Close Combat Series :: View topic - Stalingrad: Thoughts on Game Play

through

[^/[Print]\]

Close Combat Series -> CC5 Stalingrad

#1: Stalingrad: Thoughts on Game Play Author: Pzt_Mac, Location: Oregon

Posted: Mon Oct 17, 2005 8:39 pm
—
In an effort to keep the "Bugs and Mistakes" thread from getting cluttered up with "ideas", please place all recomendations and non-bug issues here.

moved from previous thread

Another point on game play: The average Russian infantry is at an obvious disadvantage with morale and expierence, and most weapons. But such was their plite in history. However, it seems that the Russian teams should be bigger than the German teams. I could be wrong on this, but I was under the impression that the Russians had giant sqauds roaming around. The three man teams that the Russians have don't really do any good, and there seems to be quite a few of them.

I'm wondering if the mod team designed the size of the Russian teams with the fact that there were large limitations on weapons and ammo, so some of the troops in those Red squads were just waiting to pick up the rifle of a fallen comrade. But even if this is the case, I personally would still like to see a 10 man unit, even if 2 of those sprites only had knives, at least they could scavage for weapons.

Just some thoughts...

And because it can't be said enough, GREAT MOD!

Thanks,
Pzt_Mac[/i]

#2: Author: MarcinT, Location: Poland

Posted: Mon Oct 17, 2005 10:01 pm
—
From me:

I dream only about better (like in cc4 Vetmod) weapon sounds --- escpecially MG34, MP40.

This is only my thoughts Smile

Marcin T - Poland

#3: Women warriors at Stalingrad Author: gravyface,

Posted: Mon Oct 17, 2005 10:58 pm
—
The 16th Panzer Division recorded in their history that, "around Gumrak, enemy resistance became stronger and anti-aircraft guns began firing widly at our armoured vehicles from the north-west corner of Stalingrad". This resistance came from the batteries operated by young women volunteers, barely out of high school.

According to Captain Sarkisyan, commander of a heavy mortar battalion, "the girls refused to go own into the bunkers". One girl, called Masha, is said to have "stayed at her post for four days without being relieved.".

I think it would be great to hear a few random female voices (perhaps these could be pinched from Age of Empires I, II, or III) among the AA crew.

Quotes from "Stalingrad - The Fateful Siege: 1942-1943" by Antony Beevor. A fantastic book.

#4: Author: Manoi, Location: Brussels

Posted: Mon Oct 17, 2005 11:35 pm
—
note that all the women were killed. They had been instructed for AA defense but had no formation to fight against tanks.

#5: Author: Hayduke_C4,

Posted: Tue Oct 18, 2005 5:01 am
—
I just finished the first 2 turns in multiplayer as Russians. I've taken quite a pounding as can be expected, but still loving it. The sounds, maps and overall ambience is right on target. This mod is a work of art.

I have to agree with Mac that the small teams don't seem to bode well for balanced game play. Given the fact that the russians for the most part have low experienced/low morale troops to face off against the german teams with high experience/high moral, I am getting creamed in any head to head encounter. I do have lots of reserves to bring in, but the game is always 15 units versus 15 units, and all things being equal, I am getting driven back fairly quickly. Basically I can't compete with the german infantry, who are easily able to suppress my Russians in a firefight (both sides are playing without support as the game kept crashing whenever it was implemented, so that might be a factor).

I don't know how things will evolve as the days go on, so I can't really say for sure if this is a playability issue or not. These are just my initial thoughts. Maybe I will wear down the german machine enough so that 3 man teams become more of a factor. Either way, I've never had more fun getting destroyed in CC Smile

#6: Author: Dima,

Posted: Tue Oct 18, 2005 6:24 am
—

Manoi wrote:

note that all the women were killed. They had been instructed for AA defense but had no formation to fight against tanks.

nah not all Razz

,
have watched interviews with some of them on TV.
They told they had no AP shells for their 85mm Crying or Very sad

Quote:

I dream only about better (like in cc4 Vetmod) weapon sounds --- escpecially MG34, MP40.

if iam not mistaken kamfe used authentic sounds for these weapons Very Happy

.
And imho MP.40 sound in Stal is the best in CC community but it should sound bit louder(will be fixed in update).
MG.34 sound is awesome also!

As for me i played both sides(line/line) and i can say it's hard to play both sides:
germans: as there is no REINFORCEMENT button and all teams/vehicles u lost can't be retrieved.And then comes those nasty T34 and KVs.
Have anyone of u played until at least 17th vs human?

russians: as first couple of days u have only depleted BGs, but u have several tank brigades to fill the gaps in yer defence.Yer main goal these days is to KO as many german vehicles as u can.
Since 15th reserves cross Volga and join battle.These BGs r at good strength with good infantry teams(7men,2-3 SMG) but lack of tanx and hvy guns.

I recommend to play Line/Line as it is most balanced and historical setting.
But if it is too hard for u, play on Recruit Twisted Evil

#7: Author: Manoi, Location: Brussels

Posted: Tue Oct 18, 2005 1:59 pm
—
I can also say that there is a complete strategic option here : the mod was done with the intention to reflect what it really happened; Russians were quickly repulsed in south and suburbs of Stalingrad but hold the center and the factory to the end! So you have to wait the end of the game to give a good advice on the gameplay and balance and don't limit yourself to the first rounds. My tactic as Russians is to make so many looses as possible to Germans, in first rounds and open areas (use low morale and basic troops there) and once there are in the city use all your elite troops. Don't hesitate to withdraw from first maps if the situation is too difficult even after one turn! And don't forget to counter the panzer division with your tank brigade. Normaly, Germans must reach the Volga but with tanks depleted BG! Wink

#8: Re: Stalingrad: Thoughts on Game Play Author: dgfred, Location: N.C., USA

Posted: Thu Dec 20, 2012 5:45 pm
—
That is great advice... for both sides to consider Wink

#9: Re: Stalingrad: Thoughts on Game Play Author: Fiestita, Location: Santa Fe

Posted: Fri Dec 21, 2012 5:47 am
—
Where did you learn that Red Army had worse weapons than Whermatch?

Whermatch crew loved the Tokarev PPsh for example. They also found very suitable for their tank crews the T-34. Then about training and morale, it's also arguable. Soviet crews usually received enough training, but their commands were less modern than Whermatch commanders in military doctrine. This lack of understanding of Blitzkrieg early in the war, earned the Red Army a reputation of "bad trained crews", but the reason was the doctrine, not the training.

