Home
Creators
Search Recent Random
Posts
Search DMs Popular Hash Lookup Tags Random
Importer
Import FAQ
Register Favorites Keys Review DMs Logout
Community
Telegram ThePornDude
Home Creators Posts Import Register Favorites Logout

Company Challenge 1: US Rifle 44 Company (Patreon)

Published:
2025-05-02 14:20:53
Imported:
2026-06
Tags:

Videos

  • 460813316.mp4

Downloads

Content

Ok, time for something new! The idea with this new series is to run a load of different infantry companies through the same scenario and see how they do.

At the very least, I want to do three: the basic American, German and British companies from Battle for Normandy. It could be that that is where this ends because the scenario doesn't really tease the differences out in an interesting way, but if it's an effective format then it shouldn't be too difficult to swap the scenario into Red Thunder and Fortress Italy to cover the Russians and Italians, then there are Airborne companies, the weirdos like Volkssturm and Partisans that everyone always wants to see, then there are opportunities to do some time travel and see how the infantry in Cold War and Black Sea fare (not Shock Force, because the maps are non-compatible).

Should be interesting and, hopefully, a useful resource for new players or anyone trying to get to grips with a new nation.

I did, to the disappointment of I think everyone in the community chat, end up leaving the map background pure white. Black made some of the icon designations unreadable, something like an off-white might be best but I think it would look really weird given that both here and on Youtube the video is on a pure white background.

Files

Comments

Paul McElligott

It would be interesting, once you make the scenarios available, to make it possible for other people to submit their results so you can have a larger data sample.

Ben Kerry

Always want a statistic model for testing out the force design

Ben Kerry

And gain an appreciation of different “playstyles” of different forces. It’s a good way to demonstrate concepts

Ben Kerry

Yeah, or “player on player” as usual. I actually remember Fight Club or someone made an excel spreadsheet for combat results based on distance of engagement and experience level and this and that

UsuallyHaplessVideos

I'm not convinced how useful the statistics will be, but the "how it plays" aspect should be helpful

Ben Kerry

Should the cheaper formations like the Soviet be in “battalion strength”? I mean that’s practically their doctrine, no?

Ben Kerry

Also I would think another part of the spreadsheet should at least include "keywords" of the tactics employed, for this one it is "anti-tank launchers and rifle grenades employed against buildings" and "aggressive manoeuvre and flanking triggering enemy surrender", "pathfinding problems cause further casualties", "mortar less effective than expected", and "enemy defended in depth along urban areas". Also "small teams of 3-5 men are adequate for manoeuvre".

Ray L

When I was a kid learning about this stuff I remember reading a lot of criticism of U.S. Army WWII infantry TOE because it lacked a proper squad machine gun, the B.A.R. not really being one. There was little acknowledgement that a semi-auto M1 Garand for every soldier compensated for this.

Ben Kerry

OK, I’d actually argue Garand didn’t really pay off that much in this particular engagement, having actual belt-fed MGs are simply “better”.

Ray L

Very possibly so. I’ll bet that the very granular analysis data provided by Combat Mission Professional would actually shed light on which weapons caused how many casualties.

UsuallyHaplessVideos

I'm not actually sure CM Pro can do that. It does generate massive CSV files, but they're usually broken down by unit/team rather than individual weapon.