Lt Bull

I appreciate your efforts at trying to create maps/scenarios that simulate realistic bocage defences. Regardless of what you do, it is very important to understand whether you intend the CPU opponent to play as the defender or whether it is for a human player because both the tools you need and the outcomes are probably going to be vastly different. I think it is much more challenging trying to create a realistic bocage defence intended for the CPU opponent as opposed to one designed to be played by a human player. However, I think the use of mines and TRPs for the defenders definitely going in the right direction. Again taken from "Busting the Bocage: American Combined Arms Operations in France, 16 June-31 July 1944": "The Germans also implemented other measures to improve their scheme of hedgerow defenses........Furthermore, German commanders linked together their defensive positions with wire communications that allowed them to coordinate the defense of their sector. Snipers also were an important part of the German defense. They were used to protect machine-gun positions against infiltrating Americans and to deliver harassing fire during lulls in the action. Booby traps and mines abounded within the thick vegetation of the hedgerows. Trip-wire explosives were a German favorite." Unfortunately for any CPU controlled defender, you can not expect the infantry to pull back from a firing position along the bocage to nearby foxholes in the event of an artillery/mortar attack, then return to the bocage line after the artillery attack has passed. A human player can do that.

Yes, this is one of the misconceptions many of us have/had about how entrenchments in the bocage actually functioned, as I have tried to illustrate and explain. You reaslise that what you are describing/suggestion is exactly the misconception about how entrenchments and bocage were actually used that I am trying to dispel? So you think a simple hole (or loop) could be extended in to the rear face of the bocage (through 6-10ft of rock, roots and dirt) to allow exactly what you say, the ability for entrenched troops on one side of the bocage to fire through what would either be a hole or slit passing through the base of the bocage, at targets in the field on the other side of the bocage? Please tell me your evidence or reasoning fro this extends beyond that this is how it is in Close Combat. I think the real question you should first be answering is what kind of defences did the Germans have in the bocage. I have already explained in detail why the types of entrenchments csk describes (functionally the same ones you can see in Close Combat) probably never even existed. You have no problems apparently thinking that it would be easy for a typical German soldier to "carve" a hole or better, a slot, (lets assume approximately at least 1 foot in diameter or length) horizontally through 6-10 feet of rocks and roots bocage all at ground level with the entrenchment tool he was equipped with, in no more than a few hours, tops? I would pay you the trip to France to demonstrate this yourself. Where are you getting the idea that not only did this actually happen, but that it happened so frequently that to not have it modeled and readily featured in a game like CMBN would make it less of a simulator of WW2 combat? Please, share with us your evidence for this (and don't mention Close Combat!)

That's exactly what I am concluding however playing vs the AI is not a good measure for how realistic CMx2 can be at simulating typical bocage combat. You need to make that evaluation when facing a competent human player. Well I think that assessing the benefit of having any form or foxhole/slit trench on the "hot" side of the bocage is debatable. Just keep in mind that realistically, this type of entrenchment is the simplest case explanation for understanding any account we might hear that specifically may refer to defenders actually "fighting from within dug-in positions along the bocage". The only real benefit I can see is that perhaps maybe in some cases the LOS/LOF from behind the hedgerows was so poor or non-existent, that it was worth just giving up the defensive benefits it provided from being behind it altogether to instead occupy an entrenchment located just in front of it, with at least a gap in the hedgerows immediately behind it serving as an important vital path for withdrawal.

