SgtMuhammed

Remember that there is a difference between gamey and risky. Even real world commanders will risk assets if it means getting people either to or from somewhere that they have to be. Fast moving a truck to drop off a squad and praying that they get there is different from rushing that truck forward to use the "Hive Mind." Military tactics are designed to secure the objective. Many times this requires using things as they are not "supposed" to be used. General Franks "siezed" a crossroads in Iraq with a squadron of AH64s, was this gamey? You do what you have to do, if your opponent cannot stop you well then you win.

If tanks were never supposed to advance without infantry then why make them any faster than a walking man. The Brits tried that remember, didn't work to well. Standard tactic on both sides when attacking a defensive position was to pound it until you hoped the enemy was stunned and disorganized and then send in shock troops, tanks, or whatever mobile units you have to effect a breach and then pray that you can get your infantry up in time to hold it. There are countless examples of this tactic succeeding as well as failing. The point is that this is how things were actually done and in fact continue to be done. As a commander you constantly evaluate what the worst thing an opponent can do to you is. From there you either take appropriat steps or you pray your opponent doesn't know or guess what that thing is. RL example: We were in defensive positions (as OPFOR). American Mech company blasts its way through one of our obsticals leaving 2km gap on our lines. Luckily for us the follow in attack never came after we contained the initial breach because we had exactly one at asset left. Had the American commander sent his reserve M1s through the breach when we had such limited means to resist would he have been gamey? Does anyone think he didn't send the tanks because he worried that it might be "unfair" or "unrealistic?" Tactic are tactics. Like real commanders you will only succeed if your tactics can successfully counter and overcome those of the enemy. If not you lose, such is war. [ January 17, 2003, 06:42 AM: Message edited by: Sgtgoody ]

.... their constant need for affirmation hugs. They really could become quite annoyed if refused and often asked local kangaroos to ....

We use M60s as T80s and M113s with a hand made gun for BMPs. The 60 thermal sites are really nice but all we have in the BMPs are little Bushnel 3x scopes and nods for night vision. We have to use to coax methode as well although we have started using PAQ4 laser aiming devices. We still can't engage more than about 150m at night though. Still once we do close the range its all over for BLUEFOR.

If we are defining "gamey" as something done to take advantage of the characteristics of the game design rather than something that would actually happen in RL then there can be no other definition for this tactic. This becomes readily apparent when one remembers that it is almost 99% certain that none of those trucks has a radio. So it becomes a case of a commander telling a vitally needed unit that has no way of communicating and little chance of survival to go to the middle of the killing zone and let him know if they spot anything. Then again this is a game and technically anything you do will be gamey. You don't have to worry about preserving your units for further operations or about supply. It all boils down to how faithful you want to be to RL. We can all cite numerous incidents of "gamey" tactics if we try. Just make your opponent pay and don't do them yourself if they upset you.

This was a conversation between one of our T-80 gunners (here in OPFOR land) and his TC. TC: Mike 1 (M1) 1 o'clock in the far woodline. G: I can't see him. TC: He's right there. G: Where? TC: Climb up here. G (from loaders hatch): Oh there he is. G (back at sight): I still can't see him. TC then kicks gunner in back of head. The point. Yes it is possible to see a tank with your eyes but not be able to see it with you optics. The above example was during the day, imagine at night. Stuff happens and occasionally luck rules the battlefield.

You can probably find something on this in the Technical Support Forum. Do a search and you will probably pick up the correct thread. The patch worked fine for me so I can't really say what to do if it goes wrong.

You can probably find something on this in the Technical Support Forum. Do a search and you will probably pick up the correct thread. The patch worked fine for me so I can't really say what to do if it goes wrong.

YD So far the only thing that seems to really work is to either make the turn leg longer or reduce the angle. In my tests I found that if you turn it to a 45 degree turn rather than a 90 it doesn't seem to begin orbiting. Even this is not 100 percent as I have had vehicles start turning even when given a straight move. I'm running more tests (in between game turns) and I'll let you know what I find. James

Of course we can all hope he doesn't get to see mr Schroener post. Truely a miscreant there.

