ASL Veteran

You as the player have no control over it. If you are creating a scenario the facing is set by the designer at the time the units are deployed on the map. If you are playing scenarios then units are facing the wrong way because the designer placed them facing the wrong way. If you are playing QBs then I can only assume that the game is retaining the original default facing that the game uses when units are initially placed out on the map for the designer to deploy. Since there is no designer in a QB then the game has no means of altering the facing on its own unless the map is set to have those units move somewhere. At that point the units will then face their next waypoint.

Units will always retain their original facing from how they were deployed by the designer regardless of where they end up if you use an alternate set up zone for the AI. For infantry it doesn't really matter, but with AT guns and tanks it makes it problematic to give them alternate positions unless you are babying them with very small AI groups and you are repositioning them in locations where their original facing can still be viable.

Yeah, running tests is the only way to be sure and once you have the test results you can just write them down because it will always be the same after that. I always have the enemy side opposite the friendly side so I never discovered that it was the enemy side and not the friendly side that affected it. I guess you can teach an old dog a new trick.

At set up AI troops will always face in the direction they were deployed in the editor when the designer placed the troops on the map. Friendly edge has nothing to do with initial facing of troops deployed on the map. Once they move somewhere they will then face in the direction of their next waypoint. Once again, friendly edge has nothing to do with it. Friendly edge only affects what side of a wall the troops choose to align themselves on and which direction troops will route when under heavy fire. edited to add - in case this isn't known when you place troops in the editor with the move command you then face them in the direction you want to face them by using the face command just like you would if you were playing the game normally. These troops will then retain their facing until they move to a new location. Once at the new location they will then face their next waypoint.

AI troops will only deploy along a certain side of a wall or hedgerow depending upon how the friendly edges are set. For diagonals you can always place your waypoint at the spots where the tip of an action spot intersects with a wall but if you want to put your AI troops along the correct side of the wall in a action spot that the wall intersects you have to have your friendly edges set correctly. IIRC AI troops will always align themselves on the same side of the wall as the friendly edge. So if your friendly edge is the west side of the map then your AI troops will align themselves along the west side of the wall. However, if you have any walls that go east to west such that you want the AI troops to align along the north or south side of the wall I think they will always align themselves along the north side of the wall. So there are limitations as to how you can align the AI troops along walls and hedges since you will only get one side of each wall to work with depending upon what edge is the friendly edge. If you have a two pronged attack with troops coming from both north and south and both prongs need to use walls you will not be able to use the walls correctly for both prongs. The exception to that is with diagonal walls since you can always use the action spots where just a corner touches the wall. Troops will always remain on that side of the wall with diagonals. It generally isn't necessary to face the troops since they should hug the wall regardless. Sure, they probably get a minor spotting disadvantage, but they will quickly turn around and fight the enemy like normal once the shooting starts.

The options for ammunition are Typical Full Adequate Limited Scarce Severe Unlimited is not an option. Since the batteries are off map resupply is also not an option.

AI tank crews are automatically set to open by the AI. You have no control over the buttoned status of AI vehicle crews.

I think he means 'made a few sales' in that they have sold a few games. Sale being used in the transactional sense not the discount sense of the word.

It's possible they have a similar name. There are various types of sturm units in the Volksgrenadier battalions so I may be getting them confused, but yeah, the Panzergrenadiers in the Panzer Brigades have the MP44 in the MG module.

Although if he wants them now he can get the Panzer Brigade Panzergrenadiers which is in Market Garden. I don't think the Panzerbrigades have been added to RT yet, but I'm not 100% sure. They are somewhat similar to the Sturmgrenadiers except with possibly a little less firepower in some ways.

Volksgrenadiers are not available in the game yet. They are typically associated with the November and later time frame which is outside of the time frame of all the released games so far. I'm just saying that those are the formations that were the most likely to have MP44s historically and that's what you seem to be looking for. So no, altering the equipment quality rating will not give you units full of MP 44s if that is what you are looking for because the units currently in game weren't historically equipped with such weapons since those weapons are associated with an entirely different TO&E. The things that currently change in the Germans is the number of G43 semi auto rifles and whether the MG is going to be an MG 34 or an MG 42. The differences aren't going to be dramatic, but they are present. Edited to add that German paras are probably more likely to get the FG 42 on higher equipment quality settings though!