Hi, I know this topic has been perhaps discussed quite a bit on these forums. Many threads can be found on how well/poorly CMx2 models realistic bocage terrain combat typical of France 1944.. Here are a few: http://community.battlefront.com/topic/100779-the-unofficial-bocage-defense-thread/ (I probably could have tacked this post to that thread) http://community.battlefront.com/topic/114392-new-bocage-for-normandy/ You see threads like this http://community.battlefront.com/topic/98423-fortifying-bocage-possible-let-me-show-you-a-trick/ tryingto address the "deficiency" in the CMx2 engine of depicting "dug-in bocage defenders/fortifications": Apparently there is a perception among many players that it is an unfortunate limitation that CMx2 does not readily allow slit trenches/foxholes to be placed on one side of a hedgerow so that the defenders in them can readily trace LOS/LOF through the hedgerow to engage enemy on the otherside just like they could if they were normally positioned against the hedgerow without any entrenchment. I think many players consider it a flaw in CMx2 to not allow entrenchments to be placed in bocage terrain so that it allows the dug in defenders to engage targets on the other side like this: This is basically a fight in place entrenched position behind bocage. Personally I too had this perception and I now realise that it was primarily based on playing the first ever Close Combat which featured exactly this type of concept. I had reason to consider all this when addressing how foxholes, trenches and sandbags are/can be used tactically used in CMx2 in bocage style terrain in this thread: http://community.battlefront.com/topic/118866-tactical-use-of-foxholes-sandbags-and-trenches-cmx2/. I also discussed a bocage map with the scenario/map maker who said he wanted ti see how accurately CMBN models bocage fighting but it became apparent pretty quickly that the kind of dug-in fortifications that were used by the Germans so effectively in bocage terrain could not really be applied in CMx2. Foxholes/slit trenches and boacge did of course co-exist together in Normandy 1944 but after some research and consideration, I think many of us may actually have the wrong perception (as exemplified above) as to exactly how they were actually used and implemented and subsequently how we expect to use them in CM. First lets get some "official" references to bocage and entrenchments in France 1944. These excerpts are from "Busting the Bocage: American Combined Arms Operations in France, 16 June-31 July 1944" (http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA211817) "The Germans employed their direct-fire weapons to trap American infantrymen in a deadly hail of cross fire and grazing fires coming from all sides. Machine guns were the primary weapons of the German defense. At the opposite corners of each field, the Germans emplaced heavy machine guns in positions dug into the earthen embankments of the hedgerows." "The Germans also implemented other measures to improve their scheme of hedgerow defenses. They habitually dug slit trenches into the hedgerow embankments to protect themselves during American artillery and mortar barrages. Furthermore, German commanders linked together their defensive positions with wire communications that allowed them to coordinate the defense of their sector." That is all that is really said about entrenchments in that paper and none of this refers to Germans actually using entrenchments to actually fight in from behind the bocage. Shelter from the ever present artillery and mortar barrages appears to be the primary function and reason for their existence. Surprisingly I have not been able to find too may photos of actual 1944 France bocage entrenchments or "bunkers" either. Here is one, though it simply is not just a slit trench/foxhole. It's actually is occupied by US troops (with very odd camo pattern). If anyone has any specific accounts that seem to indicate the use of bocage entrenchments used as actual fighting positions post them here for discussion. I know there may be many references of first hand accounts that might loosely refer to tough "dug in defenders" in the context of boacge fighting in 1944. It is clear that it might give the impression that the defenders were actually occupying entrenchments (fighting in place) when defending. It seems more likely a reference to the entrenchments that were dug around the bocage which provided shelter during arty barrages as already outlined. I know that the hedgerows in France varied in size and shape in both height and width. There is an image floating around that claims to capture what a "typical" hedgerow looked like. It is referenced here: http://www.lonesentry.com/normandy_lessons/ I thought it might be useful to illustrate my interpretation of what I think the majority of accounts of "dug in bocage defenders" actually were referring to. From what we understand most of the bocage fighting occurred with one side taking up a crouched or standing positon up against the bocage on one side, firing over or through gaps in the bocage against an enemy some distance away on the opposite side of the bocage. The natural cover and concealment offered to units in this deployment is evident. Primarily, it makes disengaging from combat very easy should things get nasty. Step away from the bocage and you almost immediately break the LOS/LOF the enemy may have on you allowing easy redeployment elsewhere along the bocage or even just complete withdrawal back to another position. This would be the default type of engagement in seen in the 1944 bocage battles and CM seems to model this quite well. If the order was to hold position and the enemy start dropping in an arty barrage, given there was no other nearby cover against artillery fire, I am sure many soldiers would have sought what natural protection they could get by lying flat in this ditch. Lets now consider what a defender might do if they had the time to improve their defensive position along the bocage. Given that artillery/mortar attack was probably the biggest threat facing German infantry in the bocage, it makes sense to think that they would probably first look at ways of improving their suitability against such attacks. It seems apparent that the ditch that was already typically there was probably a good start for digging a slit trench/foxhole to shelter from artillery attack as some of the work had already been done. You