Scheldt 44 comments

[phoenix]

I'm no expert, of course. I've been playing against myself, hot-seat, 3 scenarios. Overloon 1 (the 7th Armoured's debacle), Antwerp and the larger Autumn Gale (misspelled 'gail' in the title?). 

I realise I was warned about the low quality troops, on both sides, the weather, the terrain etc. But, I just compare to history. The Antwerp scenario, for example. In reality the Hussars liberated Antwerp on 4 Sept, the same day the Antwerp scenario begins. There is not a hope of this happening, I feel, in the game. Not a chance. There are a solid ring of bunkers around Antwerp and all the attackers are poor quality and disrupt pretty easily. Is this the way the scenario was designed and tested to be? That is, that an historical result is impossible? Like I said, I'm no expert. I would love to see the player who can play hot seat and liberate Antwerp day 1. I would learn a lot from that AAR. Or the balance is not historical? 

The same is true of Overloon. I expected 7th Armoured to fail, but they couldn't get near their historical level, mainly because they are all D quality or lower and the disruptions prevent all progress very quickly. Combined with enemy in improved positions. 

It's like playing the EF titles, but where everyone is as poor as the Russians and whereas those fights took days and days and there were floods of (poor quality) reinforcements, here there's not and time is limited. Like I said, I'm only comparing what progress is possible against the historical progress, and these are only first impressions after finishing only 2 short scenarios and getting half way through a longer one. And I put these thoughts out for discussion.

Right now I'm feeling the plethora of D quality or lower units has maybe gone a little too far for the game mechanics to make historical results possible? Or I really am a terrible player. Could be that...