gunnergoz

Yes a gamma selection in options would fix this. I'd go for it since my eyes ain't what they used to be either.

Well that would explain all the frenzied fumbling around with the bolt, all right. M-1 Thumb, anyone?

I've never tried it but is it possible to insert a bunker into a larger building? I've seen foxholes have half their number end up under a nearby house so it may be possible - though not necessarily what BFC intended. If you can somehow build a bunker then a house or large building over it, that may help you replicate something like what you want. Alternately, trenches might do it too.

Yes I understand - what I was referring to is that it seems - to me at least - that while we may aim the smoke round at the enemy directly, the actual aim point the game uses once the round is ready to go, is on the ground close in front of the target, not on the target itself. So we may be aiming the round at a tank but the round may always land just in front of it instead. I have to admit I've not used the smoke rounds that often so my impression may be off.

dieseltaylor is DA MAN. You DA BOMB. BZ to you, dude. Way to go.

Now that you mention it, the special rifle rounds did have a crimped end, much like blanks. Yep, don't want to get those mixed up with the ball ammo when you go after Fritz in the down and dirty!

I don't worry about their decorating skills, its the fact that the females of the breed are usually the better hunters...

Yep, I've seen that in video as well. I can imagine what happens after a while: "Where's 'Deaf Fritz?' I need him to hold up the Machinegewehr again."

IIRC (correct me if I'm wrong here) the Garand had to have a special round inserted manually in the chamber in order to project the rifle grenade; you did not use the regular ball ammo to launch the grenade. The gestures you are seeing may represent the manual loading of that special rifle grenade round. I used to collect inert ordnance and one item I had was a new Garand training rifle grenade in the original heavy cardboard shipping tube; besides the training grenade it came with one or two of these special rounds in the tube with a warning not to use regular ammo to fire the training rifle grenade. As for shooting off the AT round first, it does seem a shame but I also seem to recall that it had an HE value as well as its AT use, just like the bazooka round did.

You are not telling us enough about the circumstances you are describing to convey a sense of whether this is off or not. Where are the troops being targeted by the US artillery? In what kind of cover or positions? You mentioned foxholes and basements so I assume it is a mixed urban setting. You also indicate you have a good idea of how many rounds were fired but do you know anything about the fuzing (ground impact, delayed action, air burst, etc) in the historical barrage? It sounds like the actual battle you are attempting to portray had a lot of decent cover which sheltered the real troops from the artillery most of the time. If you are seeing many more casualties in your game than there were historically, it could well be that you are not simulating the cover sufficiently well, not merely that the artillery effectiveness is excessive. And we know that the game engine at present is limited in its ability to represent hardened, prepared defenses and built up urban terrain. As for US losses, the same issue may apply with the issue of cover being adequately represented or not. I think you may have to run a lot of trial games to see if these figures average out differently, since any one game may represent an outlier.

My hunch is that the unit would like to move to another location to better spot the target but is having difficulty with the decision process for whatever reason. I may be totally off, but that is all I can come up with given the info at hand. I'd love to hear BFC weigh in on just what the state the planning portrays.

Years ago I was fortunate to be able to go on a former mothball fleet ship, the all-original Essex class CV Bunker Hill, when it was brought down to San Diego's North Island Naval Air Station to be a test bed for antenna arrays for the then-new Nimitz class carriers. When I visited the ship there were still Plan of the Day copies dated 1945 pinned to the cork boards and blankets and pillows in the captain's day cabin. 5" and 40mm brass shell cases were propping open some of the passageway hatches. Most of the 40mm mounts were still there under cocoons and the 5" mounts were open and I got to rummage around in one. The Chief of the Boat gave me the cover for the ships speed and distance indicator from the bridge as a souvenir...unfortunately, I had to sell it years later but it had a nice brass plaque marked "Bendix Instruments, USS Bunker Hill, CV-17." When they scrapped her instead of making her a museum I was really upset about it. Years later San Diego go the Midway for a museum, but I think the BH would have been far more interesting, if not even more deserving of the honor than the Midway (no disrespect to the latter intended).

