sand digger

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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.

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?