Annalist

I created a scenario to check this. It was german armor v. nothing but allied spotters. After the rounds started falling, everyone buttoned up, of course. Guess what, after about 3 rounds, the buttoned tanks started engaging some of the spotters, still in their foxholes from about 600m. No friggin way!

Mike, both you and Robo make good, accurate, valid points. The one I'm discussing, though, it Roborat's. I'm talking about FO's in a pre-selected position. Say on a hill overlooking a valley. This is prior to the time that they need to move forward with the attacking forces. Right now, they're calling fires behind the enemy front lines or on concentrations on the front line. I absolutely agree, to keep from dropping steel on friendlies they'd have to move forward and be visible. However, in hiding positions, they should be invisible unless you trip on them. Robo's right, in that, the radio is usually a good distance away because the Germans would use radio direction finding equipment to direct troops/indirect fires on command posts, spotters, etc. BTW, Robo, when I was an infantryman, we frequently had FO's right up on the line with us and attached at the platoon level...even if he was only for the company's 4.2" mortars. The bigger gun FO's usually did stay with the HQ to which they were attached. And, BTW, my unit still had its WWI MTO&E except the weapon types were upgraded to modern equivalents. [This message has been edited by Annalist (edited 01-26-2001).]

Great response Priest. I pretty much play exactly the way you do. Mannheim, I read all the threads. A LOT of different people have asked for this feature. If enough of the player base finds it useful then BTS should add it. As for tactics, that's the players choice. I, personally, feel its safe to have my turn 30 reinforcements haul tail down a road after I've passed two infantry companies and a few pieces of armor through the area and am positive the area is secure. Especially if I'm near the far edge of the map from my staging area. If you want to set each tank individual hunt paths and move in bounding overwatch...your business.

Originally the tank was entirely and anti-infantry tool to allow advances in the face of machine gun fire. Then guns were added to knock out bunkers and to added general firepower. Then other tanks started shooting the enemy tanks instead of the infantry and, in addition, tank killers were developed. Tank killers were too limited in role though and have mostly disappeared. Mostly, tanks were originally intended, I think, to serve as infantry support. Armored formations still had infantry organic too them. Patton and Rommel pretty much developed the tactic of rampaging through the enemy rear using armor after a breakthrough. So, IMHO, most tanks in the beginning of WWII were meant as infantry support vehicles and mutated into anti-tank vehicles. But, in the end, a tank is a tank.

Actually, the new intermediate armored vehicle that you're talking about is part of the Army's new approach to warfighting. They plan to have a light force (like the current Airborne/Airmobile units), heavy forces (like todays 24th Mech or 2d Armored) and a new intermediate or medium weight force. Supposedly the new LAV would only be deployed in theaters and for operations where it could fulfill its intended role...I stress the word supposedly. It looks really cool though, this month's Popular Mechanics or Popular Science, one of the two,has it on the cover. [This message has been edited by Annalist (edited 01-24-2001).]

What you're talking about here is recon by fire. I use it too. I have this same problem. It says in the manual that units will ignore your targeting orders if a more attractive/threatening target appears. It doesn't seem to work, for me at least, if I give an area fire order. I was playing the drive to Mortain op and lost my lead tank to an AT gun. I set an area fire order for the clump of trees where I thought it might be in hopes of suppressing the crew. During the turn, the gun got spotted in an open field on the opposite side of the road. The tank did not change targets. I know the tank had line of sight to the gun because the gun killed it with its 3rd or 4th shot.

As for how it really happens/happened... Usually the leader in located in the rear center of the formation or, in the case of the column formation placed about 1/3 back so as to control first contact better. The modern US infantry squad uses a modified wedge formation with the squad leader in the pocket of the wedge. Larger formations imitate this depending upon the travel formation they're in.

I've had the same problem. I've made sure to set the delay for the tank to longer than the delay for the infantry unit and they still ride it to a stopping point. I haven't been able to get them to disembark (without having them shot at) while a vehicle has any waypoints set.

Okay this is a pointless discussion. I said realistic planning tools and somehow you interpret that to be realistic as it existed in combat during WWII, none of which I have mentioned. Just let it go at, since it may add playability enhancements for some of your customers and may add to the fun of the game for some of the customers, you will not consider it. Now, please just close this thread so I don't have to keep deleting the e-mail notifications of replies.

Okay, I've read all the threads I can find on this topis using searches on convoy, follow, automatic follow, etc. I can't find any where BTS replied...does anyone know of a thread where there is a statement from BTS on this?

Besides, isn't the point of the GAME for it to be fun to play, so that other people besides die-hard military buffs and historians get a kick out playing it?

Steve, I said it would allow realistic PLANNING. I said nothing about it adding to the realism of the game play itself. Actually your earlier post about the technical difficulties of adding the feature settled the whole issue for me.

Thanks Gun Dog for seeing the point of my post and offering your opinion on how it might enhance play value v. realism.

BTW Cavscout, my screen name refers to my favorite character from my favorite novel.

Okay, here let me put all the bashing to rest. Point 1. I did not intend for my postings to be seen as a demand that BTS do something or to be seen as knocking the game. Point 2. I did not realize the extent to which you all want to make the unit compositions as close as possible to what actually happened. I thought that was what scenarios are for. Point 3. I have trained, practiced and applied the planning techniques I've talked about in this thread. Point 4. I personally don't care about whether the force composition on the map matches exactly what a specific unit or commander might have had in any given battle. Point 5. I simply noticed some things from other games that I thought might improve upon this one. Don't get me wrong. This is a great game. Point 6. I got angry and said what I did because very few of you posted on whether or not this would improve the play experience. Immediately you started in with the "well in the war, commander X didn't have maps at his battle on Y date. That was not what I was talking about. Point 7. Steve, as to your posts, I stopped reading them after all you could comment on was the value added to improving the realism of the game. The value of the games realism, to me, lies in its accurate depiction of unit/vehicle capabilities and the terrain generation system. It has no, capabilities, other than building a scenario for planning. The only thing it offers is field deployment choices. Point 7. Yes, light woods with a village in day and dry weather gives you some information to pick your forces. However, I would certainly pick different forces if I knew the light woods ended 600m short of the village, my objective, than I would if I could use covered and concealed routes to approach to withing close proximity. Point 8. I apologive to those of you I've offended. Especially my fellow veterans.