So you prefer he learn how to beat the AI in an ahistorical way, all bunched up around the victory objective? What is he going to do when he plays you or another human? If he tries that with them, he'll get eaten alive. And what is "gamey" about using real-world tactics against the AI? I thought that was what making the game so sophisticated, was all about. Sure the AI is only the AI, but is there not more satisfaction in beating it using realistic tactics than in just lumping your assets around the objective? In thinking about ways to ambush an enemy by learning to read the ground, figure out probable approach routes, etc? I say: Learn, historically correct tactics now, not ones that play to the AI's weaknesses or the game's shortcomings. The game may have clobbered him because of its own present imperfect state and I'd hope he learns the right lesson from all this, lessons he can apply to multiplayer if he ever goes there.

Embrace the suck...that's the ticket. So, about that patch... :D

I wonder if the Target Smoke command may not be aiming for the ground immediately in front of the target, rather than the target itself.

Don't need to defend yourself, like I said. Regarding US halftracks, the dedicated infantry carrier (M3A1) had the .50 in a pulpit over the front passenger seat. Any other guns mounted would have been on fixed pintles, either in the center of the troop compartment or affixed to the side armor or rear of the HT. They tried to cover 360 degrees as opposed to providing a lot of forward firepower. H/T variants like the M2 or M3 would not have the pulpit, but MG layout would have otherwise be similar.

Sounds like sometimes "planning" also may mean the Tac AI is sitting there scratching its head going, "Hmm, what do I do next?"

Trying to fight panther class opponents directly and only with inferior armor is only going to be an exercise in frustration and casualty generation, particularly if you cannot maneuver your armor to gain a side/rear shot. Try combined arms if possible. Have any artillery assets that could either lay smoke or HE harassing fire that might force him to displace to another location? Have any infantry to sneak past him through terrain he can't see or can't move through? Expand your thinking into something other than tank-on-tank if at all possible since that was often how these beasts were defeated IRL.

Nobody wins if you quit. We (the forum and BFC) are not here to defeat your efforts to enjoy the game. You may have fair reasons to be frustrated and to leave the game unpurchased, but neither we as forum members, nor BFC, have conspired against you in any way. It may simply not be your cup of tea. Fair enough, point made. Just don't leave wearing a martyr suit that no one made you don.

Concur, Clark, the dead vehicles issue takes precedence for me too. The thing with these multiple kills with one shot scenarios is that, while they may be technically and theoretically possible (and likely did happen now and again) the actual numbers of recorded instances of it in the WW2 time frame seem pretty sparse. That is either because no one noticed at the time, or it did not really happen often. Given the chaos of the battlefield, I suspect both are true and so there may have been instances of such events that were not documented for various reasons (no survivors, etc.) One possibility is that the game may encourage a bit of battlefield foreshortening, for lack of a better term...we as players (and maybe designers) tend to compress geography somewhat and try to cram too much action into too small a space. Units bunch up and the artificial constraints of action spaces, etc impinge upon how units behave in our simulated world. Our game world is not as fine-grained as the real world, in other words, which may allow more of these instances an opportunity to occur than they might have happened IRL. Don't know that for a fact, just throwing the possibility out there to ponder.

Yes, which is why it is not a good idea to sit down for a picnic where the bear sh!ts in the woods.

Good luck with this one. Seems to me we had at least one fairly regular female forum contributor years ago, but not that I know of in a long while. Why? Testosterone poisoning? Too esoteric a topic? Who knows. Our loss, that's for sure.

Pithy I can't help you further. Don't know if it will be useful, but these links are the best I could find: http://www.glosters.org.uk/collectionresults.php?from=&to=&category=7&campaign=&keywords=&chunk=100 http://www.rorkesdriftvc.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=630&sid=5f154836c3824c50a0ca71a634ca1c8a

Yep, you got bit by the "assume" bug. I know, I have the bite scars too. My advice still holds, just try it sometimes where you are not located "at the end of the bowling alley" where the enemy AI is sure to find you, but rather lining the sides of the alley to intercept the enemy as he rolls towards the objective. That way you get a chance at juicy flank shots. If your terrain is not helpful to that strategy, you got screwed with a battlefield that favors the enemy, which does happen and which real generals try to avoid like the plague if they are clever about it.

You did not specify if you were going to play offensive or defensive side. That should theoretically matter, since the panzerjagers and StuGs were most commonly seen in defensive situations and the tanks were commonly involved in the offensives or counter-attack situations. Not always, of course (lots of exceptions!), but simply as a general rule of thumb.