coe

I did a search of the forum but didn't come up with anything on this: in Fortress Italy is there a line of sight tool similar in function to the CMx1? (also a curiosity question... how in the world did I become a senior member?)

Ah glad to help... by the way two further questions came to mind... can you use heavy bombers to supply an army? and as supply goes down does mobility/action points go too?

actually... shouldn't mobility go down as supply goes down (e.g. starving or no fuel)

yeah but the Japanese were pretty good at marching! maybe there should be like a fitness rating... y'know like a city slickers type of army and then a country boys type one.

Ok so I'm playing against the AI at the moment and it's mid 1942 and I'm still slugging it out (as Axis against China). I just took Sian and Chungking but that fort at the top is still holding out... what's the secret to taking out china by 1941? You still have to invest in research and sea, naval landing units etc. to battle the U.S. and take over Indonesia later on? Are many of you doing the hit with one unit then move the unit away and then move another unit into that space and attack (which I think is kind of gamey)?

yep the computer is. I think it's interesting also to put a submarine in the path of a convoy route and then slap a battleship in a non-raider mode on either side and see the destroyers run into it.

Production question: Is there a MPP savings if I produce a unit with the upgrades vs. producing the unit and upgrading later? Also what about repairing a unit then upgrading, vs. upgrading then repairing a unt.... Suggestion: I think there should be a command where two adjacent land units can switch places (relief in place) with some retention of entrenchment (this is because they basically move into their fox holes, trenches etc.). e.g. An army (entrenched at 3) switches place with an entrenched corps (fortified at 4). Neither army or corps can do anything else that turn. Entrenchment calculation. Both lose one entrenchment point automatically. Since the army is bigger than the corps, the army losses an additional entrenchment (50% of the entrenchment value the corps had) moving into the corps area. The corps, being smaller than the army doesn't take any additional entrenchment losses Thus: Army before switch (entrenched at 3) after it moves into corps old position: 4 - 1 - (0.50x4) = 1 Corps: before switch (entrenched at 4) after it moves into army's old position: 3 - 1 = 2 I am not sure how to do calculations between the other land units but something similar in idea. Conan

Hmmm my subs seem to have sunk a few transports...

well i thought maybe slapping a heavy bombers up there as recon to spot transports heading to the UK?

Is there a way to transfer air groups... e.g. lets say I'm german and I want to put a group onto iceland... I can't ship it on a transport can I (operate won't work and it won't be in range of flying). Conan

ahh ok, thank you everyone for the input Conan

would it be safe to presume that the scenarios can't port over from one version to another (in particular - global and wwI)...and that the engines are too different? Conan

Ok still slightly confused... So the WWI game doesn't enable me to do the Pacific or fully do WWII (does it have like the WWII units that would be present in Global or the Patton drives East etc.)? however for the Global, does that still give me the capability to do things that were in like Patton Drives East, or european only maps etc.? Conan

I'm a bit confused as to which strategic command to get. I like the idea of playing WWI but I also would like to play WWII European theater or even the globe. Does WW1: the Great War 1914-1918 with the 1939 expansion do that? What is the difference between Global conflict and the Great War or something like Patton drives east... which is the most up to date and advanced game engine? Is the Global Conflict version something that is now in its final form (i.e. no more patches, not being worked on etc.). Conan

So we hear alot of about hitting a Panther on its sides because it is weak there. Sometimes I get a feel that it's a specialty tactic unique to the German tanks. By this I mean was the side armor on German tanks much much weaker to the front armor, in comparison to the Allied tanks front and side difference? For example, on a Sherman HVSS would you want to also try to maneuver for a flank shot on it. I can imagine the StuG III, PzIVG or Hetzers with the 75 L/43 might start having trouble with the fronts of some of the allied tanks later in the war. what would they try to do? Oddly enough I remember in Barbarossa to Berlin, with early german tanks against the KV-1 and T-34, sometimes it didn't matter where you'd shoot from, it'd plink off them anyways.

That's something I was wondering about, the Pz Div had only 8 left. Were most of the rest total write offs. 3 to 1 in armor isn't a good exchange if you are German at that time of the war (thinking about the vast amounts of armor facing the germans at that time as well as production capabilities etc.). Then again, if you are vastly outnumbered I presume that your losses will be higher if you are forced to fight? 3-1 with tigers and panthers?

Given the length of AGC line and the number of AFVs available (which if you think about it is far less than the number of cars in a Mall parking lot), how in the world was it possible to get the StuG/Tanks to the breakthrough points in time? (it is also scary that such a small number of AFV's could make a difference.

I dunno, perhaps the best german strategy would have been to do a split of the reserves. It didn't seem like the reserves were exactly up to strength either though. although I presume given the stand fast orders prevented the best step (withdraw AGC from the balcony). Though, give that much of AGC got blown away on the run, they might have just as well stood fast perhaps (and lasted a little bit longer since I doubt on the run supplies were getting through anyways). I'm not sure the Germans could have afforded to wait and see regardless of if the soviets attacked both places at once or attacked one at a time. The german front seemd very brittle and to wait would have been a catastrophe even if it wasn't the main attack.

will it be easier to pop a grenade down the hatch or shoot down it in a close infantry assault on an unbuttoned tank?

Hmmm any reason why it took so long? I can presume that grey isn't exactly the best camouflage for a variety of conditions? (even uniforms).

I was wondering of some of you historical buffs could weigh in on this. Right before Bagration, the Germans grouped their reserves in AG NorthUkraine. The Soviets of course attacked AG Center drawing the reserves north then hit AG North Ukraine with I presume fresh forces (correct me if I am wrong). This means that the Soviets had the capability to perhaps attack both places at once. Now I know the idea that that attacking where the reserves are would cause more losses and that attacking the weak forces and eliminating them easily first then causes more manpower shortages for the defender (to fill the gaps) and this is what I presume what was done. But at the same time having the capability to hit both places means that it might not make much of a difference as to if you attacked both simultaneously. You'd be guaranteeing you'd be hitting the defenders at their weak points too. A major attack in NUkraine would have prevented reserves from going to the Center perhaps? so I guess perhaps my question is if the force disparity was so great, such that the germans could only defend heavily in one place, and the Russians could deliver two blows, did it really matter if the germans concentrated or spread their reserves a bit more evenly. I'm also presuming here that the Russians were well fortified so that the weakened Germans before Bagration wouldn't have been able to concentrate and knock out a division here and there. In summation, if the Germans correctly anticipated the main target and rushed their reserves there ahead of time it might not have made a difference?

I was thinking more about the mission orders for whichever side you want to play or for two player games

Will there be mission type orders for the germans and more rigid or type orders for the others?

ok so I'm wondering in real life how was this one platoon supposed to successfully counter attack - would they be advancing in by bounding or be basically doing a mad charge with guns blazing. Also what's the thing about supposedly the Germans had a doctrine to immediately counterattack... in practice how did this work if they were strung thin against vastly greater enemies.... or better yet... your position falls and you were defending it... what else do you have left to counterattack with (is it presuming the reserves weren't already called in)...

this is true but it is still a bit boggling, they can't be everywhere at once and those cannons didn't have that long a range! 20 tanks could fill just a short 75 yrds on a street (not spaced out)