And about morale, I would like to know of a large mass surrendering example of soviet troops that weren't encircled.

#10: Re: Stalingrad: Thoughts on Game Play Author: tigercub, Location: charters towers

Posted: Fri Dec 21, 2012 9:12 am
—
yes and having a Radio helped as well only 1 in 4-6 russian tanks had one in the early war it inproved over time!

1 of the biggest problems for there armor...not knowing were fire is coming from were the germans are driving up at U hang on ill get up and wave flags at the tank 200m away thats what they did in 1941, russian fighters had the same problem only the leader had the radio so it was follow the leader.

#11: Re: Stalingrad: Thoughts on Game Play Author: Fiestita, Location: Santa Fe

Posted: Mon Dec 24, 2012 2:35 am
—
Yes, their doctrine and "modern equipment" was really disappointing early on. Even though they learned the hard way and suited their equipment later on, for a more modern style, some german commanders still had some aces under their sleeve, and that's why guys like Manstein, Model or Hoth still found ways to cripple huge soviet offensives in Kharkov, Orel/Bryansk and Narva river. Even Guderian, in late 1944 managed to halt Bagration before the Red Army got a safe cross on the Vistula. If it weren't for the great understanding of armor tactics that had the most of german commanders, the soviets would have reached Berlin before Christmas 1944.

#12: Re: Stalingrad: Thoughts on Game Play Author: Dima,

Posted: Mon Dec 24, 2012 7:46 am
—

Quote:

Where did you learn that Red Army had worse weapons than Whermatch?

do you think they had better weapons than WH?

Quote:

Whermatch crew loved the Tokarev PPsh for example. They also found very suitable for their tank crews the T-34.

PPSh is a Shpagin design, not Tokarev Wink

.
They didn't find T34 suitable for the German doctrine and hence only a very little number was used by the Germans.

Quote:

And about morale, I would like to know of a large mass surrendering example of soviet troops that weren't encircled.

thing is that until Stalingrad the Germans didn't surrender even encircled.

#13: Re: Stalingrad: Thoughts on Game Play Author: Fiestita, Location: Santa Fe

Posted: Mon Dec 24, 2012 8:52 am
—

Dima wrote (View Post):

do you think they had better weapons than WH?

No, in fact I think the thing was pretty balanced, excepting in fighters squadrons. Me-109 in all its variants, and especially the 'k' model, is usually elected by most of the contend's participants as the best fighter due to it's all round capacities that made a high altitude fighter still a match for it's opponents in low altitude. The 'k' model also stood as an excellent fighter vs flying fortresses. So the low altitude soviet fighters didn't even have a chance, especially due to the fact that Me-109s dived on them with ease and pace most of the dogfights.

But taking apart fighters, the soviet air force did have long range level bombers, and had a strong but lacking doctrine tactical bomber force. They also had numbers in the air, and their AA Flaks were decent. Their doctrine and organization in AA warfare was in my opinion adecuate, and proof of that are Luftwaffe failures in dominating skies late in 1941.

Speaking about armor and especially blitzkrieg based armor, the Whermatch never had a good match until mid 1944, and they didn't have enough numbers, as in 1943 the 2k Pz Kpwg V D and A produced by their industry had well known mechanic problems. Only the G model proved mechanically reliable, and there were only other 2k produced against what? 80k T-34s of all types. An also, comparing Pz kpwg V G with T-34/85mm we will have a hard time to decide which one was superior. The T-34 had it's advantages in angular plates, weight, height, and grip.

Then if you want to compare contenders in heavy armor, the IS-2 was a really good tank, well armored, very well gunned despite it's poor rate of fire and its autonomy and pace were superior to german Tiger tanks. There are of course many cases were one would like to be sitting in a Tiger than in a IS-2 (especially in ambushes or above a hill with good fields of fire), it's rate of fire was terrifying for Whermatch's enemies. But the IS-2 was much more suited to blitzkrieg than an ambush tank like the Tiger. As Whermatch got on dedicated defensive in late 1943, the Tiger found itself in it's proper scenario, and that's why Tiger's crews had such kill rates. The tank was doing the job that it was designed for.

Then artillery. Both armies had it's strongs. 88mm piece was probably the best all rounder artillery piece in warfare history, but high caliber soviet artillery and Katyushas had their strong points also. Soviet artillery doctrine and preparation was decent, despite I think that german understanding of barrages and especially understanding of how to defend against a heavy barrage (here I mean especially Heinrici's tactics) was superior. Again doctrine but not the weapon.

Dima wrote (View Post):

PPSh is a Shpagin design, not Tokarev Wink

Yes, my mistake. Tokarev is the ammo, not the brand of the weapon.

Dima wrote (View Post):

They didn't find T34 suitable for the German doctrine and hence only a very little number was used by the Germans.

Yes they did. Little numbers are for an obvious reason: the tanks were captured. There are a lot of evidence of T-34 successful usage of Whermatch, especially in Barbarossa's early days (the only timeline there were massive T-34 captures).

Dima wrote (View Post):

Thing is that until Stalingrad the Germans didn't surrender even encircled.

I may argue situational environment inflicts a great deal in your point. Red Army had huge losses in late June and July (so the Whermatch considering it's smaller force, especially in armor -600 tanks approximately-), and they didn't have a suited force pool available for a sustained offensive maneuver until late 1941. So after those losses, encircled soviet troops in Byelorussia and Ukraine wouldn't be rescued for months (worse than Stalingrad, where before a month of encirclement, 6th Army could have escaped).

German pockets after the soviet counter-attacks of winter 1941-1942 are a good example for crippling my arguments, but the truth is that excepting Demyansk (where terrain favored a lot the defenders), all of them didn't last more than a month or so. And Army Group A didn't suffer such losses of Army Groups B and C and was in condition to assemble a task force for the rescue.

On the other hand I thing everybody knows that in a certain point, when encircled without hope of relief, surrendering is not a choice but a consequence. If the soviet army really had a lack in morale, Operation Typhoon would have been a success as they should have been so demoralized after their great losses of Barbarossa. And they stood on the ground and fought the invader to the death.

I think that speaking of bravery or weapon quality both did a great job, with pros and cons.

Only two things turned the tide for one or other side: german military doctrine (even when 1941-1942-1943 Whermatch equipment was not good for it -especially their trouble to close the exterior ring of kessels-) and soviet huge industry (supported by americans also) and manpower. I'm also of the opinion that even when Whermatch was sure to lose against Red Army at some point, american intervention in war accelerated that a lot. I don't see Model's Army Group B being overwhelmed in the way it was during Operation Bagration without it's best men traveling to France for the battle of Normandy.

