Defend at all cost is dangerous as it can cause panic. Once panicking the new ruled could kick and cause the unit to break.
Best Vic
I have seen a couple more cases of larger AI units going into complete collapse and surrendering/disappearing in mass in a single turn. I think it is primarily battlegroups and being AI, I can only assume they were using regular defense. I am not sure if those type results are what you are trying to achieve. I am going to start watching closer.
If possible can you send me a savegame where I can repeat collapsing a large units as you reported?
Also I have been wondering if we can expect pzfausts for the German army? They were very common in 44 and did provide an effective anti-tank weapon at the squad level in certain circumstances. Their existence also served as an additional deterrent against allied tanks closing the range too aggressively against german infantry.
Their presence, like that of MG and small arms, is modeled in the different infantry squad types. If you look well at the illustrations you'll see some guys are actually carrying panzerfausts.
best wishes, Vic
_____________________________
Visit www.vrdesigns.net for the latest news, polls, screenshots and blogs on Shadow Empire, Decisive Campaigns and Advanced Tactics
If possible can you send me a savegame where I can repeat collapsing a large units as you reported?
This weekend I will see if I can get a savegame. One problem is that I typically hit a position with artillery before attacking. Usually the readiness and often morale will be low before the attack. Repeating that sequence is problematic unless I note each artillery attack prior to the assault. And not every assault produces a collapse. But let me see what I can do.
Their presence, like that of MG and small arms, is modeled in the different infantry squad types. If you look well at the illustrations you'll see some guys are actually carrying panzerfausts.
I was looking at the hard attack values of German infantry. German and US infantry have basically the same hard attack values but US infantry lacks the panzerfaust. In 43, I was reading about the wariness of allied armor in Italy when the panzerfaust first appeared. It was a significant squad level antitank capability in 43 despite its 30 meter range at the time. Of course considering its short range even in 44, it was only really effective in close range terrain such as towns and forests or in overrun or low visibility situations. The majority of the time, it was no more than a deterrent and morale booster. But when it was needed, it was a powerful anti-tank weapon which doesn't seem reflected in German infantry hard attack values.
Changelist for v1.00.08 -Improved logging in detailed combat window if an individual is firing on unseen positions -Added some library/masterfile functionality for Davide to include in next scenario versions. -FOW shading is now applied if hex hide >= hex effective recon instead of the old if 1 > effective recon -If a unit has 6 or more different movement types some of them are grouped to not distort the user interface in the right side bar. -Reworked the unit and hex right sidebar to be completely compatible with screen resolutions between 768 height and 800 height. -The Integrity score in the bottom part of the UI gives a very comprehensive mouse-over now. This mouse-over includes info on the TOE of the unit
.
It really shows TOE now :-)
_____________________________
There is no such thing as a historically accurate strategy game. Every game stops being historically accurate from the very first move player do. First unit that moves ahistorically, first battle with non-historical results, mean we ride in unknown.
Vic, I just sent you a turn showing a moderate sized unit capitulating.
Thanks! Everything is working as I intended. Battlegroups must have a weakness: They break when they panic.
Well, after the last patch the combat is more deadly for sure. But I've noticed that now weaker German units (i.e. not weakened by fighting, but the units you start with in e.g. Arracourt scenario with 30-40 Integrity at start - and those are regular armoured battalions and not battlegroups)are easily destroyed in the first combat against Allied units.
Vic, I have a PBEM game going on. Can we install the new beta patch over the 1.06 beta patch without causing PBEM problems?
Also I noticed we are not getting screenshots from the PBEM game. I set that selection some time ago and have been getting them automatically for all my AI games. Should we be getting them in PBEM as well?
And screenshots should (in theory) work in PBEM as well.
I don't think it is working with PBEM games unless I missed something during setup or they are being saved outside the screenshot folder. It would be nice if it did save because then you could actually take a look at the end turn situation between turns. Would be very helpful.
Hey Vic, have you ever wondered how well this Ardennes combat and officer command card system would work for Napoleonic or American Civil War tactical battles at the regiment/battalion level?
Seriously, I think a slightly tweaked system would produce a far better simulation of those massive tactical battles than anything that has appeared previously and also more enjoyable. The ebb and flow of those Nap/ACW battles are very similar to what we see in your Ardennes system. And I suspect the card system could reasonably model the problems of Nap/ACW command and control which has always been a big problem with modeling that timeframe. Anyway, I thought I would see if I could plant a seed.
Hey Vic, have you ever wondered how well this Ardennes combat and officer command card system would work for Napoleonic or American Civil War tactical battles at the regiment/battalion level?
