Freyberg

The accuracy of the gun makes a huge difference, especially at realistic ranges, but I think you have a point. For example, the Sd.Kfz. 233 with the short 75mm (128pt/143pt) costs less than a Hellcat (141pt/156pt) - but they're both lightly armoured, fast, open-topped vehicles that can kill each other. That makes the Hellcat (with the more accurate gun) about 10% more expensive than the 75mm AC, whereas the Pz IV is 30% more expensive than the Sherman. So, a valid question...

I think it looks fun I actually like the chunky cartoonish graphics. I reckon I'd get bored with it pretty quickly though. I played FPS for enough decades already.

I read a funny one the other day: "Say what you like about Hitler, but he didn't go round calling his enemies Nazis." As for the movie - my old dad used to have a go at me for watching war movies and playing wargames. "Fun, were they?" he used to say, "Hitler and that lot? Entertaining?" And I'd go, "Geez, Dad - it's just a movie..."

Summary: Bad people are bad But good war movies are good It sounds like a good movie - I'll check it out.

You're facing a very small German force. The wind is gentle from the West (your friendly edge), which makes it perfect for blocking a flank with smoke (you can choose when to do this, you don't have much smoke, but whether you use it in your initial approach or when you're assaulting, it will help). I'd come in from the South, fast, until you have defilade from the elevation on the hills. MG42s are lethal at long range, so move as quick as you can. You'll take some casualties, but if you choose your approach based on the topography, you should be able to minimise exposure at range. Once in the lea of the hills, you have a lot of room to move. The steep angle of the hills makes it possible to isolate one or two buildings at a time, and you have a TRP, so you can use mortar fire to suppress any massed enemy (and there aren't many of them to mass). Then, taking it bit by bit, using the terrain to allow you to concentrate on one position (one or two buildings) at a time, get in quite close (150-200m) and pour on the Garand fire as well the MMGs (area fire, but save a few squads or teams to pick out visible targets). You should be able to manoeuvre some assault teams in close, again using the slope of the terrain for cover. Don't occupy any buildings until you have moved up enough men to occupy them in force - clear them from the outside, using the building as cover from enemy fire from other buildings. The force ratio is all in your favour. Just make sure you throw everything you can at each target in turn - a platoon of Garands, at the right range, is way more than a match for an MG42. And be patient, manoeuvre your assault teams with 'hunt' and 'slow', use the crops and vines for concealment. Your optimum range is just outside 100m, where the Garand has good accuracy, you can spot the enemy, but German SMGs are inaccurate. Wait until you think each pocket of Jerries is dead before you bring the assault teams in close. And as you bring the assault teams up, slowly bring some of the fire elements up too, a good 50m or more behind them.

In WWII combat, attacking where the enemy is weak is a strategic move, but at CM level, with ranges of heavy weapons, you're gonna have to take out the strongpoints. Which is not to say you need to take them head on - but chances are, unless your opponent has made a mistake, you'll need to deal with the enemy where he is strong.

Once you break through the enemy's main line, it often does result in single platoons taking on leftover isolated enemy elements, while you reorganise to continue the push.

Very interesting - thanks

I've generally found - until the mission begins - that the battery is released within a few minutes. That's how it works for WW2 Commonwealth. Mind you, I'm assuming the radio operator tells the battery commander that the forward observer is a casualty - I don't recall what happened the last time I lost the entire team, because it was a while ago.

As I said, this is first contact, so I don't know where else the AI troops are... I do find the AI is excellent at short, heavy barrages if I leave my guys standing around for too long. I find the AI pre-planned barrages just waste shells. It puts up a much better fight if you let it choose live targets.

Well, we've only just come into contact, so I don't know what other surprises the AI has in store - but yeah, I get your point, the AI is not as responsive and for a top game, you have to place a few limitations on yourself that you wouldn't do for a human player. Having said that - I don't give the AI pre-planned barrages - I let it choose its targets for itself, and it can be pretty good at that too...