#14: Re: Stalingrad: Thoughts on Game Play Author: Dima,

Posted: Mon Dec 24, 2012 8:31 pm
—

Quote:

Speaking about armor and especially blitzkrieg based armor, the Whermatch never had a good match until mid 1944, and they didn't have enough numbers, as in 1943 the 2k Pz Kpwg V D and A produced by their industry had well known mechanic problems. Only the G model proved mechanically reliable, and there were only other 2k produced against what? 80k T-34s of all types. An also, comparing Pz kpwg V G with T-34/85mm we will have a hard time to decide which one was superior. The T-34 had it's advantages in angular plates, weight, height, and grip.

T-34 in 1941 was same or less reliable as Panther D. In average it was taking T-34s to drive 300-400km to get fatal engine failure.
Due to critical shortage of 76mm AP ammunition the main AT ammunition was HE and cannister set on impact that made all the German tank with 50mm frontal armor virtually impenetratable for the RA 76mm guns. Such situation remained till 1943 and by then the German tanks mostly had 80mm frontal that was impenetratable for 76mm gun even at 200m.
45mm AP ammo design was flawed and couldn't penetrate 50mm at even 100m. That situation remained till mid 1942.

The German tanks circa 1941 were absolutely fit in the Blitzkrieg doctrine. And with a 50mm frontal armor even Pz38t was a die hard for most of the RA AT weapons. In comparison to T-34 or KV, PzII/III/IV were reliable working horses in 1941 with little or no teething problems and great autonomy. Actually PzIII was one of the best tanks that time and influenced further versions of T-34.

Quote:

Then artillery. Both armies had it's strongs. 88mm piece was probably the best all rounder artillery piece in warfare history, but high caliber soviet artillery and Katyushas had their strong points also. Soviet artillery doctrine and preparation was decent, despite I think that german understanding of barrages and especially understanding of how to defend against a heavy barrage (here I mean especially Heinrici's tactics) was superior. Again doctrine but not the weapon.

why is that? Flak18/36 was an ad-hoc solution until proper ATG was developed and issued in masse - Pak40- and it had weak HE shell to be real artillery. Very high silhouette and very vulnerable even to mortars.

In 1941-43 the Germans have been shooting 2,5-3 heavy shells (>105mm) against every Soviet heavy shell.

Quote:

do you have any sources for that?
when in October (?) 1941 Guderian was asking for more tanks to attack further, GHQ offered him to use hundreds of captured Soviet tanks but he refused asking for more German tanks.

#15: Re: Stalingrad: Thoughts on Game Play Author: Fiestita, Location: Santa Fe

Posted: Mon Dec 24, 2012 9:55 pm
—

Dima wrote (View Post):

T-34 in 1941 was same or less reliable as Panther D. In average it was taking T-34s to drive 300-400km to get fatal engine failure.

I'm aware that was due to oil shortages. The engines were in constant overheat. Finally the metal melted. The germans had a similar problem in Operation Spring Awakening, where they lost some tanks to engine overheat, some others to fuel starvation, before they reached battle.

Dima wrote (View Post):

Due to critical shortage of 76mm AP ammunition the main AT ammunition was HE and cannister set on impact that made all the German tank with 50mm frontal armor virtually impenetratable for the RA 76mm guns.

Well Dima, it was a logistic problem, not a flaw of the gun. German 50mm L60 could not penetrate 50mm frontal armor with HE either. Even, it's proved that frontal armor is not all in tank vs tank battles. Positioning, rate of fire, and skillful aiming are more important, and the german crews were better than soviet in this because of their doctrine.

Dima wrote (View Post):

Such situation remained till 1943 and by then the German tanks mostly had 80mm frontal that was impenetratable for 76mm gun even at 200m.

That's not true. The muzzle velocity of F-34 gun was 680 m/s. Maybe it could not penetrate an 80mm plate in 60º, but definitely was able to penetrate an 80mm plate in 90º from 500m. Pz kpwg IV had an 90º plate in the front. If you look at the spec of the BR-350P
model of the gun, it states that it can penetrate 90mm at 90º from 500m.

I think that by 1943, only the Tiger was invulnerable from the frontal plate to soviet medium tanks, so was the IS-2 for german medium tanks in 1944.

Dima wrote (View Post):

45mm AP ammo design was flawed and couldn't penetrate 50mm at even 100m. That situation remained till mid 1942.

Yes, T-26 and BT-7 were obsolete. Still, some german Panzer Division fielded Pz-II and Pz-35t obsolete tanks with certain success due to their doctrine and crack crews.

Dima wrote (View Post):

The German tanks circa 1941 were absolutely fit in the Blitzkrieg doctrine. And with a 50mm frontal armor even Pz38t was a die hard for most of the RA AT weapons.

Like the 76mm AT gun? This gun had the same logistic problem that had T-34, but it's specs clearly allow it to blow the shit out of a Pz 38t.

German tanks fitted Blitzkrieg doctrine for the first phase of a common attack. They were fast, mechanically good, well gunned against infantry and fielded a radio. But when the "kessel" was closed, this tanks had to continue their drive further, having also to form an exterior ring. If they were charged by T-34s or KV-1s tank that intended to open the "kessel" they were in trouble as they were no match for this kind of tanks. They lost many tanks this way.

German Panzer losses in 1941 (without counting Pz kpwg I): 558 tanks (112 Pz kpfw II, 182 Pz Kpwg 38t, 155 PzKpfw III and 109 Pz kpwg IV) in July, and 429 tanks (104 Pz kpwg II, 183 Pz kpwg 38t, 74 Pz kpwg III y 68 Pz kpfw IV) in august.

Then, while on defensive, they only lost 325 tanks (70 Pz kpwg II, 102 Pz kpwg 38t, 113 Pz kpwg III y 40 Pz kpwg IV) in december.

source:
Horst Boog et al, Germany and the Second World War: Volume IV: The Attack on the Soviet Union, (Oxford University Press, 1999) pp. 1120-1122.

And these situations during german drives, often force infantry to fight close quarter against soviet armor, determining great losses for both sides, but unrecoverable for Whermatch side.

Dima wrote (View Post):

In comparison to T-34 or KV, PzII/III/IV were reliable working horses in 1941 with little or no teething problems and great autonomy. Actually PzIII was one of the best tanks that time and influenced further versions of T-34.