could argue that perhaps it would be/was better to simply retreat away from the bocage line all together and seek cover elsewhere. This may have been true in at least some instances where it was practical, but I am sure there were many situations where this was not only impractical but not expected by the COs. Either way, a shelter against artillery that was literally located on the battle line was makes sense. Of course in all cases the type of ground/soil that is being dug certainly may have been a prohibitive in some cases (too hard, roots, rocks etc) and in some cases very easy to dig. With a drainage ditch however you would at least think it would be somewhat softer beneath it compared to anywhere else. So if we assume that was the case, then I imagine that something like this was actually what was happening in the majority of accounts (80-90%?) you might hear that loosely refer to "German defenders dug in to the bocage": This is not a defend in place position. It was shelter against artillery. Typically the deeper the defender dug, the safer the shelter, it was all based on how much time was available to do so, but I think this would have been as basic as it got. This type of position could even be readily prepared even if the enemy already had LOS/LOF on the bocage itself. It still left the defender an option to withdraw from the position and still benefit from the cover afforded to them by the fact that they are on the opposite side of the bocage to the enemy. You could imagine that in some instances troops may have tried to improve it by placing any logs or the like over the top to act as a kind of "roof" Just by looking at this it seems a stretch to think that defenders in these trenches could/should be able to engage enemy on the other side. Considering that the base of bocage was typically a mesh of roots, rocks and earth, just trying to bore/cutout/blast a firing slot through the 6'-10' thick bocage at essentially ground level would have been no easy task, let alone the norm (I'm sure it was thinner in some cases). Now I have heard references to more elaborate "bunker' type structures and networks in the bocage of '44, that afforded overhead protection though I don't think I have found any when I tried searching. If they did occur, I can imagine that they were all based on expanding on what I think was the basic common entrenchment you see above. Given time (something German defenders in the bocage of '44 didn't have too much of), it seems plausible that the next logical improvement that could be made to this shelter was perhaps some form of this: This gives more of an overhead shelter from artillery fire. I do not think digging this type of shelter out was at all easy let alone possible in some/most(?) cases. It all depended on how deep the mesh of roots/rock extended beneath the bocage. The photo above seems to be one of these types. Given even more time to prepare (I would say perhaps a week or two or more), perhaps the next evolution of this entrenchment may have looked something like this: The depth of course could be deeper to allow easier access through the "tunnel" that provided sheltered access to either side of the bocage but I am just illustrating the concept. It is only when a slit trench is dug on the immediate opposite side of the bocage like this that I can realistically imagine what perhaps a defend in place dug in bocage defensive position might of looked like. You can imagine perhaps even a long trench system running along this opposite side of the bocage with perhaps a few "feeder tunnels" that safely connected them to the defensive side of the bocage to both withdraw and reinforce relatively safely. Of course the tunnel itself would also provide shelter from any artillery attack. With even more time and resources, you could imagine perhaps sandbagging the forward trench if need be or even using logs, branches and camouflage to perhaps make some kind of makeshift bunker. Perhaps this happened but again it all depended on time available, the terrain and resources available. If you just dig a slit trench on the forward attacking side of the bocage without a direct avenue to withdraw to the opposite safer side of the bocage, then fighting from this position would be literally like fighting with your back up against a wall. To withdraw from or reinforce this position, the soldier would ultimately be exposed to direct fire from attackers and be required to instead pas between the opposite sides of the bocage via a break in the bocage (natural or otherwise). I can however imagine a slit trench system on both the front and rear sides of the bocage linked by a trench that was dug at one of these breaks in the bocage. In is worth remembering that, unlike digging on the defensive side of the bocage, digging anything on the forward side of the bocage when the enemy already have range and LOS of the bocage line would itself be a hazardous/prohibitive proposition. This reinforces perhaps why such types of entrenchment systems were probably much less common and prevalent than the original type I have illustrated. I think I may of heard of instances or references to "elaborate entrenchment systems" in the bocage fighting of '44. I would probably think it worked and evolved to be something like how I have explained. So in summary, apart from perhaps these rarer, more "elaborate entrenchment systems" (which I still don't have any accurate references of or to), it appears to me that CMx2 actually is probably not really that far off in giving players the ability to simulate realistic implementation of entrenched positions in bocage, Placing entrenchments or foxholes on the defensive side of bocage for the primary purpose of providing a local refuge against artillery and mortar fire is/was perhaps the most realistic and common role entrenchments had during the fighting in the hedgerows. If there is something lacking, it would be that you can not always place foxholes directly adjacent to a bocage because of other terrain features in proximity to the bocage. eg. in the case where you can't place foxholes/trench between two rows of bocage that effectively together form a lane. I definitely don't think the depiction of combining both hedgerow cover, cover from an entrenched position and LOS/LOF through the hedgerow (like in the screenshot at the top and Close Combat!) is a realistic depiction of what "entrenched" bocage fighting in Normandy during 1944 was.

