Wolfe

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I figured out what's wrong with your excel files: somehow, there's no font selected. Selecting the entire table, then changing the font to something real, will get it to display properly. If you'd like, I could fix them and mail them back to you.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Hmmm. That's weird. I've looked at the tables using MSWorks, the free Excel viewer, as well as in Star Office, and everything looks ok. I can't imagine why it would do that on your machine; I just used the default Arial font and nothing fancy in the tables. What program are you using? <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>An additional note on interval times: it consistently gave me multiples of 5 seconds as intervals. Except the damn 3 inch mortar.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> It wouldn't surprise me if BTS had used convenient figures to base their intervals on. What I listed was just what I got. It's close enough to give people an idea of when to expect rounds as well as how many may be used in a given turn, which is what I was after. Are my numbers exactly on target? Nah. But they really don't have to be. Close counts in horseshoes, hand grenades, and artillery charts. - Chris

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>There's something bizarre with your excel files, the data shows up in the equasion box rather than the table proper. Makes it pain to look at, but at least the info's there.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Really? Damn. They're converted from MS Works files. They're just basic tables; I didn't think they'd be too much of a problem for most spreadsheets. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I'm interested in how you arrived at your data for time between volleys, as our numbers are fairly different.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Originally, I only watched the ammo counter for a few times each and averaged them, which is why you'll get some variation during testing between your numbers and mine. Also, there's a lot of variability with arty in CM. The only numbers I see which are really far off are the German 120mm mortars (which I'm still getting as 10~12 secs, not the 20 secs you have listed), and the Brit 14" Naval, which was a major typo by me. It should be around 2 minutes. - Chris

Nice work, John. Sorry I didn't see your last post on the subject. Probably could have saved you a lot of work. See: http://users.erols.com/chare/cm/ The damage stats are certainly interesting. Though I don't know how you might make these more accurate since there's so much variability with how much damage is done. BTW, the Brits also have 25pdr VT and 5.5in VT arty (they get them starting in Dec44). And Brit Airborne troops have 75mm available to them. Some more info can be found in a previous thread on the subject: Artillery Range Results - Chris

The only way you will see an Eliminated unit show up is if you had spotted it previously during the battle. I think you get the dead body graphic because the engine has to remove the iron cross indicating where you last saw the unit. I think ever since the Beta demo, you could only have one graphic represent one unit (obviously there weren't dead bodies in the Beta, but you would see Iron crosses as German units moved into and out of LOS, and they would disappear once you caught sight of the unit again). I just tested it by bombarding an area I couldn't see and if you hadn't spotted the enemy unit previously, you wouldn't be told he was dead unless you walked your units over to that area. Personally it wouldn't hurt my feelings to not know I had killed a unit I can't currently see. I think it would be a nice FOW touch. It would also be interesting to be able to have multiple unit sightings displayed for the same unit (such as for an infantry unit that keeps passing into and out of LOS as it travels through the treeline). It might look like a whole company passing through the area and could potentially affect your command decisions. They're everywhere! They're everywhere! It could make for some great feints, but it could also just end up cluttering up the screen. And add to the drain on CPU power. - Chris

Green PIAT vs. non-moving Puma at 190m. [Edit:] Oh, yeah. From the same game: a conscript PIAT vs 250/9 HT that had *just* started moving when it was killed at 167m. Lost a *moving* Sherman to a Shreck at >200m in VoT vs. AI. - Chris [This message has been edited by Wolfe (edited 11-03-2000).]