Yes Pz kpwg III was a good tank, I've never said that german armor was worse than soviet, I've said their were balanced, with pros and cons from each side. T-34 on the other side, inspired some Pz kpwg V features.

Dima wrote (View Post):

Range (for a relatively small caliber)? Rate of fire? May be HE power and silhouette don't mind a lot when you have a one hit knock out gun for any enemy threat. This gun caused havoc in american infantry men during Hurtgen's hell an so did against soviet armor. All this without considering it's great capability to defend the skies. Also, the germans had decent numbers of these.

Dima wrote (View Post):

In 1941-43 the Germans have been shooting 2,5-3 heavy shells (>105mm) against every Soviet heavy shell.

Source? Was it in every battle? It's arguable. The Red Army had to field ammo for the triple of guns than Whermatch.

Dima wrote (View Post):

I don't remember where, but I've read that following battle of Brody, a column of the 8th Panzer Division, fielding 2 T-34/76mm on the lead, captured a bridge over Dnieper river in a nightly infiltration. Then I've read about a heavy street combat in Rostov, in fall 1941, where a captured T-34 was involved and destroyed 3 soviet tanks.

Guderian intended a drive on Moscow in August. According to acthungpanzer.com the firsts Panzer Divisions to field the T-34 in small numbers were 1st, 8th and 11th, all in Army Group South, not under Guderian command, and it was in that August. So I believe there weren't more T-34 ready for battle (you have to give the tank ammo also, which was different from any produced by III Reich) in that time. I always thought that Guderian rejected undergunned tanks like T-26 or BT-7 mostly. You also have to think about the fact that germans would have to add a radio to each one before usage.

Because of this complications, many of them were modified as flakpanzers or other kind of stuff.

Aside from this, there are three very good quotes from protagonists in the struggle:

"We had nothing comparable", Major-General F.W. Mellenthin, Chief of Staff of XLVIII Panzer Corps.

"The finest tank in the world", Field-Marshal Ewald von Kleist, First Panzer Army.

"This tank (T-34) adversely affected the morale of the German infantry", General G. Blumentritt.

I already told you that Pz kpwg IV J or Pz kpwg V G may have been better in some aspects, but T-34 certainly was a very good tank and had it's advantages over it's enemies'.

#16: Re: Stalingrad: Thoughts on Game Play Author: dj,

Posted: Tue Dec 25, 2012 4:51 pm
—
Yes Russians had better, much better, armour than the Germans. The Germans simply copied the sloped armour design in their late war designs. Machine guns were better suited for close combat. MP40 was not as flexible and could not be easily fired from prone position. Russians had vastly better industrial capacity and simple designs that could be massed produced. Russians had better uniforms that were not as nice looking but much warmer and more functional. Russians had better defensive tactics that had never been seen before by the Germans and their allies. The Russian got up close and rendered the German blitzkreig tactics useless in house to house fighting.

#17: Re: Stalingrad: Thoughts on Game Play Author: Fiestita, Location: Santa Fe

Posted: Tue Dec 25, 2012 7:11 pm
—
Well, Blitzkrieg doctrine does consider that last fact, and that's why in the manual, towns and cities are supposed to be left behind forming "kessels". The Whermatch didn't always follow the manual in practice, and that's why some soviet cities ended being Verduns.

Then, not every soviet tactic was superior. Figure Model's and Heinrici defensive tactics from early 1942 to mid 1944 in Byelorussia. Army Group B deflected 2 massive soviet attacks (1941-1942 winter soviet counter-attack and then Operation Mars during the summer 1942). During 1943 the Red Army tried the front again several times, without success. These attacks, especially Mars, involved more men, tanks and aircraft than Operation Uranus (soviet counter-attack in the low Volga and Caucasus). The Army Group B halted all of them, most of the time with less than 1k of tanks and with shortages of all type.

#18: Re: Stalingrad: Thoughts on Game Play Author: Dima,

Posted: Wed Dec 26, 2012 1:02 am
—
Fiestita,

Quote:

actually that was due to problems with design of engine and filters that were solved only in late 1942.

Quote:

There were huge problems in producing 76mm AP shells in 1940-42 and that's why HE and Cannisters were mainly used.
Despite German doctrine of not wasting tanks in tank to tank combat 5cm gun had alot of ammo types issued in abudance ranging from HE to APCR so they didn't need to use HE against tank armor.

Anyway, by June 22nd 1941 there were approximately 140.000 AP shells for the Soviet 76mm guns so it was like 10 AP shells per gun both towed or tank. Check how many AP shells there were in WH.

And an AT gun without AP shells is a flawed gun.

Quote:

That's true and was proven by the Soviet tests and was well known.
Muzzle velocity is a good thing but quality of steel is another and the Soviet 76mm rounds circa 1940-1943 were flawed and just shattered on impact against FHA armor of higher thickness.

Quote:

I think that by 1943, only the Tiger was invulnerable from the frontal plate to soviet medium tanks, so was the IS-2 for german medium tanks in 1944

Panther's and PzIV's frontal hull was invulnerable to a fire of the Soviet tanks at more than 200m in 1943.
German medium gun in 1944 is Pak38 which was pretty rare in comparison to a heavy Pak40.

Quote:

Like the 76mm AT gun? This gun had the same logistic problem that had T-34, but it's specs clearly allow it to blow the shit out of a Pz 38t.

again that was not a logistic problem but the problem industry that could not manage to produce AP shell for a gun in time.
The Germans had pretty same problems with AP shells when they massively fielded pak40 but due to advanced industry they were producing alot of HEAT shells to compensate it in 1942-1943.

Quote:

German tanks fitted Blitzkrieg doctrine for the first phase of a common attack. They were fast, mechanically good, well gunned against infantry and fielded a radio. But when the "kessel" was closed, this tanks had to continue their drive further, having also to form an exterior ring. If they were charged by T-34s or KV-1s tank that intended to open the "kessel" they were in trouble as they were no match for this kind of tanks. They lost many tanks this way.

good that you understand a Blitzkrieg doctrine but most of the time T-34/KVs were repelled by ATGs and Stukas as tanks were too precious for the Germans to combat enemy tanks.

