cyrano01

I believe Edward I had a similar idea. His force multipliers were rather more picturesque https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caernarfon_Castle#/media/File:Caernarfon_Castle_1994.jpg and at a modern cost of about £28.5 million (if the Bank of England's inflation calculator is to be believed) the castle and walls of Caernarfon/Carnarvon came in a good deal cheaper than a single F35; and did manage to hold out against Owain G during the last little disagreement between England and Wales. In the interim I believe hostilities will renew in South West London on 7th March...

Alarmingly the scenario shown appears to involve a US attack on North Wales from North Western England and Ireland. Does somebody, somewhere know something I don't or have Meibion Glyndŵr been rather upgraded as a potential threat?

Charles XII as well...just for a full set (with the right quote this time!)

Charles XII as well...just for a full set.

For 2017 sunset in Caen on 1st August will be 21:40, for 31st August it will be 20:46. So twighlight at 22:20 in early August may not be too far off the mark. Anecdotally it is still pretty light here in North Western England well after 22:00 at the moment. https://www.timeanddate.com/sun/france/caen?month=8&year=2017

OK, that looks like it. A re-start of the scenario comes up clean so it looks like the save game got corrupted by the GL installation. No worries, it wasn't one I was emotionally attached to in any way. Thanks for your help chaps.

Ah, you could be onto something there. I have recently acquired Gustav Line and the save may pre-date its installation. Is this a known behaviour?

OK, so I am probably missing something obvious here, hoping someone can point out where to me. Playing CMFI - Beyond The Belice and when I select one of my squads (1st Platoon HQ - see attached screenshot) I can see 10 men listed on the bottom left side of the map, 10 men highlighted with green bases but only 4 weapons showing in the middle part of the GUI. What am I missing?

Sounds reasonable to me, although it would have been nice if one of the bearer teams was 17pdr to go with it. I'm not complaining since I'm playing as the Brits, although it's starting to make me suspect that there will be something equally potent in the ATG line lurking out there in wait for my Shermans.

WARNING - SPOILER ALERT * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Just made a start on the Gustav Line Scenario 'In For A Pound' as the Brits and was a bit puzzled by the AT Gun Platoon at my disposal. Was the composition of 3x6 pdr and 1x17pdr deliberate? Doubly so when there are 4x6pdr ammo bearers? I'm pretty sure (albeit without checking!) that 17 pdrs were only used by the Royal Artillery anti tank batteries rather than in the infantry battalions, I stand to be corrected on this though.

Aha, thanks Vanir, I thought I must be misreading it somehow.

I've just been looking at the British infantry battalion OOB in the scenario editor and was slightly puzzled when I came to the mortar platoon which shows as having three medium (i.e. 3”) mortars. I am pretty sure, and Forty's British Army Handbook confirms this, that the mortar platoon had 6 tubes. Am I misreading the force list or is this simply awry? Haven't been able to spot any other references to this via search but apologies if it has already been discussed.

Interesting point; I don't know if there is any trading going on here or not, maybe not since Wigram was an Infantry officer and neither the 4.2" Mortars or 25pdrs would have been under command for his unit. I guess there was sufficient support from Field Artillery available that his observation was along the lines of 'why bother with anything less.' The more I read about British infantry operations post about late 1942 the more I move towards the view that massed artillery, primarily 25pdrs, represents the key to open most tactical doors. For what it is worth he didn't seem to get much ,mileage from his battalion mortars either (see below) "Three-inch Mortars and Carriers These were hardly ever used throughout the Campaign as the country was quite unsuitable for Carriers (movement off the rds was impossible), and the three-inch mrtrs invariably found that targets offered were out of range. Our three-inch mrtrs (5 Buffs) did not fire a single rd throughout the Campaign."