Old post on the subject: Close Assault - Chris

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Sgt. Steiner: Having arty spotters in command definitely makes a difference. Putting an HQ unit with +1 or +2 leadership bonuses nearby will reduce the spotter's delay time, and increase (somewhat) the accuracy of their bombardment. Of course only do this if you have an HQ unit to spare, and all your infantry platoons are taken care of leadershipwise. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I don't believe so. I've done a good deal of testing of arty and have never seen HQ units impart any benefits accuracy or speed-wise onto arty spotters. There's a lot of variability in how long it takes the spotter to begin firing when you don't use TRPs, which is what you might have been seeing. HQs don't make a difference. If you want your artillery rounds to come down faster and more accurately, use TRPs (target reference points) or make sure your spotters have LOS to the target. Or both. Also, mortar FOs (81mm, 120mm, 3in, 4.2in) can bring down shells more quickly than can gun or rocket FOs. HQs can spot for on-board mortar teams, but not for arty FOs (or for mortars mounted on vehicles). - Chris [This message has been edited by Wolfe (edited 11-03-2000).]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Terence: 32 megs of Ram,<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Yikes! Regardless of what mods you use, with only 32MB of system RAM, your computer has got to be paging to the hard drive like mad. 32MB is barely enough to run Windoze itself much less any program on top of it. 128MB would make life sooo much easier. Even 64MB would be helpful. Large battles are still going to hurt because of all the polys the CPU has to deal with, but your DRAM situation is really low. Spending a couple of bucks there can really be helpful. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Wolfe: I bow to your superior nerdiness.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Thanks. Erm. I think. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I will no longer try to give system advice.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Bah! Everybody's got different experiences with different hardware. Nobody knows it all, especially those who pretend they do. Helping out others is always a good thing. - Chris

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>They said a 700MHz Duron ran better than a 1Ghz Athlon because the Duron has full-speed cache when the Athlon has half-speed cache or something like that.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> In a word: NO. A 1GHz classic Athlon will outpace the 700MHz Duron in virtually every computer app you pick. The only way a Duron will beat a significantly faster Classic Athlon is if the code from the app completey fits within the cache structure of the CPU. Normal apps almost never fit this description. You'll only see this in some scientific proggies that do lots of small iterations and essentially nothing else. Or in synthetic benchmarks (which are mostly worthless anyway). Did they not mention the option of upgrading your CPU? Or even buying a real Athlon (Thunderbird), which has 256KB of full-speed 16-way set associative exclusive L2 cache (same as Duron but 4x larger)? As others have pointed out, I'd investigate if you can upgrade your current motherboard with a Pentium III Coppermine chip first (don't know if you have a Slot-1 or Socketed Celly or if the mobo can do a 133MHz bus speed or support the voltage/pin configuration (if socketed) for a Coppermine; check with the manufacturer). This may be the cheapest solution (though a Duron + mobo combo really is pretty inexpensive). If not, then look for a new mobo and CPU. Be sure to get a well-known brand name mobo like Asus, ABit, Soyo, Epox, Tyan, etc. Something based on the KT133 chipset for Athlons or 815e for P-III's. The A7V is a very good board; I'm personally looking at the Epox 8KTA. The reason for getting a well-known board is because they have very active newsgroups (e.g. alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus) filled with folks who know every nook and cranny of the board and can explain things to you or help out with any problems. What mobo comes with this bundle you're looking at? It's important to find out. And why are they suggesting you buy the additional memory? Do you run Windows 2000 or do photo-editing and need more RAM or are they simply suggesting you replace your "outdated" PC100 with PC133? The speed difference between PC133 and PC100 is absolutely miniscule. And you'll be moving on to Rambus or (more likely) DDR SDRAM with your next upgrade anyway, so whatever mem you buy today won't last. Same goes for CPU and mobo, I'm afraid. You can get a 700MHz Duron with 8KTA mobo and heatsink/fan from Multiwave for $181. A 900MHz Athlon Thunderbird is $305 and would be much faster and cheaper than the 700MHz Duron they propose. You might want to shop around. I'd shoot for a minimum of 800MHz myself. For more mobo recommendations, search the forums over at Ars Technica for 'best motherboard' or motherboard recommendations', etc. Good luck. - Chris [This message has been edited by Wolfe (edited 10-31-2000).]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Colin: Anybody have comments on British Glider platoons? They only have 7 men! Seem quite interesting too me. I believe these are the smallest squads in the game. And Sturmgruppe squads the largest (13 men)? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Brit Gliders have Gammon bombs, perhaps their only saving grace. Though you do get 4 platoons per company. US Gliders, on the other hand have excellent FP, 12 men, rifle grenades, and gammon bombs. And come with 4 platoons per company. Though unless you mix-and-match Force types, you don't get any armor or vehicles (outside of the jeeps). The 75mm Pack howitzer that comes with Paras is great if you can keep it alive long enough to carve up some enemy squads. Can even kill the occasional tank. You can split the Sturmgruppe squads in half and still retain a decent amount of FP (as well as reasonable staying power) per half-squad. - Chris