Quote:

German Panzer losses in 1941 (without counting Pz kpwg I): 558 tanks (112 Pz kpfw II, 182 Pz Kpwg 38t, 155 PzKpfw III and 109 Pz kpwg IV) in July, and 429 tanks (104 Pz kpwg II, 183 Pz kpwg 38t, 74 Pz kpwg III y 68 Pz kpfw IV) in august.
Then, while on defensive, they only lost 325 tanks (70 Pz kpwg II, 102 Pz kpwg 38t, 113 Pz kpwg III y 40 Pz kpwg IV) in december.
source:
Horst Boog et al, Germany and the Second World War: Volume IV: The Attack on the Soviet Union, (Oxford University Press, 1999) pp. 1120-1122.

this stat is actually showing that when the Germans were against regular RA units they were loosing more than against ad-hoc and reserves.

Quote:

And these situations during german drives, often force infantry to fight close quarter against soviet armor, determining great losses for both sides, but unrecoverable for Whermatch side.

In comparison to other armies, the German infantry had huge amount of ATGs to deal with enemy tanks those years and that was a main reason of great losses for a tank losses of other armies.

Quote:

range, RoF was nothing special and pretty same as for other AA guns like the Soviet 85mm 52-K or US 90mm M1 or UK 3,7" AA.

Quote:

Also, the germans had decent numbers of these

yeah 8 per PzD :)

Quote:

Source? Was it in every battle? It's arguable. The Red Army had to field ammo for the triple of guns than Whermatch.

that's a statistics for 1941-43.
Well, 3 76mm guns would never substitute 3 105mm shells Wink

Quote:

ok, just for deception at Brody, why not?
ok, another single incident, so no evidence of using captured T-34 in masse?

Quote:

Guderian intended a drive on Moscow in August. According to acthungpanzer.com the firsts Panzer Divisions to field the T-34 in small numbers were 1st, 8th and 11th, all in Army Group South, not under Guderian command, and it was in that August. So I believe there weren't more T-34 ready for battle (you have to give the tank ammo also, which was different from any produced by III Reich) in that time. I always thought that Guderian rejected undergunned tanks like T-26 or BT-7 mostly. You also have to think about the fact that germans would have to add a radio to each one before usage.

So no They also found very suitable for their tank crews the T-34. any more?
FYI T-26/BT were the working horses of the RA in 1941 and were falling victims to the German ATGs most of all while alot of T-34/KV were captured due to minor damages or mulfunctions.
Btw, all the KVs had radios Wink

Quote:

Because of this complications, many of them were modified as flakpanzers or other kind of stuff.

actually 1 or 2 Wink

Quote:

Aside from this, there are three very good quotes from protagonists in the struggle:
"We had nothing comparable", Major-General F.W. Mellenthin, Chief of Staff of XLVIII Panzer Corps.
"The finest tank in the world", Field-Marshal Ewald von Kleist, First Panzer Army.
"This tank (T-34) adversely affected the morale of the German infantry", General G. Blumentritt.

yeah, i've already understood that you like achtungpanzer too much Smile

.
i can tell you that's a Cold War propaganda, same as crazy Fuhrer lost a War while the German commanders were winning all the battles, especially in EF - in reality the Germans didn't notice T-34 until October 1941 when they were exhausted and didn't have enough tanks/ATGs to deal with a fresh Soviet tank brigade fast.

Quote:

I already told you that Pz kpwg IV J or Pz kpwg V G may have been better in some aspects, but T-34 certainly was a very good tank and had it's advantages over it's enemies'.

why PzIVJ? that was a worse tank than PzIVH in most of aspects.
T-34 became a formidable tank in 1943 after numerous upgrades but the first versions of T-34 was thought as combat inefficient already in 1940 and it was proven in 1941-43 by alot of blood.

Last edited by Dima on Wed Dec 26, 2012 1:21 am; edited 1 time in total

#19: Re: Stalingrad: Thoughts on Game Play Author: Dima,

Posted: Wed Dec 26, 2012 1:15 am
—
DJ,

I do believe you have to start getting knowledge about topics you reply to.

Quote:

Yes Russians had better, much better, armour than the Germans.

that's not true.

Quote:

The Germans simply copied the sloped armour design in their late war designs.

I will tell you a secret - T-34 shape was very much copied from the french S-35 so the Germans knew about advantages and disadvantages of sloped design even in 1940 Wink

Quote:

Machine guns were better suited for close combat.

what?

Quote:

MP40 was not as flexible and could not be easily fired from prone position.

what?

Quote:

Russians had vastly better industrial capacity and simple designs that could be massed produced.

you know USSR could not copy high-tech PzIII although they have tried to (T-34M) but anyway T-34 was very complicated for the Soviet factories in 1940-1943.
funny but there were pretty same number of workers working for the Germans and Soviets during the WW2. So I can't see vastly better industrical capacity.

Quote:

Russians had better uniforms that were not as nice looking but much warmer and more functional.

haha, funny, so you've read some of Mellentin?

Quote:

Russians had better defensive tactics that had never been seen before by the Germans and their allies.

of course and that's why the Germans could break 1400km into the Russian territory.
I do believe you the Germans had never seen such defence before!!!

Quote:

The Russian got up close and rendered the German blitzkreig tactics useless in house to house fighting.

yes! they also have taught mices to eat german wires!

#20: Re: Stalingrad: Thoughts on Game Play Author: dgfred, Location: N.C., USA

Posted: Fri Dec 28, 2012 12:58 am
—
Something happened to me last night while playing the AI in Stalingrad with Real Vlad sub mod.
Never happened before in all my years of CC5.

It was at Banny Gully on Day 2 (Sept14) PM turn. Morale Off.
Germans (me) had battered the Russian Tank BG 189 to one VL at the Bridge. Time running down almost all Russians destroyed... but one tank crew was on the VL after leaving their tank nearby around several others. I couldn't maneuver my Stugf into position to shoot them... and several infantry teams were decimated trying to take them out with only two casualties for the crew.
I manage to kill one of the guys remaing, but their leader was still alive. Across the board I took all the other VLs and killed everybody. This guy would not die... but usually even with morale off the computer will 'give up' when almost everybody was dead. Not this time. Although I had dudes all around him, a Stugf about 5 yds away, and EVERYBODY ELSE DEAD... this ONE GUY held onto the VL. Amazing.

I didn't have any reinforcements scheduled to come in there for Day 3... but it still shocked me a bit. Did manage to finally wipe them out the next turn... but there were some losses like two captured Paks. Darn it.

#21: Re: Stalingrad: Thoughts on Game Play Author: mikwarleo,

Posted: Fri Dec 28, 2012 8:19 am
—
I've seen similar things happen in other mods, like when a single guy goes rambo in a building with a stolen MG and wipes out 3 squads, or you charge a full squad into a building and they can't find the last unconscious guy among the dead bodies, lone unconscious guy awakes among a sea of blood, dead buddies and enemy soldiers, grabs his knife and goes berserk slashing (yes with the knife) up the whole squad, or two squads. ;)

Rare, but it happens.

