Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
He-he-he, classic :-) Discussion of WarChat is more interesting than discussion of the game, lol
Moreover, the topic dedicated to combat groups and created by a user with the nickname Zloba looks very evil, malicious and dangerous :-) No one ever knows what might happen here :-) And in the discussion of WarChat it is quiet, calm and predictable :-)
So. I tried to create companies as they should be, i.e. 3-4 platoons in each company, and each platoon of 3-4 units, plus a control group from a command and reconnaissance unit, plus and a grenade launcher platoon. Similarly, tank, reconnaissance and similar companies. I'm not sure if I'm using the game correctly :-)
Similarly, I excluded from decks (for both Soviet and American) motorized infantry on armored personnel carriers - now all motorized infantry only on IFV (except engineers), because these are tank divisions (actually, it didn't work out very well). As you can see, I shoot myself in the foot, at every step. But I wanted to get the correct organizational and staff structure. But it seems even a little viable, however It is very expensive to deploy with this approach (by the way, why do BMP-1 and BMP-2 cost the same?). So yes, it would be interesting how people make up their decks and how they use combat groups.
But by the way, I liked the approach with combat groups and it seems to me that it would be better if there were only combat groups in the game instead of squad/team units. Also, now when you press ctrl + digit, a battle group is automatically created. Perhaps the developers even have some kind of cunning plan.
But I noticed a strange feature: if I do something in the battlegroups bookmarks, then all my companies are shuffled randomly. Also, seize order for some reason does not work if only the IFV is selected (which is strange, because this order works for any other armed equipment). Also, after unloading infantry from the IFV, it is not attached to the combat group, which is also strange and it is not very convenient, because I expect that the infantry fighting vehicles and infantry should act as a single unit. But in general, the idea is good: smart orders and battle groups are what should have been done in the RTS 15 years ago (but instead everyone started developing MOBA and Tower Defense).
anyway i had my own thread about combat groups with some ideas for it: https://steamcommunity.com/app/1611600/discussions/0/3192490350122691193/
As of now for me , sadly combat groups are useless. It is much better to use hotkey groups as there is a a fast way of selecting it --> pressing a num key. For a combat group, you cannot do that. IF you try to hook it to a key, it will just dissolves and becomes a hotkey group, and thus you cann't hot key multiple groups.
2. You don't need to load each group with too many units. Just keep it simple to lower cost.
3. Split each of the six companies based on role. So for instance, my first company is infantry for garrison, second is recon, third is tanks, fourth is artillery, and so on.
4. Try to diversify or specialize your groups. For instance, I have two main infantry-type groups where group A has command unit, basic infantry, and scout, and Group B has anti-air, anti-tank, anti-personnel. Other idea is a group with a recon helicopter and attack helicopter together. Another is artillery pieces combined with a supply truck.