We sacrifice some realism for enjoyable game play. Infantry in a fortress should be invulnerable except to a long siege. I mean lets face the facts, 10 engineers cant really build a tank factory in one month. I realize that the changes everyone would like to see, would give a more realistic appearance to force composition, but are you all realy willing to sacrifice the fluid mobility we enjoy now, for a slow, more stabilized reality. Right now the game is very fun, very fluid and the offensive. True, the cavlary is more powerful than in reality, but so are the tanks. Its hard to justify tech when you can just roll over your enemy by building more cavalry and light tanks. Have not seen more than 2-3 total tech upgrades per game (mg, light tank II, heavy artillery usually - thats it). Good thing the mobility often lets you remove the cav from the front line after a successful attack. Even better with 3+ hex sides, which is very easily doable with the inherent great mobility. 25 deduction to the attack power, its one of the better options for that task. Its offensive punch against soft targets makes it too good to not use heavily.Ĭavalry charge against heavily entrenched infantry? No problem. Cavalry has better mobility than light tanks in many cases, especially when the weather turns. I will leave you to consider that statement as good or bad as you see fit.Ī third to a half of the per-turn production in the 4 games i am in is dedicated to Cavalry. Having played ATG since beta testing to the current version, i can safely say that the addition of cavalry has fundamentally changed the game. The units are fine the way they are, just make guerrillas available to everyone. Much of what happened on the eastern front has been largely ignored in the West.Ĭavalry continued to see extensive combat in the east until `1945, do some serious reading. How many of you have read about the Korsun Pocket, or the Vistula-Oder Offensive?
Western history writers write books that will be popular in the west and make money, so they talk about "our" heroes. The russians and the Finns made extensive use of Combat Cavalry formations. Most tank armies and mechanized armies were composed mostly of infantry with tanks adding punch.Īs infantry hand held, anti tank weapons became better and more plentiful, tank numbers decreased further.Īll of the "Old World" armies used massive amounts of horses. Most of it was tank on infantry and tank against prepared defenses. There was hardly any tank on tank fighting in WWII.
Read up on their campaigns and you will see that my recent use of guerrillas is approaching reality.ĭo some serious reading and you guys will find a few things perceived by popular history are distorted. Wingate's Chindits and Merrills Marauders were the cream of the army, that must be born in mind. Come up with something better than that please. In the book "Born to run", Christipher McDougall sites several US races where men (the ultimate marathon running machine on the planet) win against horses in 50 to 100 mile races. I'm assuming they are on foot and not horseback. Perhaps guerrilla movement needs toned down some. It would seem cavalry would be good guerrilla hunters because of their speed and recon abilities.
I can't really comment authoritatively on guerrilla units as I've not used them much or had to defend against them.
0 kommentar(er)
