argie

Retreat??? Are you French or somefink? Oh! Belgian... Somefink, then... Like French, but with chocolates...

I've never seen a Hiding unit do other than Hiding and, occasionally, Spotting. I might be wrong, but it seems to me that, thus not all of them reacted at the same time, the unit has become active. Maybe only one at a time were spotting the incoming enemies?

Definitely, for whatever reason, they were already suppressed when opened up.

Wow! And now you are insulting me! FYI, the Party Line is the most funny party of all Third World and our Leader is the greatest dancer of all times. All people is happy with the Dictator and love living here. Plus, the privatized Post fee for handling any package has been lowered from 20 ‰ to only 10 %. Long live to Our Beloved Leader!

It's possible. And exactly for being possible to do is that mindless running recon by being killed is even more gamey than before.

And that was me. The point is that if you send whatever unit to certain dead just to see from where the dead came, is because the game allows it to you, not because is something you would do in a regular basis in RL. There always be a point man or vehicle in any unit going to contact, but in no way the objective of that is to make it run all the way to the "flag" (another, though unavoidable, game abstraction) to see what or who will kill it. It is done in an appropriate way, with SOP thought to keep every single warm body, well, just warm, not cold nor explosion like hot.

Yes. But is almost a geek scripting level game with only letting the opponents to script the AI in the same battle. Hehehe.

I was thinking not in the lines of playing against a great AI, but players competing with each others using the scriptable AI. Then, you can have whole campaigns saved in a big CM style movie.

First, I've not used the scenario editor, so I'm not familiar on how it works exactly. I just only skipped over the pages in the manual. But I have the feeling that it is a step further in the ultimate simulation of war from higher echelons. I can imagine a future iteration of the game in which players open up something similar to the scenario editor interface and just do scripts for the AI, for both sides, and let the game to run both opposing forces' AIs in a mega RT movie of all the battle (or even campaign). Wouldn't be that the exact modelling of how the war was seen on those days from levels over Bn CO, with the plus of video AAR (an abstraction of personal accounts, I suppose)? You gave the orders and some hour or even days after you get the results, with minimal to none ability to influence in the outcome. Who here is geek (and brave) enough to admit that he will eventually enjoy such game?

C'mon, Vanir. There are no rules for that. Everybody knows that there is a point in which you have to expose your assets if you want to kill the enemy. Thats not the issue. In RL, there are many constraints to orders that in a game work just fine. That is the very thin line between daring and aggressive tactics and gameyness. As I've said at the first post I made, there are proper tactics to prevent it also. In a game like this, which enforces realism over all, those tactics tend to be exactly the way the operations are conducted in RL.

Absolutely. Even with a Sherman is gamey, as far is something you will not do in RL. Recon by fire is more common and better use of those assets than recon by being killed.

Sure it is. Just in case, the best is to have a realistic layer of infantry troops to kill soft targets before entering in the ATG killzone.

Interesting. If that thing hadn't any security device, like the opposite of a bullet trap, that is, a piece of hard metal to deviate a possible incoming bullet, for sure it was something pretty dangerous for the intended use. The pin itself is not dangerous, as the bearing you can see represented in that diagram, was intended to keep it in place and off center from the detonator, until it was at a safe distance. If the bullet pushed it, it will not hit the cap. Anyway, the bullet has to hit exactly in the detonator to ignite the charge. I bet there is some sort of conic hard piece somewhere there to avoid it happening.

I never said otherwise. The bullet trap grenades were developed quite recently. I was pointing out that a muzzle breach because there is a loose grenade in the end of the gun is so unlikely that they figured out later that just adding a piece of hard metal in the bottom of the ordnance was enough to make it work. Sorry if I was unclear. Today, both methods are used. The problem is now if you mix some AP round with the regular ones, or a 'traditional' rifle grenade with one with bullet trap. Again, you end with a pierced grenade, maybe a few burns, but nothing more.

Maybe, but very unlikely. That's why they put bullet traps (in essence, a piece of metal in the bottom) in the grenades for using them with regular bullets, if not, the bullet just went through. The grenade itself is very loose in the end, as to be expelled just for the gas charge of a blank.

Nothing too dramatic could happen: a few burns at most. The bullet would go through the grenade without it exploding.

Did you send the order in the same turn your engineers opened the gap or in the next one? I may be wrong (I'm just speculating from my own similar experiences), but it seems that the path calculation for the AFV is done before the actual opening of the gap, thus it thinks the obstacle is still there. When you plot in the next turn of the breaching, all works as expected.

He said he can't touch his monitor adjustments, because he has it calibrated for his work.

FAST when you want the pixeltruppen to not stop for anything. Moving QUICK they could eventually stop for shooting.

4 HTs with one AP round

I was thinking the same. Don't they have also a rangefinder, similar to the ones in the StuGs, away from the gun optics?

Do you realize that if they had PanzerFausts or PanzerSchreks, the only thing they could fire from inside the building were they small arms, right?

Could be an issue related to the level of play? I find no consistent strange behavior at Iron Level in two campaigns so far. My infantry only fired at unbuttoned tanks or AFVs which actually have people exposed (for instance, an Scout Team took one by one all the guys in a Marder, from behind). They fired with everything they had only at really close ranges (with the tracks over their feet, so to speak). MGs only to unbuttoned vehicles at long ranges. They received far more fire from infantry than from the AFVs, which seems to forget them after a few shots. In lower levels, the AI can see the full unit and then fires until final destruction?

That was my favorite MOUT tactic on CMX1 also: to put troops with a bunch of SMGs behind the buildings and let the enemy to go in = massacre.

When I started with the Tutorials and the first scenarios, I thought I'll never be able to manage any battle bigger than Platoon level. I just finished the Campaign Panzermarsch with a Total Victory at Iron Level (the only one I'm playing, in Wego mode). The key was to try every thing I thought could work on RL once and again in the Tutorials in Basic Training until I was confident on how it will actually work in game. When the Campaign was in the last battles, I got far more frustrated for my insufficient gear than for my way of dealing with almost a battalion of pixeltruppen. And I did a lot of stupid things in those battles just for the frustration of not being able to play adequately. I let the AI do the most targeting and it worked fine. I did take a lot of care on my troops, stoping to give them buddy aid every time and moving them slowly to their objectives, always seeking for cover. The AI wasn't a great opponent, but it worked fairly better than CM1 generation games, the last wargames I've played from a few years until now. Well, overall, the learning curve is steep, but it rewards greatly.