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Supertanker: this counts as my Christmas present, and she is threatening to make me wait until then before I can install it!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Now that's just plain mean. FSAA definitely makes objects look more solid, particularly when moving around them, but the biggest benefit by a long shot is the enormous reduction in pixel popping and texture swimming in the trees, ground, and buildings. It's almost *painful* to watch CM now without 4x FSAA turned on. And as Tiger says, definitely go into the Advanced features section of the drivers and turn the LOD bias down as far as you can. Although at very low numbers (-2), it can supposedly cause some graphical glitches, I haven't seen any in CM. A good demonstration of the difference in LOD Bias settings can best be seen in Half-Life, however. Look at the details in the walls as you move toward and away from them using different LOD Bias levels. And to really see the differences between no FSAA, 2x, and 4x, start HL and take the ride in to the complex. Watch for texture swimming in the walls (especially on the canyon walls near the helicopter) as well as edge crawling along the edges of moving objects (like the 6-legged walking robots (the big yellow things that carry crates around)). If you have X-Wing Alliance or a similar flight game, dust them off and give 'em another try ... it's like a whole new game. You can have my Voodoo5 when you pry it from my cold, dead fingers. - Chris

Samhain makes a really good point; one that I should have stressed more: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I went to try this new approach in a QB this morning, but I was quickly reminded to let the lay of the land dictate tactics. (Good old Sun-Tzu.)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> In the PBEM where I did the tank rush at the end, the terrain was not in my favor. And so I wasn't able to concentrate my firepower (either arty or tank) well enough to disturb my opponent. But even if you do have a beneficial lay of the land, it's still an up-hill battle to seize the objectives. Especially if your opponent was unkind enough to actually *not* move all of his forces forward for you to shell them into oblivion. If he keeps a significant portion in reserve behind his forces sitting on the objectives, this gives _him_ the ability to counter-stroke your assault. And you likely will have spent much of your large artillery only on his forces at the objectives, leaving his reserves untouched. It's asking an awful lot of your sniper-scouts for them to be able to get through an infantry screen, find his main force protecting the objectives, attack his tanks to kill TCs, and also find any reserve forces without being spotted. Brian, my opponent in my current PBEM, did keep a good number of troops in reserve. I shelled his force that moved forward to take one objective, but he left a significant force behind a hill on his side of the map. Even if I had scouted deep into his territory and found this reserve force, my arty strikes would have been much too spread out over a number of targets (not to mention out of LOS) to do any real damage. In this 2000pt battle, there are two main areas to try to take and hold. I just don't have enough arty to cover it all. And Brian even said that my arty did only some damage to his force holding the objectives, but mostly just rattled them. And this is on a map that is very beneficial to me. On larger maps (higher point QBs), a defending force is able to spread out and find more places to hide, making life even more difficult for your scouts. With larger point battles, you certainly get more points to spend on arty, but the size of the map increases exponentially while the points you're able to spend for artillery only goes up linearly. Also on larger maps, there is often more than one objective area to attack/defend, spreading any arty strike out even further, significantly reducing its effectiveness. Another point is that your opponent can definitely do the same thing to you. If you're setting up an attack, your forces are in many cases more concentrated at your launching points than his defending forces (atleast mine often are). So what's good for the goose is good for the gander. If you can send out sharpshooter recon, you better believe your opponent can too. If he finds your troops, you're going to be the one on the receiving end of an arty strike. And because your troops may very well be more concentrated than his, his strike will likely be more devastating than yours will. I like counter-attacking too, and Pillar's idea can definitely work, but like any plan in warfare, there are always ways to counter your opponent's moves. By ceding tactical objectives early on, you've made life more difficult for yourself from the get-go, and haven't necessarily given yourself any advantage in the process. Just to answer a few points directly: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I think your point is that my plan contains much more opportunities for things to "go awry" (go wrong) than your opponents.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Yep. And you also put yourself behind the 8-ball by surrendering a defensive position to your enemy. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Sharpshooters.: For these reasons, I think the reconnaisance is secure.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I love sharpshooters, especially for recon and hunting TCs, but they're not supermen. If you lose even a couple, a good deal of your recon is lost. You have no other assets in the immediate area to find out his locations, and so you'll be forced to either charge in blindly, or take some of your infantry out of their launching positions and use them as recon instead. This gives away your positions, will likely lead to the destruction of these infantry units, and they're not likely to be able to do a better job than the snipers did, especialy since they'd be advancing into a well-setup defense. I just think it's a bit too much of a gamble to rely on sharpshooters to be so effective. IMO, send atleast a platoon of half squads in along with the sniper-scouts to ensure you get the recon you absolutely need to pull this off. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Winning the Tank Battle<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> My point isn't that you can't win the tank battle with your strategy, you most certainly can. But giving your opponent time to set up a good AT screen can definitely make life Hell for you later on when you try to move your tanks forward to assist the assault. My suggestion of striking early isn't just to drive straight across the map at top speed, but to move forward, scout the area, kill all the enemy AFVs in the area you can, setup a good position on one flank to prevent your opponent to set up his own AT screen on the flanks. Ambushing his armor with yours is generally a good idea, but don't allow him to seize the initiative on the flanks with his AT assets, especially if you're playing as Allies. It'll come back to haunt you. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Artillery: The difference is, as the follower of Pillar's wisdom you FORCE the enemy to guess at your location.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> As I said above, he can use his sniper-scouts just as well as you can. And on larger maps, arty is definitely much less effective, particularly with multiple VLs (sometimes you can't afford to concentrate on just one area to attack). <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Most spotters have a delay of at least two minutes until time on target.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Nope. Vet US 81mm and 4.2in mortars take less than a minute to begin falling. Brit 3in and 4.2in take just over a minute. Even German 81mm and 120mm take just over a minute. And with adjustments, you can follow the attacking troops all the way in. You'd need to counter this with smoke which reduces the punch you'll have to assist your troops with friendly arty once they've engaged. And some people are definitely willing to dump arty on their own troops in order to nail close-in enemy attackers. Some really good stuff, Pillar. Definitely makes me think about how I play and about different possible strategies. Thanks. Sorry for the really long post. - Chris

