paullus

This is most definitely not a bug. Spotting units on FOW can be very, very tricky. I've had units identified as Shermans, that end up as halftracks, Tigers as Stugs, etc, etc, etc. The great thing about this game is that with full FOW, you can never be certain what is headed your way unless your guys get a solid view, and can identify what they see.

Just had a chance to look in my book, and I did make an error (the numbers were too high). But the point is valid that turnover (losses, transfers, replacements, etc) was so high as to make any attempt to follow a group of soldiers through more than one operation (and even more than one battle) almost a hopeless task. You could also make a case for the German units in WWII, but given that their divisions kept fighting until their were destroyed (or at least rendered completely combat ineffective), the number of troops would be reduced dramatically during any campaign. It might be nice to have a campaign option, but it does feel very "gamey" and detracts from the overall historical feel of the game.

When you add up the total number of dead, wounded, missing, transferred, etc, the chances of a group of soldiers (above platoon level) actually surviving and staying together through a campaign (either Bulge, Normandy, or Italy) was extremely small. Most American divisions experiences a 100% - 300% turnover in personnel during any given campaign. Personnel did gain experience, but for the most part those soldiers either got killed, wounded and sent home, or were transferred to other units. The US 90th Infantry Division, for example, lost a total of 300% of its authorized strength by the end of August 1944 (of course the unit received replacements, which also suffered losses as time went on). We have this misguided notion that units were always kept together, fought with the same support, same tanks, etc, but in reality the chances of any battalion maintaining enough veterans to advance in experience was very, very small. Perfect example- Audie Murphy (the most decorated US soldier in history). Out of his battalion that went into combat, only Audie & one other man made it to the end of the war. That other man was a supply clerk.

The heavier German tanks were notorious for their poor weight/track ratio and got bogged down constantly in anything but dry conditions. I recommend keeping your tanks on the roads when possible to prevent becoming bogged. Also, once a tank is immobile, that's it, it won't be moving the rest of the game. Be careful where you put your tanks, and especially where you move them.

Surprisingly enough, American winter camoflage was reduced to white-washing their vehicles or draping bedsheets over them. Germany was the only country during the war to really adopt painted-on camo patterns. The Waffen SS started using camo first, followed by the other branches of the Weremacht as the war went on.

I have seen the AI flinch when running into my defenses, then move around and try to flank my positions. I've had the AI overrun me completely, using superior firepower and positioning to dislodge my squads. I've had the AI recently outflank my entire defense (by repositioning outside of my LOS) and bring 6 HTs, 3 PZ-IV, & a company of infantry on to my inadequately staffed flank position. Of course, I've also had the AI continue its attack long after any sane commander would have, but at the same time, I've been surprised by the AI's ability to extricate itself from a bad position and counterattack. Its been an interesting time, and I believe the AI is more capable than any I've seen. I'll be the first to admit its not perfect, but I have lots quite a few games as a result of the AI doing something completely unexpected.

Had a Hetzer exchange shots with three M4A1's for FIVE minutes (the Hetzer couldn't hit the broad side of a barn, and the Shermans couldn't penetrate at that angle & distance). Finally, my Hetzer killed two Shermans before succumbing to the third. Pretty amazing to watch all of the ricochets.

My father was a medic in the National Guard back in the 70's. He was called in to deal with a guy who got behind a soldier firing a LAW. His entire face had been burned off down to the bone, definitely not a pretty sight.

A significant fraction of the Allied units in Normandy were equipped with Rhino attachments once they became available. There was so much left over steel from the beach obstacles that every vehicle that wanted one could have one. Also, many vehicles left them on, even after their units moved out of the bocage and into open country.

Fog is wonderful. Night and fog make for a very interesting game. When you can't see more than 15m in front of you, it makes for an amazing close combat experience.

Greetings Erik, glad to see you over here from the TOAW side of things. I agree that having bunkers that could embark infantry would be great (enhance the firepower of the existing structures), while still providing close in support against other infantry.

You actually ran into a WWI-type trench situation during the last year and a half of the US Civil War. Most of the later battles in Virginia had Grant throwing thousands of men against Lee's entrenchments (the Bloody Triangle, Cold Harbor, etc). Most of Sherman's maneuverings around Atlanta were done to get around Johnston's entrenchments. He launched only one direct attack during the campaign (Kennesaw Mtn.) and he quickly gave up on that one once he saw it was a failure (thus saving the lives of his men). The strength of defensive positions had surpassed the ability of an offensive power to take those positions without taking huge losses (i.e. Cold Harbor). This situation was extended and expanded with the invention of the Machine Gun. It was not until the development of the tank, and tactics on its use (WWII & the panzers) that offensive power once again was on top.

