Andrew H.

While I agree that this is *plausible*, I would still like more evidence that making such a change would be realistic. I.e., gunner has gun aimed at enemy tank; enemy shell hits tank and kills radio operator...and the gunner *doesn't* fire? Why not? What is he doing? It's not like being a rifleman where you can significantly enhance your (short term) survival by keeping your head down or by cowering in the bottom of the foxhole. And I haven't read any accounts of tank commanders having to order gunners or loaders to get back to aiming or loading the guns because they are cowering at the bottom of the turret. (And there is a lot of "cowering" in tank behavior already, but mostly caused by tanks reversing away instead of engaging like I ordered them to...).

And that kids, is why you never do drugs.

So you were too busy being lured into a real life kill sack to have time to be lured into a CM-style kill sack?

I think it's a combination of being able to conserve ammo *while* not being any less effective. If high ROF weapons really were more effective than lower ROF weapons, western armies (at least) would use them despite the higher cost). I.e., over 2000 javelin missiles (@$80,000 apiece) have been fired in Afghanistan and Iraq, almost all of them at infantry targets. It's hard to see that cost is really an issue if you get increased effectiveness.

It seems relevant to point out that the Bundeswehr is replacing the MG 3 with the H&K 121, a GP MG with a ROF of 600 rpm, adjustable to 800 rpm. I also think that it's important to keep in mind that the most of the tactical concerns that US troops, at least, had with the MG-42 were not due to the high ROF of the gun in HMG mode. "Oh my God, there's an HMG in that building; we better give up because it has a higher ROF than our Browning" was just not a complaint you hear anyplace, ever. The primary problem that US troops had with the MG-42 was the fact that there were *so-frigging-many of them*. Mostly in LMG mode - but still with a high ROF. US squads were based around the rifle, with actual MGs being support weapons held at the company level. Although there was one BAR man per squad. German squads were based around the LMG, with each squad having 1 or 2 MG 42's. Meaning in platoon-vs-platoon actions, you have 3-6 MG-42s, vs. no MGs (but 3 automatic rifles) on the US side. Even if you get a MMG attached, you still only have 1 MG. This was the real issue that the US (and all allied) troops had to address - that you were always having to attack troops armed with MGs - even a single squad on an unlikely flank would have a couple of mgs along. And I think that BF has done a good job at reflecting this reality. It's a POS trying to bring up your Allied MGs to help you in an infantry only attack because it takes them so long to deploy, whereas the German squads all have at least one MG that doesn't need to deploy. And the tactical versatility continues with the HMG being able to fire in "LMG mode". Send a Browning into a building and it will be a turn or two before it is firing. Send a German HMG into the building and they will be firing in LMG mode as soon as they get there, although full deployment will take longer. Surprise a MMG team on the move and they'll fire back with their personal weapons. Surprise an MG-42 HMG on the move and it will immediately return fire with the MG-42 in LMG mode. So I think the focus on the HMG's ROF as a significant advantage is both misplaced and wrong. (Which is not to say that the MG-42 as modeled as an HMG is or is not correct; it's just that it's not a very important point). If you look at what has happened since WWII in the light of what the allies were actually concerned about, the developments make a lot more sense. The US (and many other countries) did not adopt high ROF MGs like the MG-42. They *did* adopt GPMGs for use at the squad level - the M-60 MG in the 50's by the US; I think mostly FN varieties in Europe; and, yes, some MG-42 descendants as well. But I suspect that these were adopted not so much because they were high ROF MGs as much as because they were proven SAWs. And what they showed in WWII was the importance of having a squad-level MG, rather than the importance of having a high ROF MG. That's why Austria's MG-74 has a very similar design to the MG-42, but with a much lower ROF; that's why the Bundeswehr developed heavier bolts to slow down the ROF of the MG-42 (although they did keep the option of using the lighter bolts as well); and that's ultimately why the Bundeswehr is phasing out the MG-3 for the slower ROF H&K model.

I haven't tested tested this, but it certainly seems that area firing German MGs in forests have a lot of penetrating power when area firing. But it's hard to tell what's actually going on because area fire. I have wondered whether setting up interlocking fire lanes might slow down SMG troops, though. Once you have LOS, though, I think the MG's weaknesses will outweigh its penetrating power - one MG vs. 5-10 SMG troops at less than 30m won't end well for the MG.

No, it prevents it entirely. Failure means that the planning obviously wasn't "proper". QED.