If you are looking for an AAR that shows the chaos of battle they are really hard to find. You can look in the Center for Military History website for lessons learned to see what the official position was on enemy capabilities and tactics but any combat report is going to be cleaned up. About the best you can do is to find accounts written by people who were there but even those are tainted by personal perception. On the whole though the game is pretty realistic at capturing much of the flavor of tactical combat. It has the tension of never really knowing if the route you are taking is the best. You can practally see a bazooka team sweat as they line up a shot on a Panzer they can practically touch. It may not be perfect but I definitly think it is the best you will find.

Soddball now I think you're being too kind. [ January 16, 2003, 09:49 AM: Message edited by: Sgtgoody ]

I think that pretty much goes without saying. One of the reasons we are even on this forum is because we have an interest in the game material and a desire to improve out knowledge of it. This alone separates us from the majority of the public (from any country) who are content to let someone else tell them what they should be interested in (how the hell else do you explain Survivor). It is an old sentiment but it bears repeating: Most people could care less about the world around them as long as they can feed their family, put a roof over their head and gripe about how screwed up things are. A few people, however, have the drive and ability to actually see beyond thier own noses and these are the ones who eventually make a different. The masses usually despise these people. Well before it is too late; Hi Mom.

Lt Bull Thanks for all the help. I have run a couple of tests myself and I have gotten the facing change at the end of movement even using reverse. I will try to figure out how to send you my test. James [ January 16, 2003, 09:19 AM: Message edited by: Sgtgoody ]

The way it is now is actually the most realistic. If you ever look through tank sights, at normal combat ranges (from about 500 to 1500 meters) a tank is pretty small. You can see enough to know what you are shooting at but asking the gunner to hit a specific part of the tank is asking a little much. This is especially true if your opponent is moving, the wind is blowing, someone is shooting at you, the sun or shadows are interfering with your sight picture, well you get the picture. Most gunners will put the sights center mass, adjust for movement or wind, and let fly. While there were ace gunners who could call their shots these men were few and far between and even for them it was a matter of luck for most engagements. Having critical hits (for lack of a better term) ruled by chance is pretty realistic as that is normally what determined them in actual combat.

Good point, just a question of semantics. This is the terminology I worked with when I was in. Doesn't make any difference really. I think you are right about the ability to skid/pivot turn. Does anyone know any definite figures on this? James

You gotta love that naval gunfire. Was kicking butt in that operation and the same thing happened to me.

I have used these work arounds but one often finds that the tactical situation doesn't alow you to give longer movement legs. It also seems that the same amount of extra rotation occurs no matter what movement type (and therefor speed) is used.

Neutral steer is different from pivot steer. As John noted, neutral steer involves both tracks turning in opposite directions. This allows the tank to turn without any forward or reverse movement. The pivot steer uses the brakes, of whatever kind, to hold one track motionless while the other drives the tank through the turn or pivots it around the motionless track. I am not sure how common this ability was in WWII tanks but I would guess that it was much more so than the ability to perform a neutral steer. The use of the pivot turn would allow much faster turns while stationary than are currently seen in the game but the tank will shift its position some.

You guys are overloading my brain with all these great selections! Keep up the great work.

Which is one of the big reasons for the switch to DU in modern rounds. Not only is it denser but it is incendiary once it penetrates.

I'm refering to the fact that nearly every Frenchman from that time claims to have been a member of the resistance. Much the same way that no Germans claim to have ever supported Hitler. Countries tend to promote groups that enhanse their chosen national mythology. It may not be true but people will convince themselves that it is.

Feel free to send some my way if you need an extra body. Be advised though that my system isn't really up to battles over about 6000 pts.

I think you are being too forgiving Cannon . There was nothing sarcastic about that reply.

I always have liked Hasegawa models. The always seemed so much more serious than Monagram or Revel. I think I remember seeing this one in the late 70's as well. (Never bought it though as I was still in my airplane phase. ) By the way did they ever make a Stielgranate 41 round for this thing. [ January 16, 2003, 03:43 AM: Message edited by: Sgtgoody ]