OK, I did some tests and it seems to be related to the trajectory and it being blocked. The only hope I have is to re-position these guns and hope they can fire at the targets I want them to. The problem is that I am not sure what the actual blocking terrain is. It would be good if you could drag a firing line to check to see if the artillery unit has an unobstructed trajectory to whatever spot on the map you care to target. KInd fo makes it hard to determine in any game whether to locate/deploy these units in a direct fire role or further back and hope they can function in an indirect fire role. For what it's worth, I always thought that at the typical map sizes for a CM battle that the range from any onboard arty (except mortars) would typically be inside the minimum range for indirect fire from the guns and was surprised when these units were included in CMx2 with these capabilities.

Hi, I would be impressed if the game considers blocking terrain when it comes to calling in on-board arty. It makes sense. They are 75mm pack guns, located about 50m back from a line of tress. They are independent (not subordinate to any unit on the map), but they do have a higher HQ, but they are not on the map (yet?). I did have a thread open that was posted by a user who had reported findings of using on-board arty but I can't find it anymore. What is bizarre is that I have randomly selected other HQs to see if they can randomly place an arty marker anywhere. There was one HQ I found that seemed to have 2 random patches of ground in it's LOS where the mouse indicated an arty marker could be placed. Actually, these pack guns have to have a minimum indirect fire range but i can't seem to see it listed anywhere in game (unlike mortars).

Hi I haven't really used them too much but haven't had this happen before: I'm in a game where the artillery spotters can see them available in the Fire Mission Support Request tab, but when I select them and try to click a point on the map they have LOS for the fire mission, the mouse pointer says "No line of SIght. Range Xm. No Line of Fire." Oddly the range displayed is relative to the spotter as well. As a check, I selected the HQ unit of the guns who is with the guns and see what happens if he tried to order a fire mission. Seems it works for him exactly how I thought it should work for everyone else. I've checked manual for what it's worth and it doesn't seem to mention anything special about onbaord arty except the potential for being inside min range or outside max range, What is going on here?

