PvK

As for laying concealed mines on paved roads... many paved roads in Europe are paved with bricks and stones. Thus mines can be placed under the stones. Also, engineers who place the mines could break up even concrete or asphalt a bit to hide mines under. As for daisy chain mines being clearable by infantry by hand. Would you volunteer for such duty? Just because there are un-hidden mines doesn't mean there aren't hidden mines and traps there. Troops only very rarely would go about trying to clear minefields during combat, especially minefields they'd just found some minutes ago. I'll repeat my agreement that units often engage the wrong targets at the wrong ranges. I also agree that mid-range speed settings would be nice. PvK

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Germanboy: ... Regarding heavy armour, I have killed a few Panthers with 3in mortar top hits. So they should reverse as well, I would think. Tigers seem immune. ...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Um, were the Panthers unbuttoned when killed by 3-inch mortars? If not, sounds like an inaccuracy to me. Panthers were supposedly very hard to kill with arty top hits, unless it was a very large round. At least, the German reports after Kursk said so. PvK

Some vehicle crews had SMG's and grenades (British Crusader crews often did, for one example), but on the other hand, I really don't think they were often called upon to fight much, nor were they made priority targets by the enemy. Generally they'd try to scurry back to their unit to eventually get into a working tank. Pressing them into service as infantry, especially if they only had some pistols, wasn't generally done unless they dismounted and immediately had to protect themselves. So ya, I'd give them maybe an SMG or two sometimes, but also try to reinforce the message that they're only to defend themselves and get back to safety, perhaps with TAC AI tweaks, and making units not fire at dismounted crews unless the crews are within a certain short range or are themselves attacking. Tracking their fate is kind of atmospherically amusing, but when they start attracting lots of fire and being used as troops, it seems like they're detracting from the realism more than they're adding to it. On the other hand, bunker crews would (AFAIK) generally be infantry, and I would expect them to have decent weapons in addition to the bunker weapons, not just pistols. I'd also give them army uniforms and not crew uniforms. PvK

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by TeAcH: The Panther. All around champion. Question tho...were the PIVs really that pitiful?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> No, I don't think so. I'll be posting more on this shortly...

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Simon: ... That said I agree that some forms of infantry are entirely too easy to spot, and even more ... um... "easy feeling" to HIT when in most types of cover. I would think a person's forehead and Binoc's would have an negligable chance to be spotted peering out of a window 7 or 8 football fields distant.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I quite agree. In the real world, in most situations where there is some cover, it is very easy for a human on foot to find complete cover very quickly, and to peek out from cover and get a very good view with very little exposure, especially with some range between then and the enemy, and if the enemy doesn't have a good height advantage. If a man in a building does draw fire, they can generally take complete cover immediately. Spotting a glint in a window at 1000m may occur, but usually it will not be from enemy binoculars, and especially a moving halftrack-mounted MG gunner will have no way of knowing which glints are goggles and which are porcelain vases or clocks or pitchers or wine glasses or mirrors or framed pictures or whatever. So if the standard operating procedure is to fire at all glints, there'll be a lot of area fire, but the firers will probably have no idea which glint was an enemy except on a remote chance, IMO. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Along similar lines I think Woods are too hard to see OUT of and a bit too easy to see into. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I quite agree, too, at least for real woods with decent foliage. In reality, it can be near impossible to see someone in good woods at any range, yet quite possible to see out of it. In the game, I've had units on foot in woods that claimed they couldn't see an enemy tank several hundred meters away, but then the tank proceeded to fire at them, causing casualties. Most woods I've seen also afford abundant opportunities for taking complete cover from most direct fire, besides the fact that outside enemies probably can't see anyone inside the woods. PvK

Regarding the ability of US tracked vehicles to move through bocage: 1) Seems pretty fast and reliable. It only seems to take a Sherman a few seconds to plow through bocage. 2) They can also go through in REVERSE??? Maybe this was FOW, but I just saw one of my opponent's Shermans back through the bocage with little apparent impediment. Surely they don't have rear-facing plows? I suppose there would be a hole there since I think they came through that way, but still, the driver can't see backwards (very well?), can they? 3) The old comment - it'd be nice if this weren't assumed to be on all US tracked vehicles past a certain date, but could be specified per vehicle by the scenario designer. PvK