Pretty good idea, but the Devils' in the details, and a few unfortunate things could really throw off any such plan. I tried something similar recently and didn't have good luck with it. If you're unable to do any real scouting (or your sharpshooters are killed while scouting), then your troops who attempt the final assault will be moving blindly into setup enemy positions and fighting a force of equal size. Dugin or not, this isn't a good thing. In my PBEM, the lay of the land prevented me from laying down good accurate artillery (and it also initially helped shield his approach, so I really was never sure where he was). And his screen of numerous half-squads kept my sharpshooter-scouts at bay. Equally, I couldn't move my tanks around a flank because his tanks and especially his AT teams were protecting his flanks effectively. I did manage to plink a decent number of his tanks on either flank, but never enough so that I was comfortable attacking either flank knowing I would lose a good many to his AT assets. And since he was able to deploy in a good defensive setup in the village, my troops, once they began moving, were walking into a well defended village backed by MG fire, mortars, and artillery of his own. My infantry was badly harrased on the way in and weren't able to set up a good screen to remove his AT assets from the village. So in the end, I ended up doing a tank rush into town before I had cleared it of AT. The predictable happened: my armor was mauled. I almost pulled it off because of the large number of Shermans I had, but not quite. BTW, my opponent also tried to guess where my infantry launching points were and shelled the Hell out of the area. He guessed wrong, and didn't hit anything thankfully, but if your opponent either guesses correctly or finds your infantry with sniper-scouts of his own, your own infantry is going to die a quick death from his artillery. And any offensive capability dies with them. A different approach may be to overload one flank with mobile units early in the game, and drive a strong armor-based thrust up his flank before he can set up his AT screen. If your opponent strings his forces roughly evenly across the map (or ateast doesn't concentrate on that one side), your concentrated force can overwhelm him, giving you two directions to attack the main objectives with. It may also allow you to snipe at his troops on their way in to take the objectives. And if your opponent decides to overload the same side and try the same thing, then the battle will likely be decided pretty early on one way or the other. BTW, for you idea to work, your arty would *have* to be quite accurate so your scouts would have to collect info on his whereabouts early on. You'd also need to win the tank battle to be able to support the attack (a draw wouldn't do, IMO). If any of these things don't happen, then I think it's going to be real tough for you to win the scenario. Not a bad plan, but I think it hinges a bit too much on certain things going your way. The field of battle isn't always so kind. Automatically ceding good defensive positions to your opponent can too easily come back to bite you. Just my $0.02 - Chris [This message has been edited by Wolfe (edited 10-28-2000).]

