Slitherine

@ bru: Just go for 30 supply. Thats 15 small arty and 10 big ones. If you factor in transport, which the medium and heavy definitely need, go for 24 supply. Thats six heavies and 12 small arty.
After all, this is not so precise when adding random damage. Lets see how this plays out.

thanks bru for showing that
I reassigned space bar but I can still get the supply information by clicking on the command points bar

Andy2012 wrote:@ bru: Just go for 30 supply. Thats 15 small arty and 10 big ones. If you factor in transport, which the medium and heavy definitely need, go for 24 supply. Thats six heavies and 12 small arty.
After all, this is not so precise when adding random damage. Lets see how this plays out.

Now I am feeling challenged and energized. I will give it a shot (no pun intended) and see if I can finish it by Monday.

GiveWarAchance wrote:thanks bru for showing that
I reassigned space bar but I can still get the supply information by clicking on the command points bar

Yep, I forgot about that one! Thanks.

@gwac: Just in the editor, not the real campaign.
@bru: Are you going full Erik? That's dedication. (Just fooling around, love your work, Erik. Could never bring myself to throw so much time into OoB, not even betatesting.)

Andy2012 wrote:@gwac: Just in the editor, not the real campaign.
@bru: Are you going full Erik? That's dedication. (Just fooling around, love your work, Erik. Could never bring myself to throw so much time into OoB, not even betatesting.)

That's right. I am looking to come up with a couple of mini-scenarios that will compare the effectiveness of larger artillery to a pack of small, mobile guns. As far as being Erik, nobody can be Erik. Sometimes I look at what he does and I wonder if he himself is really Erik!

Took me several minutes to figure out what a 'gwac' is. I almost googled it cause it sounds like a duck squawk. If you want my name short, how about GiveWar, or if you are a peacemonger, GiveLove will also do (I really prefer war hehe).

GiveWarAchance wrote:Took me several minutes to figure out what a 'gwac' is. I almost googled it cause it sounds like a duck squawk. If you want my name short, how about GiveWar, or if you are a peacemonger, GiveLove will also do (I really prefer war hehe).

You got it, GiveWar!

https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/ ... sp=sharing

In this file are three scenarios to test the small, "move and fire" gun theory. You play as the Germans and the objective in each is to capture the five U.S. flags. If you do it in 15 turns, you win. If the U.S. captures your German flags, you lose. If time runs out and neither has captured all five flags, it's a draw.

The first scenario is Big Gun vs Big Gun. The sides are so evenly matched that this will almost certainly end in a draw.

The second scenario is Single German Small Gun. The Germans are at a disadvantage being on the attack (the alternative is to hang back and let the U.S. attack, but time will probably run out before you can take the U.S. flags). The reason why they are at a disadvantage is that the U.S. big gun can sit and not be disrupted by terrain whereas the German small gun, moving through terrain, is lowered in efficiency and therefore not as effective. Also, in limited visibility, the small gun's move and shoot capability was offset somewhat by concealment. You will probably not win this scenario either.

In the third scenario, however, the Germans have a chance to win because in this scenario, Double German Small Gun, the Germans have two small, mobile guns. That seems to turn the tide. I beat it in 12 turns. Bear in mind that the small gun costs less than half of the big gun. For the cost, I can imagine what it can do in packs.

Scenario notes: Five different terrain types are provided to see their effects. Recon planes are stationed for visibility; don't bother moving them. It's important to preserve some infantry strength due to artillery's diminishing effects as enemy units are decimated. There is some AI cheating here and there when it bombards where it should not be bombarding; don't you be tempted to do the same!

Final note: If you play any of these just for fun, play Double German Small Gun. You have a chance in that one if you play well, and I had fun playing it.

German & US Equal Big Guns:
Small German Gun:
Big German Gun:

I was thinking about resurrecting this thread anyway, and then boom! Or should I say, [rifle] crack!

Blitzkrieg Campaign, Belgium Scenario. Advancing west of St. Vith, and out of the woods emerge Belgian troops.
"Say, what troops are those, sergeant?"

"They are Chasseurs Ardennais, sir."

"Say again?"

"Chasseurs Ardennais. Elite Belgian infantry. Their motto is Résiste et Mords! Resist and bite."

"Bah. I've never heard of them. Sweep them aside."

"Yes sir. But you may well remember them after today."

I love my long-promised Armoured Train! (It finally shows up in Yugoslavia.) This thing packs a wallop and, it's a train! Choo-choo!
I just remembered, as Horst informed me in this thread, that I would encounter the Armoured Train in Blitzkrieg to match my avatar!
http://www.slitherine.com/forum/viewtop ... 64&t=77124

War trains are cool.

GiveWarAchance wrote:War trains are cool.

The Russians surprised me a bit by producing one of their own in the Smolensk scenario.

I've heard how nasty Russian war trains were and the Germans had some too historically that helped a lot. I heard Rudel bombed some trains in his Stuka.

bru888 which Blitz campaign are you playing Erik's or original OOB?

GiveWarAchance wrote:bru888 which Blitz campaign are you playing Erik's or original OOB?

Original OOB. Everything was going well until I got to Moscow. A bit like real life, I guess. Some cheating is now in order, because I want to finish Blitzkrieg finally.

I think you can finish Moscow without cheats by doing an attack & fade instead of trying to secure the whole city. I hope they make another campaign to continue on from that point.

Screenshot from Irrawady scenario, Burma Road DLC.

More detailed.

Wow, it took a bit of digging to find this thread! I dug it up to express my admiration for unit detail this time.

Recall the debate over the "unreliable" trait. Perhaps you will remember me arguing against it, then wavering, then falling off the fence unto the other side.

I was reading a magazine and came across the attached article about the IS-2 Heavy Tank. This is the germane portion: "By the fall of 1942 the Red Army regarded its 47-ton KV-1 (Kliment Voroshilov) heavy tank as much of a failure as the Soviet defense commissar for whom it was named. Aside from (or perhaps due to) its thicker armor, it was slower and less reliable than the 28-ton T-34 medium tank . . ." When I read that, I thought of this thread.

I don't present this as some sort of vindication of the designers; they obviously knew their stuff about this and I didn't, at first. I'm not bringing it up as a pat on the back for me, either, for finally going along with the "unreliable" trait after having resisted it because I did not know about the KV-1 before heavily investing in it (and paying the price) during Red Star. It was an unreliable tank IRL and it should be included as such in OOB because the player should be challenged to know his stuff in order to do well.

What I am doing is expressing admiration for including these historical details in OOB. Commanders beware, that's all.