The results of the behavior I've seen has seemed realistic enough, and I've suffered several infantry casualties due to bounced AP shells. It doesn't seem to me that the engine is treating the shell like an HE shell; I've had a few land in the middle of a squad with the only result being one or two casualties (often just WIAs). An HE burst would kill most of the squad. It's not clear to me whether the AP shell is actually exploding when it lands on the ground in the middle of my squads :-(, or if that is just a graphic. The relatively low level of casualties I've suffered would be consistent with simply being hit by really hot pieces of metal. In general, I do like the effect: historically, infantry did not like being around tanks, since they were a magnet for all kinds of fire. I've mostly avoided the routine casualties I used to take by not putting infantry too close to my tank unless it's absolutely necessary, and I'm glad that the game forces this behavior. Having said all of that, I can't say whether the effect is too strong, nor do I know whether it might be overmodeled for particular shells. So I'm glad it's being looked into, even though I personally haven't seen anything that seems beyond the pale.

Limiting SMG troops is no fun. :'( Although there is the issue in RT that, IIRC, the German SMG troops were accidentally left out of the QB purchase screen.

I can no longer enter buildings in the regular way. About 8 meters in front of the door, I drop to the ground and crawl right up to the door, but don't go inside. I spend a minute waiting in that position, then I crawl inside.

If you can only get one game, I would suggest getting RT first. The new changes really are important, and I also think that you get more variety with RT. While BN was the first wargame that really gave me a good idea of what bocage was like, I got tired of fighting in bocage pretty quickly. This is particularly an issue in QBs. Once you add Commonwealth Forces and MG to BN, the problem largely goes away, MG allows later fighting in France and has more open maps; CWF gives you different and interesting units. And I would say the same about FI: by itself, you'll get pretty tired of fighting on the terrain in Sicily, even though there are some very interesting scenarios. With GL, it's more well rounded - but that's two games. With RT, first of all, you get the newest version of the game, which, mentioned above, is important. You also get varied terrain, with locations in Eastern Europe as well as the USSR. There is a good amount of armor, including light, medium, and heavy tanks, as well as medium and heavy assault gun. Plus Flame! Being able to choose between SMG companies and normal rifle companies also adds a nice piece to the puzzle. Finally, it's fun having opponents with different fighting strategies. So if you can only get one game (for now), I'd get RT. But having said that, RT only gives you "German Army" vs. "Soviet Army" or "Red Guards". There's no Kriegsmarine, Luftwaffe, or Waffen SS; nor is there Naval Infantry for the USSR. (Although, again, there is a lot of variety in the forces you're given; German Army includes normal rifle units, fusiliers, security companies, stragglers, and probably some I've forgotten).

What crew quality did the tanks have? I don't know if this is still the case, but it used to be that troops with higher morale levels would follow covered arc orders more strictly that lower quality troops.

Yeah, I mentioned in another thread that the same thing had happened to me with a couple of SMG squads opening up at <100 meters; much to my surprise, there were no penetrations, even though it looked like a sparkler from all of the ricochets.

The problem is that the point values take into consideration *all* benefits that a tank might have (as I understand it), and seem to be averaged out over all types of battles the tank might fight. But in a meeting engagement, the only relevant stat is tank-vs.-tank performance. That's how the battle will be decided. And some tanks are great in some contexts (t-34/76 where there is a lot of infantry), but bad when fighting against Panthers because they can't penetrate them from the front at any reasonable range. It works the other way too, of course - if you end up using your tanks against a pure infantry force, the bonus that the Panther gets for great anti-armor penetration is neutralized, as is its great front armor. It's not much better than a PIV, but it costs significantly more.

Yeah, sometimes it's kind of tedious on defense - while the attacker slowly moves forward (presumably), you sit quietly and wait...

Off the top of my head, Germans can't buy anything better than a Pz IV; Russians than a T-34/76. The real reason that balancing is an issue, though, is because you're playing MEs, where tanks are significantly overvalue compared to their value in the real world. In a more historical type of battle (attack/assault/probe), the weaker (in QB terms) side already controls the VL. Tanks on the attacking side have to worry about AT guns, and have a hard time spotting concealed infantry in cover. If they don't have infantry, they can't get to the VLs with their tanks because of the danger of infantry close assaults. And of course if they unbutton too close to infantry, the TC will get shot. And of course there are downsides to buying a good AT tank in a battle where your opponent may not even buy a tank. In ME's, by contrast, all units except for tanks are mostly neutered. Infantry have to move to get to the VL because they aren't there. If they move, they can be spotted and killed by tanks without the benefits that they usually get from being in cover. (And of course if they are in cover, they may not be in the VL, which won't help them win). And so many ME's are determined solely by the results of the tank battle; the side that wins can move freely, screen off the VLs, and allow its infantry to leisurely (or quickly) move up and occupy the VLs. The other side is basically powerless. So in a ME, the most important thing is to win the armor battle, and the best tanks are those which are most effective and protected against the enemy tanks. In att/ass/probe battles, there are a lot more tradeoffs, which makes the battle more interesting. The ISU is great offensively and defensively against armor, and has a very powerful shell - but it only carries 18 HE shells and no MG. The StuG is good against some enemy armor, and better protected than the PIV - but its MG kind of sucks if there's a lot of infantry, and it doesn't carry that much HE. T-34/85 or T-34/76? 85 is a better tank generally, much better against other tanks - but the 76 carries 70 HE shells. And the weaknesses of certain tanks doesn't show up as well in ME's - the side armor on the Panther can be a significant weakness on the attack - if a defender sets up an AT gun (even a 45mm one!) at the rear of a copse of trees that you didn't check, any Panther bypassing it is at risk of being knocked out from a side shot. In a ME, it can be a weakness, too, of course, but it is more difficult to get the flank shot. And for the defender, there is the whole ATG/Tank tradeoff question. Anyway, I think you can avoid a lot of the need for house rules balancing if you play different types of battles.