Re this mod, with full respect to the mod makers, imho I find the mod unplayable for good H2H GCs because it is so heavily weighted in favour of the germans. Ruskies stand no chance in the GCs I've played. It seems to me that something must be amiss because stalingrad would surely have been lost to the germans if things were this way in reality.

#22: Re: Stalingrad: Thoughts on Game Play Author: dgfred, Location: N.C., USA

Posted: Fri Dec 28, 2012 3:18 pm
—
I don't see it that way. If the setting are right the Russians can hold out from my experience with 2 decent/even players.
But in reality the Germans did defeat the Russians (with heavy losses) all the way to the banks of the Volga. At several different points the Germans were set up with MGs and guns within sight of the crossings.
The problem was in the end with hard fighting and reinforcements the Russians held out along a sliver of land on the west side of the river. Nothing else. That would be about one or two maps in the mod by about the 5th of October. Hitler wanted a final push/attack around October 13th to wipe out the final pockets of Russians. They couldn't do it.

Seems about right historically. In my experience playing Volga Push 2 the Germans have a difficult time on several different maps with the heavy armored BGs only having infantry BGs with a few Stugs and Paks to deal with the KV-1s and T34s. Lose a couple of Stugf and the German IDs are weak on the offensive somewhat. The Germans also have to make some very difficult decisions about by-passing Russian units, taking maps and leaving maps unoccupied.

I bet you (I know what an excellent player you are) could give me (and many others) fits playing as the Russian Wink

#23: Re: Stalingrad: Thoughts on Game Play Author: Fiestita, Location: Santa Fe

Posted: Tue Jan 01, 2013 11:19 am
—

mikwarleo wrote (View Post):

Re this mod, with full respect to the mod makers, imho I find the mod unplayable for good H2H GCs because it is so heavily weighted in favour of the germans. Ruskies stand no chance in the GCs I've played. It seems to me that something must be amiss because stalingrad would surely have been lost to the germans if things were this way in reality.

German doctrine and training was superior. Also german doctrine expected a large city like Stalingrad to be bypassed, not fought house-to-house. Still, I'm of the opinion that 'Fall Blau' was already a failure when 4th Panzer Army failed to encircle the vast majority of Red Army around Voronezh. They captured the city but not the guys... the same guys that months later encircled 6th Army.

Still I think same as you, especially in weaponry, Red Army is in general underestimated in most of WWII games or films. It's weird that are actually the germans' films and statements the ones that take really estimate soviet weaponry.

Then Dima will appear again stating negative to this, but I believe as you, that if the Whermatch would have been so powerful and better armed than Red Army, then would have won. He denies the fact that the PPSh was more effective than MP40 in close combat, but the truth is that Red Army almost won every significant street combat scenario. Examples are Tula, Rostov (twice), Stalingrad, 2nd Minsk, 2nd Kiev.

As I said before: doctrine, morale, tactic discipline and officers are more important than which weapon or which scenario.

#24: Re: Stalingrad: Thoughts on Game Play Author: dj,

Posted: Tue Jan 01, 2013 8:35 pm
—

Fiestita wrote (View Post):

mikwarleo wrote (View Post):

Exactly well stated...

Dima is playing poker game bluff, denying the fact Soviet war machine and tactics were far better suited for urban in your face close combat. And yes the Red Army assault squads massed large teams of dedicated PPSh squads, creative usage of females for snipers and night pilot sorties, and heavy armour that easily outclassed anything the Axis forces had available. Also the USSR had vast reserves and simply overpowered the Axis with huge manpower advantages. I was especially impressed with the Red Army elite Siberian divisions that were quite comfortable in the extreme cold, whereas the Germans were not. There is a very good reason why Imperial Japan never did want to mess with those Siberian divisions that bordered their possessions in China.

#25: Re: Stalingrad: Thoughts on Game Play Author: Fiestita, Location: Santa Fe

Posted: Wed Jan 02, 2013 7:12 am
—
If someone study carefully Whermatch's real chances of a victory over allies, then one is amazed with such success they obtained. They crushed France, drove "desert rats" to egypt, decimated Royal Marine with submarine warfare an put Soviet Union in check. This achievements aren't even thinkable considering Whermatch real strenght in 1940.

#26: Re: Stalingrad: Thoughts on Game Play Author: Dima,

Posted: Thu Jan 03, 2013 1:02 pm
—
Mik,

Quote:

hopefully the PITF version will alllow to represent the combat inside Stalingrad more precisely.

But anyhow the Stalingrad battle was fought and won/lost on flanks where the Germans had the best units and the RA was counter attacking every other week. In the city itself the German could thrust to Volga in 1 day and after that they were fighting reinforcements crossing the river and actually they could not get to Volga fully as there was huge number of arty/ATG/tank pits firing directly from the East bank. I wonder if they actually needed it as the river as supply route was effeciently cut and fully covered by the German fire.

Hard to represent in CC5 scale - we will try best to do that in PITF.

For information of armchair-generals-who-know-it-all and for whom small arms win battles - Stalingrad (besides narrow 100m(?) line along Volga) was in the German hands till surrendering of AOK.6 in January 1943. And somehow stupid russkies who knew that they had a huge advantage in CQB due to their small arms didn't even dare to counter attack in the city in November....

#27: Re: Stalingrad: Thoughts on Game Play Author: Dima,

Posted: Thu Jan 03, 2013 1:07 pm
—

Quote:

Dima is playing poker game bluff, denying the fact Soviet war machine and tactics were far better suited for urban in your face close combat. And yes the Red Army assault squads massed large teams of dedicated PPSh squads, creative usage of females for snipers and night pilot sorties, and heavy armour that easily outclassed anything the Axis forces had available. Also the USSR had vast reserves and simply overpowered the Axis with huge manpower advantages. I was especially impressed with the Red Army elite Siberian divisions that were quite comfortable in the extreme cold, whereas the Germans were not. There is a very good reason why Imperial Japan never did want to mess with those Siberian divisions that bordered their possessions in China.

Thanks DJ you've made my day again! Smile

Could you please post some more of that?
Please tomorrow, so I will have something to laugh at again!

#28: Re: Stalingrad: Thoughts on Game Play Author: Fiestita, Location: Santa Fe

Posted: Thu Jan 03, 2013 2:29 pm
—

Dima wrote (View Post):

But anyhow the Stalingrad battle was fought and won/lost on flanks where the Germans had the best units and the RA was counter attacking every other week.