But I was saying that if you look at real bocage, its hard to see how the two could realistically be combined. If this diagram is typical of bocage, I can't see how you could defend through the bocage from foxholes placed at the base of the bocage (like in CC)

A good topic and question. I think the implementation of foxholes and trenches in CMx2 is one of the more weaker features of the game. So much so that there are times I would rather not have to contend with them as a consequence. As a matter of fact I probably think that in may cases they are better off used empty as "decoys" when planning a defensive setup, especially when you are defending from within/behind bocage terrain. Maybe playing CC (the original) corrupted me because in that game it allowed infantry to occupy foxholes/trneches lined behind bocage and still see/fire through it. When you actually consider real bocage however, it's hard to see how this could be possible to maybe CMx2 has it right as far as that goes. Still I have found foxholes/trenches in bocage terrain to almost be a nusiance as a defender. In bocage terrain, I only consider them as shelter behind the natural defensive line of bocage that infantry can try to move in to if they come under arty fire. When the battlefield is providing natural defensive lines like bocage, expecting infantry to defend from within their trench/foxhole (rather than from behind bocage) against an enemy that has moved up to a line of bocage is a sure way to seal their fate. They can not retreat/leave/withdraw from their position and break the enemy LOS/LOF as they can if they were behind bocage. As already mentioned the defensive benefits of them (especially foxholes) seem to be offset by their ability to be quite easily spotted and their often incompatibility with other good defensive terrain. My view in CMx2 has been that these defensive structures aren't as effective as what that they might otherwise be: sandbags- consider them as "user placed defensive walls" to be placed in locations that need to be defended that are otherwise devoid of cover (eg. open terrain), I would guess 15% better cover than if left in the open. foxholes- preferable to sandbags as far as cover goes, work best in woods. Perhaps 40-50% cover than if left in open. trenches- like foxholes but fit more troops in, can form a long line., works best in woods. Perhaps 50-60% cover than if left in open. My impression, feel free to correct me if you see it any differently.

Incredible timing on your post. I was doing a setup for a QB ME on the biggest map I have ever played on last night and was thinking exactly that! The map was so large and my force so big that trying to get an overview of the map and remember where I may have located key locations and who was going where etc was something that had kept me back from actually doing my setup. I ended up having to sketch the map out rough on paper and do it that way (printer not working). As a work around, I also just used teh movement lines as temporary markers to remind me of important locations etc. I investigated whether you could do any "export" function on maps in the Scenario Editor but as I expected, none that I could see. I think I may have brought this up in CMx1 days but I always thought that it would be great if there was some kind "export map to print" function that could even have rough contour lines etc so that players could print them off and mark up etc. Would be awesome for marking up attack/defence/deployment plans. PS, I am not expecting ti to be super detailed/high res stuff...just something as block and as simple as what you see in the map editor. So yeah, you are not the only one who would like to see something like this, but as with lots of other suggestions that bet put forward, I really doubt it.

No I don't. Here is what I see: https://www.dropbox.com/s/bbm34r16ivk5j6w/truck.png?dl=0 BTW your post/screenshot here and my chats with support kind of surprised/confused me. You don't appear to be support but you got access to my ema file and password without my permission? Support have subsequently closed the ticket and said you are filing an official bug report. PS: I notice in your sceenshot you don't get the blurred textures that I do. Any idea how you are doing that? When I take the screenshot in game the textures don't look like that, but when the screenshot is created it ends up blurry.

Yeah the concept of somehow killing him did cross my mind...but he is running away from the enemy... would try friendly fire too but he is now well away from everyone. He will reach the edge of the map next turn. Waiting on what Helpdesk will recommend.

What do you mean nice attitude? All I do is report stuff that isn't NQR with as much detail and supporting info as I can. Of course your were right about the CMFI mortar ammo issue I had, but what was more surprising was the way you replied. The explanation was simple, two dot points as I summarised at the end, that were oversights on my behalf anyway. I appreciate your assistance but if you seem to be calling me out on attitude in this thread because of a light hearted faux challenge thrown your way in my opening post then I think you need to lighten up and take some happy pills. You have mistaken me for someone else. The actual PBEM is one of the best/most fun I have had actually. Green Hell. There is no way I am restarting this. I am sure I have tried to cancel the orders/give new ones etc. I am pretty sure the team will remain unresponsive up until every pixeltruppen is at the same action spot. So eh either runs back (will take even more time, or he just disappears). That runaway pixeltruppen is next turn away from reaching the edge of the map. Who knows what happens when he croses the abyss? Will he disappear from the team leaving them to function OK without him? be happy with that. Its off to BFC support I go again.

