SgtMuhammed

Of course the reinforcement solution can't be used for operations at all. Some sort of drop method would be nice.

Yeah they are a lot of fun. Carrying them is a bastard though. Or did you mean in the game?

God not this again. Hi Dad!

Considering that they are nearly the same tank.

Shoot, there are still T34's as well.

That and mustard gas. It originally wasn't even assigned to mortar platoons but rather to chem platoons.

Kiwi grunts maybe, our standard was 200 meters on first round with 50m FFE by round 3. As to untrained observers, most batteries don't have the ammo to just fire wildly around the map. But yes it can be done.

During the Ardennes the 109th FA had its batteries as close as 3kms behind the front line. During the battle for Hosingen C battery had to fight off advanced elements of 26th VGD before they could help the Hosingen garrison against the rest of the division. It can happen.

Reactive Armor?! Are we opening the possibility for Cold War and beyond?

Even rounds that don't shatter the armor can do nasty things to the stuff behind it. Radios can be busted or disconnected, turrets can jam, etc. I would love to see a more extensive list of possible hits. How about a hit that knocks out the stearing linkage? What do you do with a tank that can only go forward and back? The ability to disable without killing a tank (more so than you can now) would give a more realistic veiw of combat losses.

I think it would get rather annoying very quickly, much more so than their current stealth mode. The noise would have to be canned and would end up like the looped sound you get in console games. I know that armor currently sounds alike but then armor really does sound alike, unless you are talking about M1's or sum such.

CM has taken over as my newest $2045 game. It used to be "Wing Commander" that would make me buy a new PC everytime a new game came out. Good thing PC prices have gone down so much.

I would love to see noncombatants in the way of Rear area and support troops but I would balk at including civilians as a base unit. Quite frankly their fate didn't really matter much in WWII. As for later conflicts I can see a need. One other thing along these lines, will it be possible to place destroyed equipment to simulate old battlefields? This could be especially useful if vehicles count as cover.

When the units come under fire they fire them and reverse. You should see a little cloud near the front of the vehicle a few seconds after it retreats. You can't manually target them.

Definitly more elegant than requesting that people come back to read the spoiler section of the general briefing.

Italy in Albania or Sealion 1940 (not what could have happened but what acually did). What more could you ask for?

Sorry, one more. Variable Command Delay. Each unit could have a base of so many seconds with a random factor added that is independent of experience. I have had a lot of time commanding troops in the field and you can never predict how long it will take someone to get moving. Guys are always messing with their kit or trying to fix something or looking at their map to figure out where the hell they are. I would actually accept delays that can last a minute or two for even vet units.

Why am I reminded of "Stand by Me?"

I'm flattered at this attention. Emar has it right. From other discusions I believe the AI functions with the same FOW as the player. This causes it to act differently during play. What I want is to be able to watch the AI playing what to it is a real game. As it is you have to play a while and then surrender to get a snapshot of what is happening. While this can give an image it isn't very good for seeing why the AI does what it does. If you could watch the AI develope its attack or defense you could get a better hold on how to set things up to get the desired AI behavior. I don't know how many times I have plugged my way through an entire battle only to end it and have a major WTF moment when I see what the AI has done. I've seen entire tank companies set up in the small clearings in the middle of a dense wood and thus be entirely removed from the battle. I have also had the AI move units clear across the map for no appearent reason. It just seems to me that it would be easier to tell what was going on if you could actually watch it.

Gotta add one more: Test mode for scenarios. Designer can see all units while doing a run through but for game purposes FOW is as set. This can help greatly with tweaking AI actions and reaction.

Something to consider along these lines for quick battles could be the ability to spend points for intel which would affect the number of spotted enemy units.

I'll second that. It would be nice to be able to add a sketch map to give intel to one side without giving it to the other.

More flexability with units in scenario creation. Ability to remove units between battles, specific reinforcement locations for ops, things like that. More terrain variety to vary cover, scattered trees with heavy brush, dirt field, etc... Ability to assign chains of command. Ability to adjust unit equipment. (Units tend to accumulate and disgard things over time) More realistic rates of fire.

Try zipping an email to Andreas.

Well he was the commander of U.S. Army Ground Forces and so had every right to be anywhere he wanted. At least he wanted to see if the army he designed was actually working as opposed to staying in the ivory tower and assuming all was going according to his plans.