hoolaman

You probably know this but in case you or others do not, you can trace LOS from any waypoint you plot. The line doesn't trace from the waypoint though, it emanates from the unit itself, but the LOS info is correct. As for whether that is realistic, well it is my view that WEGO orders are a projection forward in time of actions that a unit will take during the turn so it isn't that unrealistic to get a LOS trace from where a unit *will* be. A system instantly highlighting every point that can see you is far more unrealistic from a FOW perspective imo.

Mount disk huh? Lol

It's certainly possible to buy the game assuming that the sequel to CM would have the same gameplay options. It is listed in the features section though not everyone would neccesarily see it, buyer beware. Despite the hilarious melodramatic delivery and the ludicrous idea that patching it in is not good enough (TCP/IP was patched into CMBO too!) the OP has every right to complain about this and storm off like a ten year old if that's what he wants to do.

That's what the example I was thinking of too. It is quite an astonishing mistake, I think things like this are compounded by an aggressive culture up and down the chain of command. Yes, and sometimes guys that want to blow **** up will phrase their reports to higher-ups in a way that gets them permission. I've heard it with pilots in Iraq and apparently captain Rogers of the Vincennes was that way inclined too. They initially ID a threat and don't really want to wait to see if they are right in case they miss the chance to kill it.

Generally, yes. Sometimes people wage hate campaigns on the internet about things they don't like too.

Man what is it with the constant snide one liners? Of course he plays the game, and the Strat AI from 2011 IS the same as the one from 2008.

Yes but he's our tactless know-it-all smartass.

There was a tea-making regiment, the 1st Royal Infusiliers.

I'm looking forward to squads going from "exhausted" to "rested" immediately after consuming a Tea, Cup of, Mk I.

If you vote no, go back and vote again until you get it right.

Yeah the files are in mono and mods must be rendered in the right format or they'l sound glitchy or just won't work at all. Effectively the game renders them into stereo depending on where the sound comes from relative to the game camera.

If the dusty recesses of my memory serve, the spotting data is made a lot more complex and therefore bigger files, by a lot of changes in elevation. Would be easy enough to check by flattening out the same map and looking at the file sizes.

In summary, launched grenades cause casualties but hand grenades do not. Gun fire 0.50 and above causes casualties but less than 0.50 does not.

I tend to use them for ferrying forward mortars, MGs and FO's once a point of resistance has been cleared (and AT guns, though the scale of CM battles rarely calls for this). My infantry are always on foot. Occasionally I'm tempted to gamble a mounted dash across open ground, though I'm usually made to regret it. Until then they stay back with the other longer range support weapons, supporting with MG fire from keyholes if possible but otherwise keeping well out of sight.

It is not an insurmountable problem in game mechanic terms and its not an unreasonable concept. I think a large part of the packing and unpacking time delay should be pushed onto the act of actually embarking the gun up on a truck rather than the bit where you roll the gun a couple of metres over to the truck. Everything I've seen leads me to believe that a gun should be on the move in less than 60 seconds if the manpower is there.

None of those sound like supporting evidence for something that was a routine or even very sensible idea. Hung up in the air, nailed by a MG, bleeding hands, etc.

20m it is then, good idea.

I actually posted the wrong video before. http://youtu.be/m9yecemugWo The sequence I was talking about is where they unlimber the gun from the horses. There's also a bit of some guys pushing an unlimbered gun down the road at 3:37.

I know myself and five mates could push my old Ford Falcon down even a fairly rough dirt road at running pace and that weighs as much as a Pak 40 albeit on a stable four wheel base. I don't doubt it would be tiring, but for emergency moves and quick rotations it is extremely plausible. I think everything in the game is too slow, from deploying to packing up to rotating the base and even to slewing the gun, and there is plenty of video evidence to support this view.

The movement speed is way too slow especially for small guns and even more especially for short moves. All guns that can be moved by hand should really be able to move 10 metres or so without "packing up". Smaller guns should be able to move at a running pace, terrain dependant. Check out right at the start and at 2:41 in this video. Very quick moves and very quick deploying. Plenty of other relevant footage too. Not always conclusive evidence but the game is orders of magnitude slower than this. I haven't spent too much time packing up ATGs in the game, but I did observe that it was easy to accidentally deploy the gun, which means it gets stuck in another 4 minute cycle.

I wish he'd done the yellow submarine, it would have been perfect for that. Cause that looks nothing like a U-Boat.

Sure you can cherry pick bits of bocage that are quite sparse and have holes in them, but even in your example above, if you click down the road past the next T intersection, there is low bocage on both sides of the road that look like they would be VERY difficult to push through for infantry, even without Germans on the other side. I tend to agree though that AFVs should be able to cross the low bits, the bank is lower, and the vegetation is more likely to be crushed down rather than act like a solid wall. One thing a lot of people seem to miss (even BFC) is that the value of the cullin plow (and explosives) is that it actually bulldozed the berm out of the way, allowing a breach that allowed any sort of vehicles to enter the field without having to traverse a giant speedbump. BFC might have painted themselves in a corner for the Commonwealth module if the Brits don't get Cullin plows and there are good historical records of Churchills crossing the bocage. What might be cool is if the "gap" tile simulated a more sparse patch that allowed infantry to cross AND allowed regular tanks to attempt to drive over. It seems to be well established that the thickest parts of the boacge would not be crossed by anything.

I think the armour skirts are particularly effective at defeating bazookas and rifle grenades, which is probably about right.

I actually have heard a few anecdotes that both sides stayed out of and away from farm buildings in Normandy because they were such juicy and obvious targets for artillery. The implication is that they were deadly places to be, but this doesn't shed any light on small arms.

This is a very good point that the game also seems to be very poor at modelling. There are many many classic period pictures of buildings leveled by months of bombing that still have their facade stone walls standing, though they have been gutted by bombs and fire. We've all probably seen a few pictures of HE scars on stone buildings around Europe and they kinda splash off. Google "Sarajevo Rose" for some good ones. The game's modelling of a building collapsing is very simplistic, because in reality a building of this sort that "falls down" still has large bits of heavy stone walls at least one but even two or more stories high. There might be little else inside except rubble but they would still be excellent fighting positions. Especially the little church seems very jarring when it comes down flat as a pancake.