Not sure what is going on here but I am playing a PBEM where i noticed that the icon of one of my 4 man split infantry teams was no where near hovering over where I last gave them orders to move. On further inspection, when I looked where on the map I last ordered them (up against some bocage), I could only see 3 of them. A fourth member was missing. I had to reload the previous PBEM files to find out what happened to this fourth team member. It seems for some reason he decide to just run away, but not normally. He ran way in a straight line through blocking terrain like bocage! He must really not want to be there. Anyway, here is a string of videos showing the unit when it was together and the point at which the rouge team member decided to split. https://www.dropbox.com/s/9kzpbvfu8bhf3jr/Rhino-man.mp4?dl=0 Ok womble, lets see if you explain this away as a feature working as intended. This PBEM is on hold as the unit is unresponsive.

Aghh! This thread has pretty much been a waste of time. I've now realised two crtitical things. 1. Yes, the freakn original mortar crew(s) that was trying to get the 81mm ammo were actually a 60mm mortar crew (for some reason I though all my was mortars were 81mm). Still, making the mistake of using a unit to ACQUIRE incomparable ammo seems to irreversibly remove the acquired quantity of ammo from the game. I don't recommend falling for this. 2. That 81mm mortar crew and the halftrack it belongs to together form an actual mortar HT unit, as opposed to a mortar team being transported in a "regular" halftrack carrying mortar ammo, which Is what I thought for some reason. Seems I have never used this unit in CMx2 before and thinking that any unit like that in CMx2 would be an individual inseparable vehicle unit is probably hold over from playing CMx1 where this was the case. All makes sense now (except losing ammo if you ACQUIRE using an incompatible unit). This thread can be deleted.

No that is not the case. Attempting to ACQUIRE actually deducts it from the vehicle and doesn't get added anywhere. The ammo is essentially lost. I can not proceed with my PBEM as I critically need this ammo from the halftracks.

In that particular case, no the mortar team is not part of that organisational unit. I didn't think it should matter. Regardless, I went ahead and reloaded the scenario and did some tests. Wow, so crazy stuff going on here with ammo load outs even with the mortar team belonging to the same org init as the halftrack. In this video you will see the start of a movie where all I did was give a move command to the mortar unit in the halftrack. This unit had, the turn before, moved in to the halftrack because I wanted to test if it could take ammo from the halftrack (it actually had 16 HE and 4 WP rounds left itself). I never at any stage issued it the ACQUIRE command. This mortar unit is mounted in its organisational halftrack that has 66 rounds of HE and 8 rounds of WP mortar ammo listed as being carried. Strangely, the mortar unit at the start of the turn shows itself carrying 82 HE ammo and 12 WP ammo when loaded in the halftrack, and not the 16 HE and 4 WP rounds it had before entering the halftrack the turn before. Anyway here is what happens when I give the order to that mounted mortar team to exit the halftrack and move elsewhere: https://www.dropbox.com/s/i1vn38oumyz73uw/HT%20mortar%20ammo.mp4?dl=0 The 82 HE ammo and 12 WP ammo it seemed to have at the start of the turn suddenly drops back to the original level it had before it entered the halftrack the turn before (16 HE, 4 WP) soon after it moves some distance from the halftrack. Whats going on here? I wonder if this has anything to do with the other oddity I picked up in CMFI with trucks not wanting to move when infantry are loaded in them.

Hi, I am playing a CMFI PBEM and I have a US halftrack that has rounds of HE and WP 81mm mortar rounds. I also have the mortar team that is in need of that ammo. Now I thought all I had to do was park the ammo truck nearby and the mortar team will eventually have the ammo "appear" in their ammo stock. Instead of waiting around for this to happen, I instead loaded up the mortar team in to the truck and used the ACQUIRE command to try and directly equip the mortar team with the 81mm ammo. However much to my surprise, when I did this, the quantity of ammo I tried to ACQUIRE was correctly deducted from the trucks stores but never was transferred to the mortar team. Essentially the ammo vanished. Is this a bug? How should I be getting the ammo from the truck to my mortar team?

