Could you lead men into battle?

[STEED]

I did this twice first in the mindset of the time and next as present day.

Then 86% Slipped up on one I knew but did not act on.
Tactics good, moral down.

Now 65% I felt on one decision was better but of that time it was wrong.
Tactics poor, moral better.

Thanks jim.

[mapuc]

"Your current device is not supported"

Markus

[donna52522]

60%

[ikalugin]

I have some issues with it for example:

 

in episode 2 you see the running figure, which is clearly armed with a british rifle, why should I have engaged it?

[Buddahaid]

I did about 50%.

[Kptlt. Neuerburg]

Tried this twice, the first time I got 67% and the second time a 97%.

 

In certain decisions such as either to hold fire or open fire could of gone wrong in either case. Sure that could of been a Hun or you could of just had one of your own men killed or wounded by friendly fire. Same thing with the decision to either shoot the sniper or try to drag your wounded buddy back to safety. The sniper could of killed the guy who goes out to rescue the wounded man or turned his gun on the who ever else was in his line of site.

[Oberon]

 

Sadly with snipers, it's a common tactic, as old as the hills, to wound one soldier deliberately in order to entice the others out to attempt a rescue, then you take them out one by one.
Unfortunately until the sniper is put down, the zone just isn't safe enough to attempt a rescue.

Agreed on the friendly fire, but that just highlights that in order to protect your platoon you have to make unpopular decisions, I also held fire on that incident, which could very well have gotten myself and what was left of my section killed.

I think in regards to doing it twice, the best thing to do is to take the first score as your final score, because the second time around you know what it's looking for. You might want to wrap some of that text in spoilers too, for those who haven't done it yet.

[Oberon]

Originally Posted by ikalugin

I have some issues with it for example:

 

in episode 2 you see the running figure, which is clearly armed with a british rifle, why should I have engaged it?

 

Good spotting, but the moral of the situation is a bit more abstract than that, what if...for example, you couldn't see the rifle the soldier was carrying due to the weather conditions? You have a split second decision to engage or not, and standard orders were to engage when in a battlefield situation, and if it was a friendly then that was the risk that the soldier advancing towards you took. Many people did hold fire, and lots of lives were saved in that respect, but many were also lost, if it had been a German soldier then he would have a split second advantage in which he could feasibly kill either yourself or one of your men. That's why the SOP was written.
Likewise, sadly, the rules on prisoners. The reason I did so badly in the second mission was because I let the German machinegunner live, I knew that taking him prisoner was pointless under the circumstances, but I could not bring myself to kill him. Morally this was the correct decision, but tactically I could very well have doomed my entire squad.
It's tough at the top, as they say.

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

Originally Posted by ikalugin

I have some issues with it for example:

 

in episode 2 you see the running figure, which is clearly armed with a british rifle, why should I have engaged it?

 

I didn't recognize the rifle, but it sure looked like a Brit. In fact, the entire scene is constructed to provide the cues to a modern viewer that if I had fired it would have been Friendly Fire. They might be trying to re-enact World War I, but the scripting uses modern mentality.

[Stealhead]

Originally Posted by Kazuaki Shimazaki II

 

I didn't recognize the rifle, but it sure looked like a Brit. In fact, the entire scene is constructed to provide the cues to a modern viewer that if I had fired it would have been Friendly Fire. They might be trying to re-enact World War I, but the scripting uses modern mentality.

 

An enemy combatant can always pick up and use your weapons especially in a close range battle in a forest. I based my choice on the fact that I was not certain if it was a friend or foe so hold fire sights are upon the unknown so as soon as he becomes known then you go. Pretty sure that "friendly fire" has been a problem for a very long time the name(Friendly Fire) is more modern true but not the fact that it might occur and would be something to avoid if at all possible. Do you think that a WWI solider would want to accidentally shoot a friendly solider? Of course not did they have some form of fire discipline of course they did . The old term is fratricide.Therefore I disagree on your opinion about the modern cue. The point was to test ones discipline do you attack when uncertain or when certain? An attack should be committed to when the objective is clear if not you may be causing harm to your side rather than good.

[Pisces]

Originally Posted by mapuc

"Your current device is not supported"

Markus

Check the faq: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/arti...e-episode-faqs

 

Browsers supported for desktop:

Chrome (version 31 or higher)
Safari 7
Internet Explorer 11
Firefox (version 29 or higher)
Tablet devices supported:

iPad 2 (iOS 7.1 and above)
iPad 3 (iOS 7.1 and above)
iPad 4 (iOS 7.1 and above)
iPad mini (iOS 7.1 and above)
Support for a number of Android devices is coming soon.