillery as well.

For those of you old enough to remember Mohammed Ali, a world champion boxer, you will remember his famous strategy. Float like a butterfly and sting like a bee. Best advice there is for you when playing NATO forces.

Good Hunting.

MR

[davidoux]

If you play NATO anything you can do to slow the Warsaw Pact tempo down is a good thing. The longer the fight lasts the more damage your artillery can do. Or course the same holds true for Pact artillery as well.

is NATO artillery better than PAct ? I suppose yes to balance things up ...
I effectively get steamrolled as soon as Pact units (T80 usually) come too close, I also understand from a previous thread in this forum that

M1 were beasty long range against T80 but were beaten close range, is that correct ?

[Mad Russian]

NATO artillery is better than Warsaw Pact artillery in most categories. Tubes on target is not one of them. The Warsaw Pact had A LOT OF ARTILLERY!!

NATO tanks are better at long range, beyond 2000 meters, but when the range is 2000 meters or less they are roughly equal to Soviet armor.(Equivalent models)

Good Hunting.

MR

[davidoux]

tubes on target are mortars , right ?

[Mad Russian]

Tubes on target are anything artillery. From the largest cannon/howitzer to the smallest mortar.

Good Hunting.

MR

[davidoux]

sorry but then I don't understand what do you mean by :

NATO artillery is better than Warsaw Pact artillery in most categories. Tubes on target is not one of them

I am new to this game so sorry for asking that but : can you precisely explain me how NATO artillery is better than Pact ?

thanks

[Alchenar]

ORIGINAL: davidoux

sorry but then I don't understand what do you mean by :

NATO artillery is better than Warsaw Pact artillery in most categories. Tubes on target is not one of them

I am new to this game so sorry for asking that but : can you precisely explain me how NATO artillery is better than Pact ?

thanks

He means that PACT will in general have more guns.

[CapnDarwin]

By better, he is talking quicker to process a fire mission, quicker to drop old missions, better chance to detect enemy fire, and better fire control. Those kinds of things.

[Steelwhip]

ORIGINAL: Mad Russian

If you play NATO anything you can do to slow the Warsaw Pact tempo down is a good thing. The longer the fight lasts the more damage your artillery can do. Or course the same holds true for Pact artillery as well.

For those of you old enough to remember Mohammed Ali, a world champion boxer, you will remember his famous strategy. Float like a butterfly and sting like a bee. Best advice there is for you when playing NATO forces.

Good Hunting.

MR

those numbers were from the first scenario I tried a few times. Blackhorse

[chrisol]

Just finished EET... Managed a marginal success at 48% but that involved some pretty lucky artillery near the end and frankly reckless choppers. My tanks I thought I had moved badly initially but they managed a flanking manoeuvre disrupting the 2nd wave of Soviets before being nearly destroyed (though the remaining one pretty resolutely didn't do anything I told it to afterwards... can't blame them really !)

Tense from start to finish made more so by always being behind the Soviets in the OODA cycle but an excellent experience !

Not sure my nerves can take another scenario just yet.

Thanks
Chris

[Mad Russian]

ORIGINAL: Steelwhip

ORIGINAL: Mad Russian

If you play NATO anything you can do to slow the Warsaw Pact tempo down is a good thing. The longer the fight lasts the more damage your artillery can do. Or course the same holds true for Pact artillery as well.

For those of you old enough to remember Mohammed Ali, a world champion boxer, you will remember his famous strategy. Float like a butterfly and sting like a bee. Best advice there is for you when playing NATO forces.

Good Hunting.

MR

those numbers were from the first scenario I tried a few times. Blackhorse

Don't worry the AI will do that to you all the time. At least it does to me!

Good Hunting.

MR

[jday305]

I've had the game for a couple of weeks and only have had time to play the first game of the Hell on Wheels campaign twice with the same results: lots of Soviet casualties but they still break through my lines. The casualty ratio has been 4 to 1 but still I get overwelmed at the end. Never have I had a game that was so challenging but I love it. Thanks Matrix for my early Christmas gift to myself. [:D]

[ultradave]

For those new to this (or too young to have lived through it ), It's worth pointing out that it is probably difficult for the design team to come up with scenarios that are realistic and also a relatively even challenge. Having been an Army officer during this period, and working in real life at this level, it was pretty much assumed that the Soviets would in fact steamroll us and that our best outcome was to delay them as much as was possible with what we had. I think at the time the estimates were that West Germany would be overrun in two weeks or less, barring any use tactical nuclear weapons (and we all thought that was a losing proposition all around - not that anyone would care what we thought).

NATO artillery of the time would tend to be more precise, quicker to respond due to having FO's at platoon level and very good comms, and a higher percentage of tank killing ammo such as ICM and laser guided munitions. The Warsaw Pact made up for this quality advantage by having many times the artillery tubes that we had. We could expect to have been carpeted by artillery preparation, (making it less imperative for them to know exactly where we were )

I think the designers have come up with a bunch of really interesting scenarios. I think what needs to be kept in mind is that EVERY scenario here is probably quite a bit easier for the NATO player than real life would have been. (thank God we never had to find out - I prefer life).

Dave