More info on this strangeness! I have just received the latest PBEM back from my opponent. Last turn started with 1st Plt in the two problem trucks. I wanted to have the trucks wait while I infantry dismount the trucks and start moving on foot elsewhere at the start of the turn and then have the trucks reverse to some other part of the map. In an attempt to achieve this ends, I gave the following orders: -a MOVE command to the mounted infantry to some nearby place on the map -a pause command on the trucks of 20 sec to allow the infantry to first embarkation (or so I thought) -a move command on the trucks to have them move away once the infantry have disembarked, However, it turns out that regardless of this apparent problem I talk about, I was never going to be able to do what it is I said I wanted to within that one turn. I just tested it on another map. If you give the commands I mentioned, what actually happens is that the infantry WILL NOT disembark at the start of the turn while the trucks are PAUSING. They will actually only disembark after the truck reaches it's final movement destination waypoint, of course which is some time after the PAUSE period expires. Anyway, in the PBEM replay, neither my truck nor the infantry moved. At the end of the turn, the movement waypoint orders for both the truck and the infantry persisted.

I have already cranked up the scenario as a single player WEGO game and attempted to recreate the problem. I even first loaded 3rd Plt then 1st Plt. The trucks did not have any problem moving. I was unsure if the help desk would find the PBEM file useful. Wouldn't they need both players passwords?

Drivers in and OK (the other driver is actually wounded (yellow)), no pause on order, no damage to vehicle, all infantry on board, no stragglers. Trucks will respond to movement orders when I dismount the infantry. This screenshot was taken at the end of a replay where I had already realised the trucks weren't moving and as a test just gave them shorter waypoint move orders just encase there was some odd path finding issue. NOTE: This is happening within a PBEM I am currently playing. The screenshots are from my saved PBEM files. I have since given up on wasting more time trying to get these infantry transported by truck, they are now on foot to their destination and the trucks are back with the mortars. The inability to move these units by truck has of course affected the battle, but I am still prepared to try other things, like maybe load other units in, or dismount, remount the driver or try transporting other units.

For what it's worth, the scenario is called "Veni, Vidi, Vici". Not sure how surprising or useful this screenshot of infantry loaded in to the truck that refuses to move with infantry loaded in it is to anyone.

Hello I am playing a PBEM scenario WEGO in which I have encountered a situation where the two Opel Blitz (mortar ammo) trucks I have loaded up with infantry refuse to execute the movement orders I give them. What is strange is that earlier in the scenario, they had no problems shuttling units when I used them to transport units of the 3rd Infantry Plt. I have never seen/heard anything like this before.. What is going on here? Yes, I have loaded, unloaded then reloaded the infantry in an attempt to break the glitch. I have also unloaded the infantry, given the trucks the same move orders, watched them move, reloaded the infantry and issued the same orders again and have the trucks refuse to execute the movement orders. Bull

GhostRider3/3 You are not alone in raising concerns about the spotting mechanics in this game, and the one you specifically mention....unbuttoned German tanks vs Russian tanks...was one I had already raised a few months back. I have experienced the unbuttoned stationary German tanks in essentially an ambush position failing to spot advancing Russian tanks that spot and fire at the German tanks as if the laws of LOS and spotting do not apply to both tanks equally. Your test findings do nothing to dispel these concerns.

Hello I just watched a replay of a PBEM I am playing and witnessed a main gun shell from a Sherman clearly pass straight through a MarderIIIM (front to back), killing the driver but not registering any kind of hit/penetration. Short of providing the visual replay (evidence) of this, might this seem to be some kind of bug or some wild extreme abstraction kinda gone wrong? I have never seen this before. Bull