US Engineers have access to nuclear land mines (for demolition & area denial), but they aren't available for everyday use. I don't think they've ever been able to get a nuclear device smaller than that, and the land mine is still fairly large (larger than a suitcase, about 5kt of explosive power).

Thanks guys, I think I will try the mountain troops tonight (after I finish wipping up on some Canadians). Do they have Fausts?

What would you guys consider to be the best choice for close-in infantry? I like to defend at night or in fog (just a personal preference)and have tried various grouping of units (found out the hard way that night and fog don't or shouldn't mix when you've selected a bunch of MG-42's that can't see more than 5m in front of them. Fallschirmjaeger squads seem to do pretty well, with SS not far behind, but what would be the best to pick in low-visibility defensive positions?

I have had SPG's do this several times. I think it may be related to new targets coming into view that are more dangerous (i.e. the current target isn't dead, but hey, here is something more dangerous coming into view).

The backblast from a Panzerschreck or Bazooka is pretty significant. I do put a lot of these units in buildings, but I don't rely on them as part of my main defensive position (unless I can hide them in woods). Even today, most ATGM or RPGs cannot be fired from buildings. It makes sense to model something similar in the game. Though I would think that really tall buildings should have the option of moving troops to the roof (to fire down on AFV tops). What do you think?

This is actually pretty smart. If you were a soldier and thought that a particular line of trees held an 88, I would blow the hell out of it too, just in case.

Actually, it makes sense for the artillery to stop with the death of the FO. The FO is in constant contact with the artillery battery, changing location of fire, correcting short, etc. When the FO is lost, so is that contact. No artillery commander is going to continue a bombardment without knowing what he is shooting at (especially since there is always a chance the good guys could get caught if they advance). On the second point, I've never been able to tell what kind of artillery a FO controls (on the other side). Even when the scenario ends all I see is that the enemy unit was a FO (not what that FO controlled). Back to the first point, one reason the RAF was unable (or unwilling) to support the Arnhem operation with CAS was their insistence on FO on the ground and a clear marking of targets, which was impossible due to the radio problem at Arnhem. Even though the roads in the area were crammed with German vehicles, hardly any attacks were made by the RAF against them, due to the lack of FO support.

I too have seen a disproportionate number of open-topped AFV's abandoned in the face of any enemy fire (whether from me or the AI). I have even seen some vehicles abandoned without taking any fire at all (they just moved close to some of my troops). I know they are vulnerable, but I would hesitate in leaving a perfectly operable vehicle to jump on to the battlefield myself.

In the release that I have (1.02), the maximum point value is 5000pts. With an assault, I can get up above 15000pts for the attacker, a truly huge battle.

Up until the 1970's many countries' MBTs used a coax MG for ranging the main gun. Without good optics or a rangefinder, this was the easiest way to tell if the main gun was on target.

Vision slits are the weakest point at the front of a pillbox (the concrete is not supported as much, as in the rest of the structure). A near miss by a tank or artillery round could be enough to cave in the vision slit and destroy the bunker.

Over the last couple of evenings I tried a few QB's with the worst possible visibility. All three took place at night with heavy fog. LOS was down to about 10m in some places. I played SS vs. Americans & Canadians (first- Amis, second & third Canadians). I made the mistake in the first game of picking a lot of MG's, a flak gun (for infantry suppression), and three tank hunters. I couldn't even see the attackers until they were right on top of me. It was a complete slugfest until the last turn. It ended with a tactical US victory. I lost 161 men, Americans lost 271. I also lost all three vehicles to close assaults. The second and third games I tried to pick mostly infantry, due to the close-in fighting. I won both games, inflicting 2-1 losses both times, but still took significant losses each time. Poor visibility cuts both ways, as I painfully found out. I ran a Pz-IV/70 right up to a tank contact (sound only) only to find it wasn't where I thought it was, instead it was right behind me and put a 76mm shell right through the rear end. I also had one squad fight off 6 Canadian squads in the space of two turns, inflicting 40 casualties. Of course, they were overrun two turns later by a combination of engineers and a couple of Piat teams. The only reason I won the last two games (because there were Canadians running all over the map, and I couldn't even begin to pin them all down- couldn't even see most of them), was holding a platoon in reserve covering the last victory flag. If those games had gone on for a few more turns, even my reserves wouldn't have made a difference. Again, in the worst kind of battles (night and fog) the defender is almost at as much of a disadvantage as the attacker, since you don't see them coming until they are right on top of you.

Surprisingly enough, I love the Jpz-IV/70. Low profile, long honking gun, and pretty good mobility. Of course, the lack of turret makes it vulnerable, but I think it just looks cool.