Guess I hadn't noticed, but the unarmed vehicles really don't seem to move, even with an exit zone and orders to exit the map. I even have only one edge of the map set as friendly to the convoy and they really can only move in one direction anyway. But even this doesn't help move the unarmed vehicles. BTS had previously fixed some problems with vehicles not heading off the map in 1.04 and 1.05. But I guess this one slipped through. My scenario is at The Depot if you wanted to try it out. BTW, if you replace the trucks with HTs, or even armored cars but take away all their ammo (edit the units), this should help simulate non-fighting vehicles. Not perfect, but HTs make just as good targets for tanks as trucks are. Though they don't succomb to MG fire as easily, unfortunately. - Chris

From what I've seen, units will always try to disembark at the point nearest their destination along the current plotted route. However, in order for them to get off of a vehicle, it needs to be moving at 'Move' speed or slower. So you *can* plot fast move orders for your HTs so long as, at some point along its route, the HT has to make a very sharp turn (preferrably as close to the infantry unit's final destination as possible) in order to force it to slow down enough so the unit can safely get off. You don't need to issue a pause order between turns. And in fact, aren't pause orders always executed at the *beginning* of a turn? So the vehicle will just stop at the beginning of the next turn and then begin moving again. The squad won't necessarily get out because it isn't necessarily at the closest point along the HT's route yet. I'm not certain if this changed, but it may have. I seem to recall issuing (between turns) pause orders that would pause a vehicle after it completed its current movement orders. Now it seem to pause them immediately. But I could be mis-remembering. Regardless, don't rely on pause orders to stop the HT and let your troops off. I believe that squads begin to try to get out at the nearest point to their destination along the plotted route and at any point thereafter that allows them to *safely* disembark (which in Jeff's case was likely the end of the HT's route for one of his units). In order to ensure the unit can disembark at the correct location, I prefer to plot a 'Move' order for the HT at the point closest to the infantry's final destination to give him the best chance to get off. So, to begin with, I give the HT a 'Fast' movement order to the general area I want them to go, then a short 'Move' order along the same direction, and then a 'Fast' order *away* from the area so the HT can high-tail it outta there. So at the point nearest where I want the infantry units to go, the HT is executing a Move order and then a turn order. This usually forms a 'J' hook shape in the HT's movement path, and will slow them down enough so the units feel free to get off, and the HT will only pause for a few secs while the unit disembarks, and then merrily go on its way. Don't recall if this always works for very slow units like MGs, but it seems to do a good job for infantry squads. Hope this helps. BTW, if the infantry unit (i.e. conscript troops out of command radius) takes longer to begin moving than the HT does to complete it's trip, the troops will still be dropped off at the point nearest their destination, they just won't begin moving until their inherent delay is up. - Chris [This message has been edited by Wolfe (edited 10-23-2000).]

Backspace. - Chris

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>But I think I'm seeing that M3 halftrack assaults are not such a hot idea against infantry squads, considering everyone of them has an MG-42 integral to their organization.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> As Gustav says, don't get them *too* close, but a platoon of roving HTs planting a platoon of infantry right into battle and then supporting them by pinning the enemy inf has real good shock value. Enemy MGs are usually set further back, so aren't quite as deadly. Just watch out for those shrecks and fausts. I've been hammered in my recent games by those damn things! And remember, starting with 1.05 (or was it 1.04?), BTS lowered the odds of a crew bailing from a vehicle with anything less than serious damage. Also, MG fire is now much less accurate (.50 cals previously were murdering German HTs). And don't forget about the British Ram Kangaroo. I don't think regular infantry weapons rifles, SMG, etc., can hurt HTs. Atleast I don't recall seeing any losses to them. - Chris [This message has been edited by Wolfe (edited 10-22-2000).]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MikeT: BTS sent me a list of the BMPs the other day. If interested I can send them to you. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I don't need them personally, but could you post the list here? I'm sure it would help out a bunch of folks. Currently the only lists I'm aware of online are: List of BMP File Mappings? BMP File Organization Credit where Credit's Due Obviously they're not complete or perhaps as indepth as some would like (some of the small oddball textures found on various infantry guns and light vehicles may be quite difficult to identify). But it's a start. - Chris

