Apocal

Gen. James Mattis was subsequently fired for saying that. At least the second and probably the third flag officer to get McArthur'ed over Iran. The reason you don't see them is that they are trying to not be seen. Unless you desire a new orifice, hanging around in plain sight is a pretty bad idea.

You realize you're posting "slog of a battle" regarding a game that covers fighting up Sicilian hills and brawling in bocage, right?

This is hilarious, only because I refuse to believe anyone can be this crazy and still post.

Here it is: http://www.benning.army.mil/Armor/ArmorMagazine/content/Issues/2012/NOVDEC12ARMOR_WEB.pdf#page=30

The restriction is based off what would reliably injure or kill a man so it stands to reason it would be binary. IRL, people don't stay exposed to enemy LoS (and therefore, fire) unless they absolutely have to. It is also much, much more difficult to spot men moving around inside of buildings IRL than in CMSF unless they are cramming their faces through windows, jumping up and down and waving a white cloth.

This is why some kind of lobby system would be nice, there could be transparency regarding the settings instead of what we have now.

Can't combine teams or squads.

If your opponent wants to be that historical, try a scenario. I mean, let's be real, you go into a QB, you know he's going to pick armor that is 75mm resistant, he knows you're gonna pick a 76mm Sherman or TD. Or some goofy **** like five assault gun Shermans.

I think I've seen it happen once or twice. Sherman 75s taking out Panthers from the from, logged as "penetration" not "opening." It was a RT MP or else I would've been able to confirm it.

Did anyone confirm this? I'm fairly sure it wasn't just on my end and it was readily reproducible, but if someone else had a different experience, I'd like to know.

It isn't out of the question to slightly tweak balance in some scenarios or the campaigns themselves. That being said, the game definitely now leans more towards the effective use of smoke to screen infantry movement.

->US Army Infantry Battalion, any month. ->Any rifle company. ->4th Platoon, HQ Support Squad has a radio in addition the radio held by 4th Platoon HQ. Placing the Platoon HQ one action spot away from mortars grants a permanent support link with all capable spotters on the field. Placing an empty radio jeep one action spot away from the mortars grants a permanent support link with all spotters. But placing the HQ Support Squad, which also has a radio, one action spot away leaves the mortars without this support link and spotters can only call on them if they have an alternate means of communicating. IRL, both the radios in a weapons platoon were SCR-300s so it should not be an issue of one having the technical capability to talk on a net but the other not.

Combine TRPs with minefields alongside something like a pair of machineguns laned on the flanks. Use responsive mortars to provide suppression once the MGs are silenced. If you still have time, consider next time buying a vet FO to slash the response.

Jet Day for WarBirds was my day away from that particular game. If the game was capable of choosing a sensible force mix, it wouldn't have been too bad.

Just as a note, both sides possessed chemical weapons during WW2, occasionally accidentally fired them. WW2 did not turn into a chemical war for the fight between peer competitors.

ME in this context means "meeting engagement." A common enough strategy for new players is "racing for the points" and swapping to defense with an extremely high ratio of forces for the task. I personally don't consider bombarding a victory zone during a ME all that gamey since it is a direct, hard counter to anything but AFVs racing for the points and there is nothing uncommon about finding the enemy occupying key terrain and reaching for artillery as a solution. Put your troops on known ground, that's fine. Leave them there long enough, that's fine too, just don't be surprised when the weather changes to steel rain.

More "good enough" is superior to fewer "best."

Nobody is in this thread talking about taking away your precious Tiger. Nobody is saying the game is too hard. Stop building strawman arguments to knock down. FYI, the only house rule I play under is "don't use 55 point US rocket artillery to blanket the entire setup zone" because there is absolutely no defense against it except playing a larger map with less than 500 points. And it doesn't even represent a reasonable tradeoff, being so cheap.

These are, in fact, nothing like anything anyone in this thread is talking about.

People who hammer the entire attacker's setup as a US defender with a massed barrage of rockets deserve a special place in Hell.

Regarding the machine gun changes, I'm pretty happy about them. There is a more natural flow to a firefight between groups of infantry, an initial flurry of fire, then most or all of both sides drop low to get out of LoS, come back up and begin firing again, back and forth, with natural breathing periods where maneuver is possible if you have an unsuppressed element. I like it.

At least GI Joe had a Kung Fu grip.

You actually raise two relevant issues with your otherwise off-putting posting in this thread: 1) Is the issue of how war in general and WW2 in specific is perceived in Russia. They bore the brunt of the fighting and had several times over their share of the brutality and it is reflected in their art, literature, computer games, etc. about the war. The typical western view of WW2 comes much closer to something resembling honorable struggle between otherwise decent men, therefore realistic depictions of brutality by and against the Germans are considered more... indecent? I can't think of the right term for it, but taken as a whole, Brit and American players (or viewers, in the case of TV) don't like seeing the nastiness, regardless of how realistic it was. Russians (in general) don't mind it nearly as much because they were involved in what was considered an existential conflict dating back to the Germans launching a Crusade into Russia to forcibly convert or slaughter the population. The only western comparison of the era that I can think of would be the conduct of the Pacific war. Awful behavior was a prime complaint about "The Pacific" versus "Band of Brothers", audiences wanted a story of brotherhood in conflict and instead got several hours of fanatical racism and brutality on both sides. Interestingly enough, the original catalyst for one of the books that "The Pacific" was based on was the author's (a USMC vet) utter disgust at seeing a whimsical musical made out of the Pacific theater. The more things change... 2) Another issue, connected to the first, is the idea what you're trying to accomplish with a given medium. Saving Private Ryan was a war movie that tried very hard to show that even a good war could be pretty bad for those involved. Spielberg was deliberately trying to add moral ambiguity into the mix (the runner and "We'd do it too!", etc.) To what degree he succeeded can be debated but his aim was fairly clear: he didn't want to present war as a black or white, discrete moral event. Battlefront is just trying to make a better wargame to explore the interesting facets of combined arms. They avoided pretty much all the nastiness possible: players are unable to shoot surrendering troops, it is hard to kill wounded enemies, civilians and civilian casualties are ignored outside of roleplaying victor conditions, etc. Totally different aim compared to Saving Private Ryan or any number of other movies about the subject.

CMBN has more content in the form of standalone missions and campaigns.

They already have terrain deformation in the game, just not for collapsing buildings, which should be leaving piles of rubble strewn about.