sand digger

As far as cease firing or surrendering goes, Hitler's usual 'fight to the end' instructions are ignored? You want realistic............

It's more frustration than anything, being rude or whatever is just part of that because I know damn well that nothing will change no matter what my attitude is. Mainly because the vast majority here seem satisfied with the way things are which I find very difficult to understand if they are real WW2 students. I did do a post a while ago about the control of infantry movement and action which received very little comment as if not many were really interested in something which plays a crucial role in real warfare. That's where I'm coming from.

I'm not going to spend all that time listening to something I've probably familiar with but comparing the development in warfare as of late WW1 to that of early WW2 is entirely legitimate, German fanbois should remember that it was the Allies who won and they did so by developing all arms warfare to the extent that the Germans were beaten because the Allies were able to penetrate through miles of defences until there was nothing stopping them except their lack of suitable equipment, a situation which of course was addressed in WW2. German infantry, just like any other infantry, was going nowhere without mechanical support which is where the future lay. As WW2 showed.

If people want to insulted then that's their problem, through years of off/on experience here I've learnt what the majority are like so no apologies. The fact that some are more interested in perceived insults says it all really, they obviously feel that they are more important than the game. Back to my previous post. I've tried splitting squads of course, the problem still remains with narrow gullys. Certainly the Germans used to follow tanks during attacks, the protection from small arms fire was significant, it did as usual depend on the situation though. The fact is infantry are part of the game and for their protection the proper use of ground is crucial, without that they are mostly useless/excessively vulnerable in attack. For an all arms attack their contribution is vital but in effect the game at best pretends to be something it is not. It's obvious that infantry have gone into the 'too hard' basket.

Back to the infantry failings aspect. For a start, anyone who is reasonably familiar with WW2 infantry in action should realise what the problems are, they arise during the playing of a game particularly where it's attempted to use infantry in their historical role. If someone can't identify such problems as they arise then maybe they should just stick with playing with the tanks or something. One problem I've found is with trying to use infantry infiltration tactics, particularly in the use of ground and cover which is essential for such tactics. Try to advance a squad down a narrow gully and you find that some stay on the exposed high ground and not in cover no matter what you do. That then draws artillery fire which often lands in the gully inflicting heavy casualties. Hopeless. Another procedure which should be able to be used is for the infantry to follow and take cover behind advancing tanks, once again trying this historical procedure is usually impossible to do properly. The problem in this forum seems to be that very few players want to play the game as realistically as possible, trivia is more important than substance. So BF pander to the majority and neglect difficult to address improvements that would make the game much more realistic.

Off topic much? WTF has a historical discussion on certain events in WW2 got to do with the OP's query? Absolutely nothing you selfish pricks.

In the real world infantry survived quite well in open country, if, if, they dug in to some degree. It does not take much to offer protection but it does take prompt and energetic digging to gain that protection. BF has always been infantry ignorant, perhaps it is time to address that issue and put aside for the moment questions of uniform correctness, signage, colour and other trivial matters which contribute nothing to gameplay.

To continue my rant, it was the Allies who favoured the use of tanks and other mechanical assistance for the infantry, including tanks converted to carry them, in WW1. Not the Germans who had the same problem as any infantry which was basically a limit to human endurance where transport and other mechanical go forward assistance was not provided. Having a fancy name like 'stormtrooper' made no difference actually, all armies had their attack specialists and shock troops by whatever name and they all could only go forward on foot for a limited time. The relevance of all this is very much seen in WW2 where the Germans used the methodology and equipment types that had been used so successfully aginst them in WW1, they had learnt their lesson well. The rubbish spouted by some about the Germans learning from various self promoting authors just does not make sense when you consider that the stand out German practitioners of mechanical warfare in WW2 had fought in WW1 and would well know what had worked against them. The point about infantry is that they basically should just hold ground which has been taken in all arms actions, while the thought of infantry dashing forward using all sorts of clever tactics may be superficially attractive it becomes casualty expensive where any sort of firm resistance is offered. There are plenty of examples from WW2 of this from all sides if examples are needed, an obvious lesson which is not so easy to always apply in practice.

The quote that follows was not from a German and it was made and put into practice in WW1, not WW2. All arms in WW1? Yes and the quote is still applicable today. the true role of infantry was not to expend itself upon heroic physical effort, not to wither away under merciless machine-gun fire, not to impale itself on hostile bayonets, but on the contrary, to advance under the maximum possible protection of the maximum possible array of mechanical resources, in the form of guns, machine-guns, tanks, mortars and aeroplanes; to advance with as little impediment as possible; to be relieved as far as possible of the obligation to fight their way forward.