Another good reason to have engagement range set-able is the situation I see in a long-range encounter I'm in now. My Panthers are down to under 20 AP rounds each now, and are still firing at Shermans at 1200m even when they are hull down and there's only a 10% hit chance. I'd like to be able to have my tankers save some ammo. Also, some of my MG teams like to expose themselves to take pot-shots at enemies who are also about 1200m away. If I want them to fight (not hide) against closer enemies who may not always be in LOS, I have no way to keep them from wasting ammo and attention and exposing themselves by taking pot shots at long range. Engagement range would be one way to get the desired control in these situations. PvK

Seems to me the issue isn't so much a need to ingore certain specified units or to engage only one arc as it is to not engage non-threat targets. So, how about vehicle/inf engagement ranges as something a player can set, either for a whole force, a unit type, or specific units. Thus you could set the infantry engagement range to 100m or 50m or 0m, and ignore any infantry outside that range. Same for the vehicle range, which could also be broken down into threatening and non-threat vehicles. E.g., engage threatening vehicles within 2000m, non-threat vehicles within 500m, and infantry within 100m. I suppose threat/no-threat infantry could also be broken down. Thus crews could be set to 0m, but threat inf (e.g. bazooka) could be set to 250m, or whatever the player wanted. If that's too much to ask for or too much to deal with, the TacAI's default engagement ranges could just be tuned to more reasonable levels, with attacks only being carried out outside them to return fire or if specifically ordered. PvK

Ya, I was hoping they could set up positions in the bocage and use it as a fortified wall, but it looks like it can't be used that way. Maybe if they started the scenario there on defense and then they'd have foxholes there. Thanks, PvK

BTW shouldn't bazooka-type units (and FO's) have sidearms, too?

Ok, I've spent about an hour reading other bocage-related discussion on the board, but need a simple game-mechanics-only answer here. Does bocage provide any protection vs. fire to spotted units in it, and if so, how much compared to light woods or woods, or sitting behind a hedge? In other words, in this game, can bocage be used as a defensive position to put infantry in, or is it a dangerous obstacle that is a bad place to have your troops? Thanks, PvK

Doesn't sound unreasonable to me that a wreck could blow up twice. As you suggest, not all the fuel & ammo would necessarily go up at once.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Hawk: Ah, scripting! Now, that would indeed be a blast, but wouldn't it put an aditional heavy load on the TacAI? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I wouldn't think it would. That is, not scripting, but just a way to order units fall back when they come under fire. PvK

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bullethead: I disagree. ... ... So if the FO gets killed during the FFE, the arty unit won't know and will continue shooting per the last instructions received. Only when the arty unit asks for end of mission and gets only static will it notice something wrong. Therefore, as long as CM continues to have open-ended fire missions, IMHO it should keep itself internally consistent and shut them off immediately upon FO death. I don't like this, but I think it's better than adding something else that is even less realistic. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> My understanding of the real-life situation mirrors yours. However I don't see how you get that conclusion. If the FO hadn't died, the arty would have fired at least to the end of the turn no matter what I did. Doesn't make any sense to me for it to stop immediately. Maybe it'd stop after a minute or a few minutes. I don't think the "friendly fire" case really holds up, given the one-minute turns - an enemy small target area isn't liable to become friendly-held DURING a few-minute bombardment! Also, I don't believe the WW2-era FO was there saying "ok, another round, now another a few meters west... now ack!" I also don't think a battery would, after having just received an order for say 24 rounds on target, to stop at the moment they heard their FO buy the farm. I think they'd probably realize they best they could do was hit the confirmed target pretty hard, at least on scale of a few minutes at most. PvK