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by kking199: I am going to have to say nay to this, back to realism, there should be a penalty for adjusting Arty without LOS, and this is the penalty.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> But there already is a penalty. It takes longer for the shells to arrive than if it were in LOS, and rounds are much less accurate. Going outside the adjustment box when adjusting fire incurs a significant time penalty. It's an absolute cutoff between 100m and 101m. The green line simply tells you how far you can move and still be 'adjusting' from the previous target. Otherwise you're just guessing how far you can move the target. And since there's no undo, once you see you've made a mistake, you either live with it or reload the game. And until today, I didn't even realize you could adjust your targeting out of LOS because there was no adjustment line to indicate this. In Real Life whether you're firing at a target in or out of LOS, isn't adjusting fire from your current target just a matter of informing the guns how far and in which direction you wish them to shift? This doesn't change whether you're shooting at a target in or out of LOS, does it? So why should you have to guess how far is just far enough without stepping outside the magic box? Or is adjusting fire for something the FO can't see a different procedure from when he can see it? - Chris

http://www.bigtimesoftware.com/images/mgvsht.jpg - Chris

In a previous thread on how arty in CM works I had suggested that you're unable to adjust arty fire when aiming at a target out of LOS. I'm happy to say I was wrong. You *are* able to adjust fire, but unfortunately CM doesn't give you that nice green line indicating that you can retarget without starting a whole new countdown. So it's somewhat difficult to move the target around without going outside the maximum 100m radius you're allowed to adjust with. BTS: could we *pleeeease* have a green line indicating how far the target can be moved when firing at something out of LOS? Purty please? BTW, after adjusting to another spot out of LOS, the countdown still takes twice as long as targets within LOS. And you can also adjust target from an area in LOS to one out of LOS and vice-versa. So you're actually able to target an area you can see, allow some shells to fall, and then adjust fire into an area you don't have LOS to. In some cases, this may be better than originally targeting the area out of LOS and then waiting the full time for the shells to begin to fall. - Chris

Yep. It sure can. I've taken out US HTs at ~200m before with the MG42. A penetration chart: http://www.bigtimesoftware.com/images/mgvsht.jpg But be aware that BTS changed the accuracy of MG fire against vehicles starting with version 1.04 so they're less likely to hit their target. Also, crews are less likely to bail from a vehicle that hasn't suffered serious damage. - Chris

Some helpful advice for disabling integrated video cards: http://www.frii.com/%7Erjn/computer/mb_video.htm Good luck. - Chris

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Wilhammer: Sorry for th huge space in recent post. I've tried, but I cannot remove it.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> If you get rid of all the carriage returns in between HTML commands, this will remove the extra spacing. - Chris

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>To those of you who put them in buildings and let them take their own shots, are they ever spotted by enemy tanks and shot at or are they pretty good about not being seen?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Foobar is right that sharpshooters in buildings are tougher to spot than regular units, but they still seem to be rather easy to spot to me, even when placed fairly deep into the structure. I try to avoid 2nd story sniper nests; good players will often recon by fire at obvious buildings that have great views to get rid of arty spotters, MG nests, and sharpshooters. I do my best to find woods or pines that have good overwatch positions to sit my snipers in (I'll even run them up to a good spot with a fast vehicle so long as I think neither will be spotted on the journey). Just don't sit them too close to the edge of the wood line. With scattered trees, I try to sit them ~centrally in the square. Just be aware of the time of year as LOS through trees does change with the date (winter months allow greater LOS). I don't care for wheatfields, even in summer; they don't seem to hide units very well at any time of the year. Same for brush and marsh. Not good shooting places. And once spotted and brought under fire, hiding them doesn't help protect them any from enemy fire. It does in woods, however (to the point that the enemy will even lose contact). So long as they're not shooting, snipers in woods are extremely difficult to spot; I've had enemy troops literally walk right next to them but never see them. I never even hide snipers unless the enemy is *right* on top of him. I then unhide once they've passed. Another reason not to put them in buildings is if an enemy squad walks (or even flees ) into a building you didn't expect them to enter, they're rather likely to spot your sharpshooter on the 2nd story, even if he's hiding. Don't target them to anything; just set them up and let them do their thing. They will occasionally do damage to enemy squads, but its real role is tank buttoning and taking out the occasional expensive team like flamethrowers or arty spotters. They're also great for spotting enemy troops movements so you know where to target your own arty. Once buttoned, the AI will never unbutton its tanks again for the rest of the battle, and having your tanks constantly buttoned each turn is frustrating for a human opponent. IMO, StuGs and StuHs become rolling coffins once buttoned. Sharpshooters: never leave home without them. - Chris