You should see more MP44s in the later time periods. When you use the Panzer Brigades you will see them and you should see plenty with the Volksgrenadiers.

My memory is hazy, but I think that perhaps the spotter doesn't need to have LOS to the actual ground where the FFE is supposed to land. It is sort of like how mortars can target over items like tall walls. You do need to have LOS to the action square itself, but as long as you can see a few meters above the ground in that location you should be good. However, I'm going from memory here and I could be mistaken.

You don't need Set Up Zones for reinforcements because those units will always enter the map where you originally place them in the editor. If the components of one AI group is split between reinforcements and non reinforcements nobody that is a part of that AI group will move until the last reinforcement has arrived onto the map. In order for a unit to do something you have to assign it to one of the 16 available AI groups. Every unit defaults as part of group A1, but you have to manually assign AI groups 2 through 16 by using the F keys. You then have to paint the orders for the various groups onto the map before the units will move to those locations. Without knowing what you are doing exactly though it is hard to give much more than general guidance. Edited to add, there are no branching AI orders either. Your AI controlled truppen are on a one way train track that always travels from station to station on a single path. Just tossing that out there if you weren't aware of that.

For heavy weapons like HMG, mortars, and AT Guns etc. if the weapon is close enough to an ammo dump or a truck the weapon will draw ammunition automatically from the dump, truck, ammo bearer, whatever. You can see this because there are two ammo listings for heavy weapons. An HMG, for example, will show the ammunition that it has organic to the HMG crew listed in the same place as where you would see ammo listed for a normal squad. That number may show 1500 rounds for example. Just to the right of it, if you select the ammunition tab you can see how much ammunition is currently available to the HMG. If dumps, trucks, or bearers are not nearby then you would simply see 1500 in that spot again. If a truck is close enough that number might show >3k or something like that. It is my understanding that the weapon will draw ammo from the truck before using it's own without you having to manually 'acquire' it. Your unit has to be pretty close though - I think it is within about three action spaces, but I'm not sure exactly. I don't think squads draw ammunition automatically like this, but I could be wrong on that.

The most typical case for the Germans will be the substitution of MG34s in the place of MG42s. Units with a lot of automatic weapons may have some differences in the type of automatic weapon assigned. American units may have more or fewer BARs assigned. As SLIM mentioned though, it really does depend on the type of unit you are using.

I haven't looked at your save game, but tank crews can only re crew the same tanks they started in and there needs to be a minimum number of crew members in a crew in order to re crew a tank. For a five man tank crew I think there needs to be at least three functioning crew members.

Perhaps, but if your entire argument depends upon a definition then you don't really have an argument of substance because if your definition isn't the same as BFC's definition the discussion is effectively over. You aren't bringing anything else to the table. If the game is massively flawed if we assume that your definition is correct or that the game is just fine if your definition is incorrect I would have to say that the assumption should be that you are the one in error on this topic. After all, we know that BFC has consulted experts in the field when creating the penetration formulas for the game and until now nobody has found any errors in the game on this topic at least since the CMx2 engine was created. I believe the formulas were changed for CMx2 because Rexford himself contacted BFC and personally discussed the topic with them IIRC. If we know that Rexford himself consulted with BFC on this issue I think that it is safe to assume that such a basic error that is implied by this definition 'issue' is something that would not have made it into the game. At least, unless you think that BFC is completely incompetent. There is nothing wrong with raising an issue and subsequently finding out that you may have made a mistake. The only thing that remains is whether the person making the mistake decides to keep banging the same drum and making himself look like a fool.