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by :USERNAME:: The way the game is now, you can use sneak and then hide. Time it with a few pauses so they get there with as little "exposed time" as possible. Then they will be under enemy fire for as little as possible but you will be able (hopefully) to give them a withdrawl order the next turn. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Well, that's exactly what I did, and it worked - my enemy says he didn't ever spot my unit. No complaint there, about sneaking to the position. But he attacked the building anyway, because he figured I might have someone in it and it was about all he could hit. So round after round of 105mm HE hit the house throughout the turn, and my men "held their ground" with great courage... and no purpose. The problem is that they stayed around to get killed, but they weren't there to hold ground, just to peek and run if there was trouble. What I want is a way to tell certain units that I'd like them to fall back if they get attacked, or attacked with anything more than very light fire. Perhaps I could even specify the place I want them to retreat to when they receive fire. PvK

I just foolishly sent a FO forward, ordered an attack which started falling, but the FO got spotted and was killed after a few seconds, and only a couple more rounds came down and the artillery attack stopped promptly after his death. Why? I wanted at least fire until the end of the turn. Now all my arty support from that unit is gone. It seems to me that ideally (in the absence of being able to order the actual number of rounds, as suggested by someone else on another thread), a random portion of the spotter's available ammo would continue to fire, perhaps with more than usual drift, up to possibly the full ammo left. On another note, my human PBEM opponent reported that as he spotted my FO, he was given the info (with FOW on) of the type of artillery that the FO was assigned, which we both agreed made no sense at all, unless it's only a 1/1000 chance that some yank who spoke German overheard the FO for some reason mentioning it, and the info was immediately relayed to the commanding officer... PvK

After seeing a scout unit of mine standing heroically against accurate long-range 105mm tank fire, it occured to me that I'd really like to have the option to explain to my men that I want them to run at the first sign of serious trouble. That is, often I send scouts forward (or up) and want them to see but not stand and get killed if they come under attack. There seems to be no way to communicate that to the men, leading to extra casualties for misplaced bravery. PvK

Sounds like maybe they tweaked too far. BTW, are the crater sizes for the big guns accurate? I watched some 12" hits and it gave me the impression of a god-sized ice cream scoop - enormous craters. Not sure if they actually have a terrain type or elevation effect, though. Just curious. PvK

Cool, though I noticed that the SdKfz 251 one actually overwrote one existing file... I don't know if that's a problem or not, though. PvK

Realistic with bases. Trees at full, or occasionally no trees, for moments when they are getting in the way.

CC2 has nothing to do with TOP/PS, pnubly. TOP/PS also are not really squad-level games. Units in TOP/PS are generally platoons. Also, turns in TOP/PS are the same length as CM turns - one minute. Maps in TOP/PS go up to (and often are) 5 km by 8 km, and forces are often entire brigades - it's a rather different scale of action. Movements are at a signifigantly larger scale in TOP/PS. Both games have several things the others don't. CM is more detailed in some respects, and TOP/PS has quite a few things that CM lacks, too. To me, they're too different to directly say one is "more realistic" than the other, without comparing specific aspects. PvK

I agree, but are you sure the loaded round type is tracked? I was under the impression that it wasn't. I'll have to watch more closely the next time. By the way, it occured to me that a good solution for the problem of tanks getting distracted by non-threatening targets when tanks are around would be to provide some sort of setting for target threshold for each unit, so a unit could be told to ignore non-threatening targets. PvK

Scenarios are always very welcome at http://www.wargamer.com/archive/submit.asp !

An AFV suggestion: Track which type of ammo is chambered, and allow the player to specify (or default to an AP type, if present). Also track unloading time. Of course, this would have to go along with a solution to the problem of tanks going after infantry when they don't currently have a big enemy to shoot at. However, for example, if an AFV _is_ engaging infantry with the cannon and is surprised by the appearance of any enemy AFV, it shouldn't be able to turn in a few seconds and fire off an AP round immediately, as if it had an AP round waiting or in the process of being loaded. Overall, the reaction times of AFV's to threats seems to be in great want of a delay. Real tank crews aren't great at spotting and reacting immediately to threats, but in CM, they react very quickly. PvK [This message has been edited by PvK (formatting).] [This message has been edited by PvK (edited 07-02-2000).]

Ya, I suppose the answer is "the graphics aren't meant to be taken literally" so it's just a point of information that although the stone bridges look extremely solid and LOS-blocking, they actually aren't in practice. BTW, I do have fun with games without fancy graphics.