Re: Need evaluators for a new campaign
Posted: Mon May 25, 2020 1:44 pm
Erik, ColonelY,
Hope you guys are making it through San Fratello and Brolo. That's a long one.
Erik, thanks for pointing out the exit hexes for German aircraft -- I left them out because I don't want them coming back and harassing the units after they got off the beach. Is there a better way for this? Certainly open to suggestions! The way it is now does look a little clunky.
BTW, when you upgraded your Heavy Infantry, supply took away your 50-cal on the half-tracks (M3A1s weren't available yet). They are useful in running down very weak retreating units.
I did not use Arid. Would it make a noticeable difference?
I am not using the specializations panel -- we only have a few kinds of units and I provide the specializations on schedule (although I fail in a couple of places, as you have pointed out).
ColonelY,
Thanks for the nod on presenting the combat flow as it generally occurred. There was no desperate fight at Palermo, as you know, and some garrisons were surrendering as soon as the 3d ID showed up. I have tried to stay generally true to the battle ebb and flow but I diverge in some cases. Regarding RCT routes -- the players have every right to pursue the objectives in their own manner, and are free to disregard them. BUT, 1) Following the route markers is the most likely way to win the scenario, and 2) they show (essentially) how the battles flowed. They are based on the historical battle maps and I designed the combat flow around the map routes (it's an easy way to design a scenario). In the course of this campaign, I found that it was difficult to substantially improve upon history's course, although I tried in a couple of places -- your call as to whether or not I was successful.
thanks again!
conboy
Hope you guys are making it through San Fratello and Brolo. That's a long one.
Erik, thanks for pointing out the exit hexes for German aircraft -- I left them out because I don't want them coming back and harassing the units after they got off the beach. Is there a better way for this? Certainly open to suggestions! The way it is now does look a little clunky.
BTW, when you upgraded your Heavy Infantry, supply took away your 50-cal on the half-tracks (M3A1s weren't available yet). They are useful in running down very weak retreating units.
I did not use Arid. Would it make a noticeable difference?
I am not using the specializations panel -- we only have a few kinds of units and I provide the specializations on schedule (although I fail in a couple of places, as you have pointed out).
ColonelY,
Thanks for the nod on presenting the combat flow as it generally occurred. There was no desperate fight at Palermo, as you know, and some garrisons were surrendering as soon as the 3d ID showed up. I have tried to stay generally true to the battle ebb and flow but I diverge in some cases. Regarding RCT routes -- the players have every right to pursue the objectives in their own manner, and are free to disregard them. BUT, 1) Following the route markers is the most likely way to win the scenario, and 2) they show (essentially) how the battles flowed. They are based on the historical battle maps and I designed the combat flow around the map routes (it's an easy way to design a scenario). In the course of this campaign, I found that it was difficult to substantially improve upon history's course, although I tried in a couple of places -- your call as to whether or not I was successful.
thanks again!
conboy