Very interesting document, as an indication of how AARs vary it is instructive to compare it with a similar report by Lt Col Wigram, one of the moving forces behind British Army battle drills/schools and C/O of 5/Buffs covering British experiences in Sicily. Some similarities but also differences e.g. The US report sings the praises of the 4.2” mortar whereas Wigram is really quite scathing of the equivalent British weapon as can be seen from the below: "Four point two-inch Mortars Very inaccurate - not as quick into action as 25 prs. There is nothing they do which the 25 prs do not do better. If OPs are difficult to come by they are yet another group of people occupying valuable space. When suitable targets presented themselves they were far out of range, or could be adequately dealt with by the 25 prs. During a three-day battle when I was almost continuously at an OP, the 4.2 mrtrs fired no rounds during the whole period. They have been used to thicken up fire when concentrations are being put down, but as there is no shortage of guns it is rather a drop in the ocean to add 4.2-inch mortars to, say, 6 Fd Regts and 2 Med Regts. When they are so used they can be very dangerous as they are not accurate enough to do barrage work. During one attack of this kind we were continuously shelled by something very heavy on our own side and we all thought that this was the 4.2-inch mrtr (this may be doing them an injustice)." I guess the US mortar may have been a more potent piece, it does seem to have a slightly heavier bomb, but they don't seem a million miles apart in terms of performance. Different doctrines perhaps?

I'd love to see a bit more camera freedom 'over the border' as well, just enough so that when I am in views 3/4 I don't have to tilt the view to see the back of the map as I move back - if you see wat I mean. That said it is definitely a 'nice to have' rather than urgent.

I've seen an instance of this sort of thing, see thread here: http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=97549 Don't know if you're still looking for saved games as examples?

Just set up a PBEM QB with me as German defender and my opponent as Allied attacker in a small sized, attack type battle. The random map selection assigned us 'Attack Large Forest (water) QB 145.' Having selected my forces I was quite surpised to find that my assigned set up zone was at the opposite side of the map to the objectives i.e. Where I would normally expect the attacker to be. It looks like my opponent has been assigned the defenders zone i.e Covering the objectives. I am sure I am defending as I have the smaller point value and all the correct entries are showing on the into screens. I tried setting up a single player QB on this map with the same settings and all was well but I am getting consistently reversed set up areas if I set up for 2 players. Any thoughts or any chance someone with a better understanding of map contruction than me could have a look at the map and see if all is well? Alternatively is there some blindingly obvious user error that I am making? I have the email saved turn if that would be at all useful. Cheers

My recollection is that the British were using SLRs at the time, essentially an FN FAL without the ability to fire fully automatic. The Argentine FN FALs retained automatic fire hence the tendency for them to be picked up.

Many thanks

Just wondering if a small problem may have crept in with vertical rolls. Last night I found myself on Loki's tail (a rare enough event in itself) and he went for a vertical roll. Having one myself I countered it but he got to change altitude anyway and it cost me 2 cards to follow him Just managed to reproduce this against an online 'bot.' Any thoughts?

Only The Enemy In Front is sub-titled 'The Recce Corps at War 1940-1946' so it is a history of the corps as a whole but it certainly discusses the activities of some of the recce regiments of various infantry divisions. I have a copy and it is a while since I last read it but my recollection is that there is not much formal discussion of methods and tactics per se. There are, however, many descriptions of actions if you fancy a little 'Tactical Snippeting.' There is also the biography which might give some more pointers. As to how these regiments went about their business the last chapter of the book suggests that however they did it that business may not have been reconnaisance all that often. It gives post-war studies as indicating that recce regiments spent their time as follows: 'Recce 12%, Protection 9%, Acting As Infantry 34%, Miscellaneous & Concentrated 45%' These figures are themselves acknowledged as a quote from This Band Of Brothers but have the feel about them of those British Operational Research type studies that John Salt mines so efficiently.

You are of course correct. Just went down quicker than a Zero fired on with a Tempest death ray....

We seem to be up and running, err flying, again. Well done Battlefront.

Seems to be OK now, was fine about half an hour later.

At the time of writing (2112 GMT) a couple of us are having a few issues with on-line games. I simply can't get a game to start i.e. Choose my pilot, altitude etc. Press the OK button and then nothing happens. Tornado is getting his games to start but then experiencing odd un-ordered discards and altitude chages. His game then hung on th last AI turn. No idea whether his symptoms and mine are related or if they are being experienced more generally. Any thoughts?