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

Poll 75 Results, Poll 76 and This Week (Patreon)

Published:
2025-06-23 07:27:36
Imported:
2026-06
Tags:

Poll

Poll 75 Results, Poll 76 and This Week

  • WW2 Arty/CAS 10
  • WW2 Infantry Firepower 6
  • 2025-06-23
  • —2025-06-30
  • 16 votes
{'title': 'Poll 75 Results, Poll 76 and This Week', 'choices': [{'text': 'WW2 Arty/CAS', 'votes': 10}, {'text': 'WW2 Infantry Firepower', 'votes': 6}], 'closes_at': datetime.datetime(2025, 6, 30, 7, 0, tzinfo=datetime.timezone.utc), 'created_at': datetime.datetime(2025, 6, 23, 7, 18, 1, tzinfo=datetime.timezone.utc), 'description': None, 'allow_multiple': False, 'total_votes': 16}

Content

Well, another win for infantry firepower for this week's short. I wonder what happens when that poor Syrian FO team gets shot at by a GMG?

The main effort this week though is the Soviet run through the company challenge. The map conversion seems to have worked well, though again CMRT doesn't feature CMBN's tall bocage so I'm expecting more hedge-phasing.

I'll definitely have to think about how I'm going to approach the scenario though: is it cheating to use the mortars to skip the break-in? Or should the Soviets have to fight their way in like the US, Germans and UK? Are they even more crippled by their TOE than the Italians and need every bit of help they can get? Or does a whole platoon of SMG constitute a redeeming (though obviously insufficient) quantity of dakka?

Maybe more importantly: is it unreasonable to pretend I haven't 'solved' the scenario?

Whatever it is, fingers crossed I'll more spare time this week so I can dash off to give some of my other spinning plates some momentum.

Anyway, next week we're back to WW2 shorts: we messed up some halftracks last time for an Armour Penetration test, so we're back round to Arty/CAS effects and Infantry Firepower.

Comments

ReformedHoneyBadger

I'd say that, in terms of having "solved" the scenario, the way I would approach it if I were running the test is to deploy purely based on my terrain evaluation without any consideration of enemy forces. Act as if the briefing did not mention hostile strength estimates. Idk if that's the best way, just brainstorming.

UsuallyHaplessVideos

Yeah, the problem is it's really hard to unlearn things. Ironically, playing through as the Soviets I did get the one defensive layout I hadn't had before. Not that it helped the Germans much...

Eldar1944

I have also been thinking about this "solved" issue. I have a couple of thoughts. This is still a very valid test to run as you can attack in a number of different ways. If there was time maybe try to attack down multiple corridors as the Italians so you can see how the same attack plan works (or does not work for different armies. My next point would be how would you as the Germans defend against this? If you did not know this was the plan. You said that you did not really rate going down the middle as a good option (and it really does not look good, does it). Does this mean you overlooked it when making your AI plan as "no one would be silly enough to walk into a field like that!" That's fine when they dont but when they do there is not enough there to stop them. And can this be "fixed" with an AI tweak or is it beyond the scope of the AI to react to this.

UsuallyHaplessVideos

Part of the AI plan issue is that I'm using the AI plan from the original scenario. It's perhaps a little less random than I would like (hence certain buildings are always occupied etc), but it should also incorporate a minefield. So there should be mines covering the gaps- I removed them from the defenders because I think every company has an equal ability to step on them: it doesn't really do much. But, I've tackled the Soviets now (interesting results! Just need to write them up) and I think that's probably the end of this scenario. The fun part is going to be making one specifically for testing for the next batch.