If your strategy is to sneak all of your forces forward, one action space per turn, I can see how you might run into time issues.

I play "probe" against the AI, with me being the attacker. I usually think this gives the AI the best chance. (I will have to revisit this now that triggers, etc. are in the game). I usually play "mix" and have automatic selection on for both sides; that way, I don't know what I'm facing. (And if I end up with HTs vs heavier armor...well, I have to deal with it). ATM I've been playing a bunch of QBs where I pick my equipment...but that's mostly because I want to experiment with newer units. I also find that I learn interesting things from what happens with some of the AI's picks. For example, I don't think I would never buy an ATR Coy. in a 1500 point game. But when the AI did, they ended up really kind of freaking out my tanks. Even Panthers - 3-4 hits in a turn from units that they couldn't spot and the Panthers started to lose morale and wanted to reverse away. I didn't know that there was a such thing as an AT Rifle Co. until I saw the AI's. 390 points, 27 AT rifles. You know you want one...

*********SPOILER************ If you insert the blue gem found at the crossroads into the slot on the Maxim, you can upgrade it to a DShK.

If you want an interesting challenge vs. the AI, do a Small Probe battle on the small open map (the objective is a rail line, but I think it will come up automatically) as the Germans. Set troop type to "mix". I've found it difficult even when I pick my own troops. Enjoy!

I did discover - accidentally - that HTs can survive attacks from SMG squads surprisingly well - even at ranges < 100 meters. I suppose it shouldn't be surprising given that SMG bullets are much less powerful than even rifle bullets...but given my normal HT experience, it's pretty amazing to see hundreds of bullets ricochet off of a HT at short range with no penetrations. Of course the gunner is screwed if he pops up in that situation. But FYI.

I have a strange desire to change my username to Mary Jane Rottencrotch. Anyway, sitting around the bar with your guy friends and describing how many "chicks" you've "scored with" is how pilot claims of tank kills are generated.

1. In urban fighting, SMG squads are tremendously effective. Buy as many as you can and don't waste your time with any rifle squads. 2. OT-34! OT-34! OT-34! Is this a scenario where you will have the opportunity to attack from a protected flank, or is it going to be more of a head-to-head direct slogfest? In general, I've become a big fan of the SU-76's. They cost about half what a tank does (120 pts), and have an okay ammo loadout (35 HE rounds) and good ROF. But you have to use them as artillery, not armor - keep them back and shoot up infantry, preferably in pairs. (And in a pinch, they do have an emergency anti-armor ability). But you would only want to use them in an urban setting if you could keep them at a safe standoff distance, preferably from a flank outside the city. 3. T-34/76s. This may be covered by OT-34/76s - but I always like to have some of these around because they carry 70(!) HE rounds. A T-34/85 carries about 40; an ISU-152 has about 15; and an IS-2 has maybe 18 (and only 10 AP rounds).

My gamey plan might be: Approach from the flank, using the buildings and trees for cover. You want to end up in a position where the building behind the heavy tank is between you and it. You want to stay out of the enemy tank's LOS as much as possible while making this approach. Ideally, you can distract the enemy tank by having another tank area firing near it - at least it will button up. (The area fire should happen from a place where there is no mutual LOS). Once in the location behind the enemy tank, with the building between you, area fire on the building. When the building collapses and the dust clears, you will be facing the enemy tank with a good LOS; he will be looking away from you and be buttoned. You should spot first and get the shot off. Alternatively, if you could scare his infantry away and get your own infantry near the building, they could "slow" move into it and then take out the enemy tank with grenades.

In case you don't know, the option to split squads is on the "administrative" tab - you can split a squad (well, most squads) into 2 or three fireteams, or you can break off an AT unit or scout unit) from the squad.