Pegasus Bridge 1.11

The Pegasus Bridge scenario pack for Command Ops 2

  1. ioncore

    ioncore Member

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2015
    Messages:
    105
    Likes Received:
    16
    Hi Bie,
    One question I had about these lovely fortified positions you've created.
    What's your experience (both from developer's perspective and from playtest experience) about the model of fortifications in the game? Do they feel like a real tough nuts to crack, are there any special hints and tricks you've made with OoB and/or terrain? Any hints on assault equipment like FTs?
    I'm asking because I'd like to model some fortifications in future as well, and I was, like, thinking about stationary (0 kph speed) pillbox garrisons etc but wasn't sure if that would play well with CO2 mechanics.
     
  2. Bie

    Bie Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2017
    Messages:
    214
    Likes Received:
    39
    They certainly are something to keep in mind when planning your operation. An entrenched unit with heavy weapons can be a serious problem. On the other hand with enough artillery, heavy weapons on your own and infantry you can dislodge most garrisons without much trouble. So, it is crucial to outnumber the defenders when assaulting fortifications. In the case of Sword to Caen the forts (Wn's) are mostly there to delay troops. The Allies just have to much units at their disposal to be solely stopped by the forts.

    As for scenario development. If you really want the forts to be used by the AI you have to either make them static or you'll have to put an objective on it, so the AI would have to defend it. I've used a mix of both in Sword to Caen.

    As for garrisons, making them static is the way to go. I thought about experimenting and actually creating casemate forts as static "vehicles" in the estab. That way I could make casemate encased artillery guns and be more specific in how "armoured" the fort is. I've actually not tried it, but I might still take a look at this in the future.
     
  3. ioncore

    ioncore Member

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2015
    Messages:
    105
    Likes Received:
    16
    Cool, thanks, I also was thinking about making static vehicles (both to keep them in place and also make garrisons more difficult to kill/route). Given these "vehicles" would receive huge armor values (200-300mm or something) I thought about supplying assault engineers with HE charges and flamethrowers that would receive high penetration values at short range. That way attackers will be forced to approach and engage bunkers really close.
    Ok, hope we could disccuss it again in some time and with some new findings :)
     
    Bie likes this.
  4. Bie

    Bie Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2017
    Messages:
    214
    Likes Received:
    39
  5. Bie

    Bie Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2017
    Messages:
    214
    Likes Received:
    39
  6. ghibli

    ghibli Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2017
    Messages:
    27
    Likes Received:
    1
    I've always thought that close combat is not very well implemented, so assaulting heavily fortified places or buildings present some issues.
    For instance an attacking unit do not try to close the distance with the defending one, even if it's badly cohesion and 100% suppressed.
    This has to do probably with the fact that the firepower added by short range wpns is not very high.
    I was thinking that reducing accuracy of rifles and MMG and LMG at close distance, which would represent tge fact that these weapons are not suitable for close combat could help.

    Cheers mates,

    Ghibli
     
  7. jimcarravallah

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2014
    Messages:
    497
    Likes Received:
    33
    The issue you describe may have to do with the standard used to calculate firepower effects -- a 100-meter default grid measured from center to center of adjoining grid sections.

    Maximum fire effects calculations start at 100-meters for all direct fire weapons, and accuracy diminishes as the distance to target increases from that.





    .
     

Share This Page