Well, 4th Panzer Army had to withdraw (some unfortunate guys got encircle though) during Operation Uranus. But the Stalingrad failure is beyond Uranus. I already told, that Fall Blau already failed by mid July. During the attack over Voronezh, 4th Army failed to encircle the whole 1st Ukranian Front. Only 40th Army got encircled. In Fall Blau directives, it was explicit that the whole Front should be captured or destroyed to allow Whermatch a 500 km drive with uncovered flank. Also Whermatch failed to capture most of bridgeheads along the Don. This was key also. The truth is that Whermatch strenght after Operation Typhoon was lesser than the actually needed by.

Dima wrote (View Post):

In the city itself the German could thrust to Volga in 1 day and after that they were fighting reinforcements crossing the river and actually they could not get to Volga fully as there was huge number of arty/ATG/tank pits firing directly from the East bank. I wonder if they actually needed it as the river as supply route was effeciently cut and fully covered by the German fire.

What about Pavlov's House and Tractor Factory? What about worker's apartments? 6th Army never controlled them fully. These key buildings were the ones that prevented Stalingrad fall. They were few, yes, but they were key. The germans never gained a strong enough bridgehead to cross the Volga. That's a fact, and that's why RA arty could play havoc from eastwards. Hoth's 4th Army was probably the best Panzer Army in the whole front at that time, and it was unable to cross the Volga south of Stalingrad due to RA resistance. Maybe RA tanks and guns weren't so horrible as you think.

Dima wrote (View Post):

For information of armchair-generals-who-know-it-all and for whom small arms win battles - Stalingrad (besides narrow 100m(?) line along Volga) was in the German hands till surrendering of AOK.6 in January 1943. And somehow stupid russkies who knew that they had a huge advantage in CQB due to their small arms didn't even dare to counter attack in the city in November....

I've never said that small arms win wars, or that street combat is essential for success. Only pointed out that you minimized PPSh's effect in easter front, and that in small arms combat, usually the RA was better suited. One good example of what I mean si Tula. Tula itself, was really necessary for Guderian's drive on Moscow. GDIR managed to conquer half of the city in less than a day (same as Stalingrad), but a lone 4 story brick apartment store behind an anti-tank trench stalled Gross Deuschtland advance. Outside the city, 2nd Panzer Army nearly encircled 156th NKVD Regiment, 732nd AA Regiment and 260th Rifle Division that were helping Tula's garrison inside. An attack from the 32nd Tank Brigade consisting in 5 KV-1, 7 T34, 22 T60, and 960 men from it's Rifle Batallion cleared the zone, while city's defenders where fighting GDIR.

So the whole 2nd Panzer Army got stopped by a single Rifle Division with help of two regiments and a single tank brigade.

Even though that by December 1941 2nd Panzer Army strenght was decimated, statements from Eberbach consider battle strength for the kampfgruppe that was ordered to attack Tula adequate for the task. They attacked on the morning of the 30th November with a conglomeration of 55 Panzer II and III tanks, formed into basically 2 Battalions, one from each regiment, supported by what was probably (although exact number were not given) a couple of companies from the Panzer Grenadier regiment (3rd) of the 3rd Panzer Division mounted in half tracks, and then a portion of the Grossdeutschland regiment mounted on trucks. (I'd guess about a very weak BN worth). It also said the Russians had at least some 45mm AT guns to go along with the 37mm guns from the 732nd AA regiment, which did a pretty good number on the German HT's and PZII's, along with knocking out a few PZ III's as well.

This simply cripple your statements about PzIII specs against small caliber soviet AT Guns.

Sources from "Moscow 1941: Hitler's First Defeat" by Robert Forzcyk and "Panzer Leader" by Heinz Guderian.

And Operation Typhoon is indeed THE most decisive operation of the whole war for Whermatch. It dictated an after and before for the fate of III Reich.

#29: Re: Stalingrad: Thoughts on Game Play Author: dgfred, Location: N.C., USA

Posted: Thu Jan 03, 2013 8:25 pm
—
How far do you think Pavlov's House was from the banks of the Volga?

Are you remembering that the tractor factory and the apartments (which ones?) might be part of the exact strips under German control that we are mentioning?

#30: Re: Stalingrad: Thoughts on Game Play Author: Dima,

Posted: Thu Jan 03, 2013 9:44 pm
—
Fiestita,

Quote:

Well, 4th Panzer Army had to withdraw (some unfortunate guys got encircle though) during Operation Uranus. But the Stalingrad failure is beyond Uranus.

again, the battle of Stalingrad was decided on flanks and if there was no big counter attack of the Stalingrad front in September 1942 the city would be cleared in September.

Quote:

I already told, that Fall Blau already failed by mid July.

ahha, that's probably why S.Timoshenko has sent a request to Stalin asking for the evacuation of the city on July 17th.

Quote:

again, if there were no counterattacks of the Stalingrad front that were forcing the German to keep the strongest and most combat effective units north of the city there was no Pavlov's house or other places in Stalingrad remained in the RA hands.

btw, by November 1942, there were less point of resistant remained in Stalingrad than in Berlin in 1945.

Quote:

The germans never gained a strong enough bridgehead to cross the Volga. That's a fact, and that's why RA arty could play havoc from eastwards. Hoth's 4th Army was probably the best Panzer Army in the whole front at that time, and it was unable to cross the Volga south of Stalingrad due to RA resistance.

why would they need crossing Volga?!

Quote:

Maybe RA tanks and guns weren't so horrible as you think

where did I tell that RA tanks and guns were so horrible in late 1942?

Quote:

ok, then 3 questions:
why PPSh was fielded out by the RA?
why didn't the Germans implement SMG armed units?
why didn't the Soviet Army have SMG units after WW2?

Quote:

This simply cripple your statements about PzIII specs against small caliber soviet AT Guns

oh really?
let me check:

Quote:

It also said the Russians had at least some 45mm AT guns to go along with the 37mm guns from the 732nd AA regiment, which did a pretty good number on the German HT's and PZII's, along with knocking out a few PZ III's as well

hmm, that actually makes me think you are a bit off...

#31: Re: Stalingrad: Thoughts on Game Play Author: Fiestita, Location: Santa Fe

Posted: Fri Jan 04, 2013 6:05 pm
—

Dima wrote (View Post):

again, the battle of Stalingrad was decided on flanks and if there was no big counter attack of the Stalingrad front in September 1942 the city would be cleared in September.