Geez, the German fanboism is strong here, everyone else must have been stupid by default too.

Lol at the comment re Cents not doing any tank -v- tank action in Korea. The T34 was mince meat for the Cent's 20 pounder gun, plenty of records of that including lifting T34 turrets off with HE. Basically we had post war UN tanks -v- WW2 veterans used by amateurs, the outcome was predictable and nothing much to get excited about.

Yeh, variations of speed of movement would have to factored in and I agree that the AI would be more involved which I guess is part of the idea eg for that minute in WEGO when you sit back and curse your idiots for acting dumb. Or when you are concentrating on watching the left flank while those on the unsupervised right take continuous fire until they panic and run when your intention was merely to move them safely as far as that was possible.. Academic discussion I suppose but one that I find interesting.

Probably been suggested before but I'm sure I'm not the only one who finds what's available in the present Movement menu often to be inappropriate for what is trying to be achieved. More appropriate to civilian movement than to military personnel. The entire present Movement menu could be replaced with order type commands eg Move to Sighting, Move to Contact, Move to Engage which respectively would mean stop moving when enemy sighted, stop when enemy contacted and engage him, and, engage the enemy while continuing to move. These sorts of orders would reduce the amount of micromanaging and intense supervision presently necessary and allow the player to better concentrate on tactics and strategy which to me would greatly enhance the playing experience. Not that Battlefront are going to rush around changing stuff but this subject may be appropriate in the future. What do you think?

Wondering what an off topic post is when the topic itself is off topic, hmmmm.

Looking at this video reminded me of the high/low feature, 1.00 on. It gets a bit ridiculous IMHO. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VEOg4m_sLVo

Can see your reason for suggesting that but it seems a bit picky and not relevant most times.

Thanks womble, it was a useful feature which could make a heck of a difference to a game and allow some smart tactical manouvering to disable and then kill a big panzer.

Reminded of this feature that was used in a Russian WW2 game a few years ago, when firing at a tank you have a choice of hitting it high or low. Very handy against a big cat if the AT gun is not going to penetrate heavy armour but can damage tracks and render the target immobile. Does CMRT have it?

Good to see that AT guns works something like they should now because in CM Normandy it was ridiculous, hidden AT guns being spotted and destroyed by fast moving Shermans before they fired a shot. Threw the game and it's nice box away after a few experiences like that. Recall seeing some official Russian AT gun tank kill figures for their various gun types, around 2.5 - 3 over the life of a medium gun from memory.

Understatement of the year. Main reason why Normandy failed for me was the ridiculous spotting of AT guns, looks like that status quo remains. Really, you have a stationary AT gun hidden in bushes yet it is spotted from a distance by a AFV, how in the real world could that happen? Decided to educate myself further on German use of AT guns, studied every video here http://www.youtube.com/feed/UCEVzcXyt-fqm9-bH9HboZAA Strange, when they used their AT guns agressively, which was often, they seemed to do OK, obviously they had not been told by BF that they were doomed before even getting one shot off. Sorry, I can't pretend that this is a realistic game worth my playing time.

Here's one showing action from Normandy and Italy, there usually are some trophy ventilated Shermans in these, none this time although we do see an 88 in action in the AT role. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XovHhBCpoPA&feature=related

What is your point? Of course there is, as you say, a chance. The sensible real world point seems to be that such a chance would be extremely remote and unlikely to be experienced. Someone raises a legitimate concern the solution to which may benefit all us reality types and you typically respond in a negative dismissive tone. You need an attitude adjustment, badly.

Could not agree more in fact it is a game breaker for me, can't see the point in playing a game like this if it does not play somewhere near reality. The thing is the reality of spotting from a moving vehicle can be done anytime when driving around in a car, it aint some super wonderful military experience thing. Also wonder how things like this are not picked up in testing, no I don't want a testing job thanks, there are other calls on my time

Why do you say that? Seems to me that the odds are they would not be spotted without very careful and thorough observation, if stationary and camo'd as they usually would be, but of course there is always some chance that they would.

The point I was trying to make in agreeing with Mike is that balance should be achieved by applying historically accurate means as a first priority. It does not necessarily follow from that that playability will suffer, if it does then alternative means of achieving balance should be used. But only as a last resort. Mike's suggestion for achieving balance is historically accurate and looks like it would achieve it without harming playability. Personally I find that playing a war game that is historically accurate adds an extra dimension to it, if the rate of resupply or casualties for example is considerably unrealistic then for me playability by itself becomes meaningless. SC is a war game based on historical events after all, not some contrived conflict that never happened.