StellarRat

I always set a one hour minimum on QBs. Even that seems rushed at times.

The AI is pretty good about picking reasonable cover and such. I spend most of my time in RT planning artillery and deciding what to move next and where not micro-positioning each squad. The only small units I micromanage are my scouts and FOs.

I always tell my FOs to hide once they find a good OP. They don't get killed nearly as often.

Good thing too. I can't blame the Italian crews. The only tanks that were lousier were Japanese tanks.

Scout with infantry. If you locate a tank, you move your own AT assets up to shooting range from the flank or rear using a concealed route of approach. Also, point artillery 105mm and up is pretty effective against tanks plus it will suppress any infantry support nearby and the dust/smoke will block the enemy's view while you maneuver.

I play in RT, but use the pause button when I start to get overwhelmed. You can try to manage every unit in detail, but I've found that easier to just let the AI handle the shooting while I concentrate on deciding when and where to move units and plot artillery.

No. It seems reasonable to me.

Since the German's had no air force by D-Day it would make sense to re-purpose the .50 to a more useful spot.

Hmm...well I believe that happens IRL too. Most soldiers aren't going to leave their buddies behind if at all possible.

You can never go wrong by buying a battery of 155's and good FO. They respond fairly quickly and are big enough to handle any target.

The Sherman had its cannon set on stun?

I haven't had any vehicles immobilized ever (except by enemy fire if course), but I play Allies only. I don't move any vehicles faster than HUNT most of the time.

1000 meter shots should miss most of the time in WW II.

Exactly what my old Bradley commander buddy told me.

Well, my point was that if BFC is modeling "perfect" foxholes that seems a little too good as odds are it will be a "medium" good foxhole for variety of reasons. Time, ground, etc...

From my reading there were places in Russia where was impossible to dig a foxhole in the winter. The frozen ground was hard as wood. Only HE could make a foxhole in those conditions.

Whether or you can build a "fancy" foxhole in X amount of time is very dependent on soil type and weather. Additionally, whether or not you have engineers to help and the availability of tools and materials.

It makes sense. You don't build bunkers when your always on the offensive.

I think you're right. I doubt these are by the book foxholes with shooting steps and grenade dumps. Probably just holes that you can duck and cover in with some camo around the edges.

If you're dumb enough to send your troops into battle with no AT assets than don't whine about the outcome. This is a combined arms game. Doing tests in isolation is silly.

The Germans could have done everything right and we still would have won. Only getting the A-bomb and long range delivery systems before the US would have changed the eventual outcome. Even beating England and Russia wouldn't have been enough after we had nukes.

OK. I'm with you now. You want something faster than indirect with map coordinates, but slower than direct fire. I can see that. I'm assuming the mortar would need LOS to the FO and have to be within yelling distance.

Since the mortar crew can't see the target wouldn't it take substantially longer to aim the weapon? Think about it. Could you make an accurate rifle shot faster if your eyes were open and using the sights or with your eyes closed and someone standing next to you telling you where to aim?

Real Soon.

You won't bless it so much when they start charging to play your games by the hour.