4th Panzer Army was situated in 6th Army southern flank during November 1942 and they were coped and forced to withdraw.

Dima wrote (View Post):

ahha, that's probably why S.Timoshenko has sent a request to Stalin asking for the evacuation of the city on July 17th.

Well, you already pointed out that fighting for the city, wouldn't affect the war in any way. RA only had to wait german drive to cease from self starvation and then exploit their own drive. Rommel did the same with desert rats twice.

Dima wrote (View Post):

But you are telling me that one just have to skip from existence the guys that held the strongest german units north to allow these units attack Pavlov's house? Wouldn't RA defend with more troops those buildings then?

If you think about military actions that way, then France wouldn't suffer such a quick defeat if Guderian's drive through Ardennes never occurred.

Dima wrote (View Post):

btw, by November 1942, there were less point of resistant remained in Stalingrad than in Berlin in 1945.

But the Führer must have Stalingrad.

Dima wrote (View Post):

why would they need crossing Volga?!

Doing so, they would have been able to clear out RA arty, and hold valuable bridgeheads. They should have done some with Don river bridgeheads. Crossing these rivers would have prevented Uranus from being such effective.

Dima wrote (View Post):

where did I tell that RA tanks and guns were so horrible in late 1942?

Without need of quoting, you just said that F-34 gun wasn't good even for piercing a Pz38t frontal plate, and that the T-34 tank did not solve it's mechanical problems until 1943. So I assume that you told so for 1942 tanks and guns too.

Dima wrote (View Post):

ok, then 3 questions:
why PPSh was fielded out by the RA?

Assault Rifles became the standard weapon for infantry. AK47 fielded good rate of fire while giving more range and firepower.

Dima wrote (View Post):

why didn't the Germans implement SMG armed units?

Same as above. Even when they didn't get enough numbers, their intentions were to replace MP40 with STG44. Assault Rifle era began in 1944.

Dima wrote (View Post):

why didn't the Soviet Army have SMG units after WW2?

Again, SMG was outgunned by Assault Rifles.

Doctrine mate, it was a change in doctrine in every army. I enjoy debating with you Dima.

#32: Re: Stalingrad: Thoughts on Game Play Author: Dima,

Posted: Fri Jan 04, 2013 9:57 pm
—

Quote:

4th Panzer Army was situated in 6th Army southern flank during November 1942 and they were coped and forced to withdraw.

read my replies please - I don't talk about November, I talk about September 1942!
check where 16.PzD, 3.MID, 60.MID, 76.ID, 305.ID were located since late August 1942 and why didn't they take part in September assault.
FYI 24.PzD was the weakest among them by September 1942 and now guess why it was assaulting the city while the strongest were north of it and didn't send single battalion to help.

Quote:

did I? where?
sounds kinda stupid to me...

Quote:

T-34 in 1941 was pretty different than T-34 in mid 1942 and very different from T-34 in 1943.
Most of problems were solved by the end of 1942 and that was one of the reasons why tank crews with 5-hour(!) training could make it so far from Don and Volga to encircle the whole AOK.6.
76mm AP shells were in abudance by that time as well.

Quote:

Assault Rifles became the standard weapon for infantry. AK47 fielded good rate of fire while giving more range and firepower.

ok, the last amendment of the RA Rifle Squad TOE was in December 1944 - it removed SMG from a rifle squad making it have 5 Carbines and 1 LMG.
Question:
why did they remove SMG from a rifle squad if they were mainly fighting in the cities that time and according to you had a huge advantage using PPSh?

Quote:

Same as above. Even when they didn't get enough numbers, their intentions were to replace MP40 with STG44. Assault Rifle era began in 1944

they had never meant to replace MP.40 with STG - K.98k should have been replaced with STG.
question again:
if the Germans were so badly outgunned by the RA PPSh armed teams why didn't they implement such teams for themselves?

Quote:

Again, SMG was outgunned by Assault Rifles.

ok, but the first AK-47 were fielded in 1951, so why didn't they have SMG armed squads in 1946?

#33: Re: Stalingrad: Thoughts on Game Play Author: dj,

Posted: Sat Jan 05, 2013 5:25 am
—

Dima wrote (View Post):

Quote:

Thanks DJ you've made my day again! Smile

Could you please post some more of that?
Please tomorrow, so I will have something to laugh at again!

I am the last generation that grew up in the Cold War and spent a lot of time studying Soviet War machine, Russian history and learned to appreciate how powerful Red Army was.
The Germans had Ukraianian volunteers, SS Foreigners, Romania, Bulgaria, Italia, Finland, and other allies. The Red Army all by itself managed to throw back the German invaders long before the West stepped foot again in Europe.

Far too modest, clever rouse...must have Aces up his sleeve, great poker game Laughing

#34: Re: Stalingrad: Thoughts on Game Play Author: dgfred, Location: N.C., USA

Posted: Sat Jan 05, 2013 8:24 pm
—
Yeah, but that is a little bit like not including Mongols, Siberians, Ukrainians, Middle Asians, etc as Russians.

#35: Re: Stalingrad: Thoughts on Game Play Author: dgfred, Location: N.C., USA

Posted: Sat Jan 05, 2013 8:26 pm
—
I sure like the SMG squads in the game... they really can do some damage if they sneak up on a unit or in building/factory room-to-room fighting.

#36: Re: Stalingrad: Thoughts on Game Play Author: mooxe,

Posted: Sat Jan 05, 2013 8:33 pm
—
Yeah they are like gold.

What I like to do is get rifle and/or meaningless squads to get the attention of the target close up, once they are in the firefight I bring up the SMG squad that was sitting behind them out of the fight on a run fast command to assault.

They work great on ambush as well but I find inside of certain buildings ambush isnt so good. They will spring the ambush when a few guys enter a doorway, while remainder of squad hasnt come through yet. Result is the 1st couple guys die, the rest take cover in the adjacent room.

#37: Re: Stalingrad: Thoughts on Game Play Author: dgfred, Location: N.C., USA

Posted: Mon Jan 07, 2013 12:28 am
—
My guys don't take cover Mooxe Twisted Evil

, that leaves like six more guys with SMGs to charge the site. Seems in GJS, etc that the guys with the smg or stens (leaders) get whacked early... knocking out your most effective/team leader and close-in fighter Confused

Close Combat Series -> CC5 Stalingrad

output generated using printer-friendly topic mod. All times are GMT

Page 1 of 1