Perhaps. However, he really needs to understand that he is now effectively saying that the entire model that the game uses for armor penetration is in error. If the expectation is that someone is going to come onto this forum, start a thread, toss out a few things and have an expectation that Charles is going to discount everything that he has done for the last fifteen years and suddenly say 'You're right, I need to re do the entire penetration model for the game' is probably not dealing with reality as it currently is. If anyone wants the entire way the game is calculating armor penetration to change they are probably going to need to provide some very compelling evidence, up to and perhaps including various tables and calculations that are the equivalent of what Rexford has published. Shift8 has already discounted the expertise of apparently well regarded individuals on a forum dedicated to armor penetration. Why would Charles feel compelled to put any credence into what Shift8 says on this forum. Is Shift8 published? Does Shift8 work for the defense department? Does Shift8 do any original research on this topic? What are Shift8's credentials exactly or does he just read a few books and count himself an expert? I don't know the answer to that - maybe he is a renowned expert in the field. I'm not trying to be hard on the guy. I'm just trying to spell out reality. Charles relies on research conducted by recognized experts in the field - which includes Rexford. Shift8 seems to have a dim view of Rexford's work, but really, what is Shift8's qualifications to pontificate on Rexford's work in the first place? Unless Shift8 can point to his published work and show where all of CM's mistakes are then he's really just tilting at windmills here since Charles is just going to say 'Shift8? Who is he and why should I care what he thinks?' Reading a book somewhere doesn't make someone an expert because it should be obvious that what Charles has put into the game is much more complicated than a simple penetration table. That is, unless Shift8 stayed at a Holiday Inn last night! I don't know Shift8 and I'm not trying to bust the guy's balls, but if you want to change the entire way armored combat is done in the game it will require extraordinary evidence. Saying 'something is wrong but I don't know what' isn't going to change a thing. That's reality.

That and how is the AI going to designate and place a CCP? Someone has to design AI plans and a designer trying to designate a CCP would probably have to place it somewhere several hundred meters from the areas of conflict or risk placing it somewhere that the enemy occupies since the scenario designer has no idea where the player will be at any given time. If the AI is to designate the CCP on it's own then who knows what the result would be. The reason all of this coding effort is being expended? In order to have medics physically evacuate casualties from the battlefield and that doesn't actually have any impact on the outcome of the battle itself. Yeah, I don't see any value in altering the way casualties are handled right now.

I can top that one. Generally speaking we hated fire in ASL, or at least starting them. Especially after 'The Warta Line' incident. We were playing a two on two game as I recall and the guy opposite my partner moved a bunch of SS squads into the big stone building on board three which was surrounded by barbed wire. Well somehow that building surrounded by barbed wire and full of SS soldiers caught on fire and they couldn't get out. They all burned alive. Of course we topped it off when one Polish leader was in a bunker by himself with an LMG. A full platoon of SS guys jumps into the bunker to kill the guy in close combat led by the player's personal leader (we were doing that campaign thing where you are represented on the map with a personal leader unit and he wanted to pad his stats). The Polish leader kills the entire platoon including the guy's personal leader.

Well then perhaps a test could be conducted against different types of target tanks to see if the two guns perform as expected against other vehicles. That way a determination could be made as to whether the issue is related to the guns or if the issue is related to the armor.

Okay, so if you think the 75mm gun on the Panzer IV is just fine, and if the performance of the 75mm matches the performance of the 76mm per the test run by Vanir, then please explain to us what the issue is that you have with the 76mm gun. At this point in time testing has shown that they act the same in game so if there is something wrong with the 76mm then there must be a similar error with the 75mm. In order to remain credible you either need to admit that perhaps your assumptions were in error or you need to explain why both guns have values that don't match your expectations. Saying that the 75mm is fine but the 76mm is in error when their performance is the same is an irrational position to maintain unless you can give us a compelling reason to doubt the performance of both weapons.

Okay, let's just eliminate partial penetrations from the equation. What do you think of the performance of the US 76mm as compared to the German 75mm? Do you think they are both in error? Do you think shatter gap is being applied to the German ammunition? If not then what do you think is the cause for the difference between the in game performance of both guns and your expectations because up to this point your focus has exclusively been on shatter gap.