I know we've been over this ground before and I semi-apologise for bringing it up again, but it just really interests me. (I thought about re-opening an old thread but they get so long...) Anyway - I wanted to reiterate how impressed I am with the AI's ability to 'read' the map. Here are some screenshots. 1) Here are my super simple AI plans for static defence. I always give the AI several groups with different settings, but I don't usually put much thought into where it should set up - I let the AI make that decision and paint all over the map. 2) This is what the AI came up with for that map. This a typical example, by no means unusual or a fluke. It has read the map, correctly ascertained the main vulnerabilities for an approaching force (exposed ground with limited cover), placed armour to threaten these in a well-sited spot, with its flanks covered, and placed infantry in good cover to defend against an attack on the armour. There are things I would like to see improved with the AI, but I think the above is very clever and well done. I get literally hours of fun by: making up a map I like that I think is realistic; choosing logical and challenging VPs and set-up zones; and then just throwing together some AI plans that give maximum 'freedom of choice' to the AI. Occasionally some of enemy forces are poorly placed (out of the fight usually), but never a high proportion of the enemy force and it never mars the game. Almost all the time, almost all the enemy force is very cleverly positioned. The only caveat is that this works best for static defence, and I have had less success with AI plans that involve movement. However even these can work well if they are very general with wide parameters (such as the AI falling back at suitable intervals). For a certain type of battle, this game has a really great AI

Yeah, Courage and Fortitude was insanely hard - I had to backtrack twice just to get to the end, which was a little tedious. Most of the campaigns in all the titles I haven't played, although some of them I did and enjoyed very much. I can't even get a good result in a CMBS scenario without giving myself extra support weapons - modern war has a really steep learning curve. I'll get around to it though

Yeah - I meant CMBS

I haven't played much CMBN for two reasons. 1) There are no British or NATO forces. 2) It's really really hard. I have so much great Combat Mission to enjoy, I'm not missing out; but when I do get around to playing CMBN some more, I'll probably open the editor and cheat a little until I learn how to use my forces - it's what I did all the other games [* against the AI of course - never against a human opponent]

I'm not going to claim I'm an expert on such things, but for precision strikes (usually on large buildings) I've had the best luck with that sort of gun. I agree with that - US 60mm mortar is murderously accurate, whereas the Commonwealth 2" is very much just a platoon-level support weapon - albeit also a good smoke mortar.

Artillery varies in accuracy a lot. Playing Commonwealth, I find off-board mortars great for plastering a wide area, but poor at precision fire, for example a single AT gun or a building - there's too much spread. For individual targets, I like on-board mortars with LOS; or for hitting individual buildings, the 114mm or 140mm howitzers are pretty accurate and pack a solid punch. Presumably heavier, higher velocity shells from a bigger gun are more likely to hit closer to a single point, which makes sense.

The TLD in that case is ".club", which is an ICAAN registered domain. I can't imagine how the entire TLD, which is simple a bunch names of websites located on different servers all around the world, could be infected with malware

Yes

Like a unit that had a recent spot, a unit with binoculars and LOS to the general area, or a unit that's quite close to the enemy.

If an enemy unit is spotted, for sure you see it with the overall view - but if you want the best estimate of a ? unit, you need the unit with the best LOS selected. If you have no unit selected, you get a sort of average.

Not really - it's sort of the average of all the unit views

I have seen things like this happen, but not very often. Most of the time it does happen is because I've done 'Hide Smoke' and forgotten about it, or there are shrubs in the way, but 'Trunks Only' makes them nearly invisible. Which is not to say it never happens...

I've noticed in good cover (uneven ground, trenches, overhead tree cover, dense trees) ATGs are much harder to kill - I like it; it makes playing the AI more fun.

I haven't tested this, but I have observed that in recent games (all with CMFI:RV) troops are more resistant when in buildings, but are also less likely to massacre storming parties. I'm guessing (based on my experience and comments above), once suppressed, they are more like to cower and less likely to bug out. This is OK - storming buildings is fun. It was probably a little too hard before.