Seriously, I think a slightly tweaked system would produce a far better simulation of those massive tactical battles than anything that has appeared previously and also more enjoyable. The ebb and flow of those Nap/ACW battles are very similar to what we see in your Ardennes system. And I suspect the card system could reasonably model the problems of Nap/ACW command and control which has always been a big problem with modeling that timeframe. Anyway, I thought I would see if I could plant a seed.
I heartily agree this idea might greatly move forward what we currently have regarding Nap/ACW battles. Right now, minus the cards, Grand Tactician The Civil War (1861-1865) on Steam is closest to that flavor (and highly recommended) for the battles. The campaigns in the game are highly complex to manage, at present, however.
Back on-topic, this might be something our modder Ernie might be interested in as well.
I heartily agree this idea might greatly move forward what we currently have regarding Nap/ACW battles. Right now, minus the cards, Grand Tactician The Civil War (1861-1865) on Steam is closest to that flavor (and highly recommended) for the battles. The campaigns in the game are highly complex to manage, at present, however.
I have been keeping my eye on Grand Tacitician but haven't bought it. I am seeing comments expressing some reservations on the AI but it is tempting and I bet if successful there will be an expansion into Napoleonics. Very different game though from the Ardennes system.
IMO, the Ardennes system would have little difficulty creating a solid Napoleonic or ACW game in terms of tactical mechanisms. There was an ebb and flow of tactical Nap/ACW operations that is very similar to what we see in the WW2 Ardennes modeling. The only missing tactical mechanism would be modeling the importance of skirmishing during the era. But then the real challenge would be modeling command and control to reflect the difficulty in coordinating + controlling divisions and corps with semi-independent leaders in an era lacking modern communications. Command, control and leadership were often a wild card during that timeframe and the quality + characteristics of division/corps leadership was very important. IMO, the HPS system was on the right general track in terms of scale and visual appeal but had significant problems in tactical modeling and tried to its best to simply ignore such a vitally important component as command and control. It seems like HPS started the job but never finished it. So for me, simply no cigar there. Anyway enough for now in off subject distractions and back to the Ardennes.
PS: Ernie might be interested in a Nap/ACW mod of the Ardennes system???
< Message edited by Jagger2002 -- 12/28/2021 4:53:47 PM >
I heartily agree this idea might greatly move forward what we currently have regarding Nap/ACW battles. Right now, minus the cards, Grand Tactician The Civil War (1861-1865) on Steam is closest to that flavor (and highly recommended) for the battles. The campaigns in the game are highly complex to manage, at present, however.
I have been keeping my eye on Grand Tacitician but haven't bought it. I am seeing comments expressing some reservations on the AI but it is tempting and I bet if successful there will be an expansion into Napoleonics. Very different game though from the Ardennes system.
IMO, the Ardennes system would have little difficulty creating a solid Napoleonic or ACW game in terms of tactical mechanisms. There was an ebb and flow of tactical Nap/ACW operations that is very similar to what we see in the WW2 Ardennes modeling. The only missing tactical mechanism would be modeling the importance of skirmishing during the era. But then the real challenge would be modeling command and control to reflect the difficulty in coordinating + controlling divisions and corps with semi-independent leaders in an era lacking modern communications. Command, control and leadership were often a wild card during that timeframe and the quality + characteristics of division/corps leadership was very important. IMO, the HPS system was on the right general track in terms of scale and visual appeal but had significant problems in tactical modeling and tried to its best to simply ignore such a vitally important component as command and control. It seems like HPS started the job but never finished it. So for me, simply no cigar there. Anyway enough for now in off subject distractions and back to the Ardennes.
PS: Ernie might be interested in a Nap/ACW mod of the Ardennes system???
I would love an updated version of Age of Rifles. I loved Norm's games in general in the 90s.
-Fuel bug with quite massive underconsumption is fixed.
Oh-oh... Could you explain a bit more this one ? Smells like big trouble for the panzer divisions now
There was a relatively big bug introduced with v1.00.04 which caused movement of units always to cost only 10AP worth of fuel. With this fix you are paying the fuel again you are due.
best wishes, Vic
_____________________________
Visit www.vrdesigns.net for the latest news, polls, screenshots and blogs on Shadow Empire, Decisive Campaigns and Advanced Tactics
Mostly quality assurance stuff patch. Both on the scenarios (Davide) and engine (Vic). Steam launch is very nearby (t-10) so please be vigilant and do report anything that even resembles a bug please!!
Best wishes, Vic
_____________________________
Visit www.vrdesigns.net for the latest news, polls, screenshots and blogs on Shadow Empire, Decisive Campaigns and Advanced Tactics
Can you double-check the dates (modification) of the VR Basic Library v.45? It still got the date (modified/created) of the one that was present in the patch before.
Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Decisive Campaigns: Ardennes Offensive >> Open Beta >> RE: Open Beta v1.00.06 (9 dec) 
RE: Open Beta v1.00.06 (9 dec) - 
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread