gunnergoz

All of the divisions in England had roles to play, eventually, though not all were to see combat. The American divisions to take part in the initial assault were chosen in part based upon experience (e.g. 1st Infantry Division was an obvious choice) but in the absence of combat experience, divisions were chosen to lead the assault on D-Day based upon the excellence of their leadership and state of amphibious and regular training as evaluated by the SHAEF planners. What you may not be aware of is that the planning for Overlord actually began two years earlier (at first in a very generalized way) and most of the units in the UK were ramped up there for the specific purpose of invading the continent. It's not like, "OK, let's invade and, by the way what have we got sitting around we can use?" It was much more a matter of tailoring the force to the mission and that involved division selection, equipment and training. The French divisions were raised and trained mostly in N. Africa and equipped by the Americans. Most of them entered via Marseilles in the south, except for LeClerc's armored division. Eventually, the UK ran into manpower problems and had to break up a couple of its own divisions in order to provide combat replacements for the others still in action. By the end of the war, the US had virtually no uncommitted divisions, although one or two saw almost no combat at all, having just arrived in theater or being engaged in securing French ports still occupied by the Germans. IIRC there was not even one combat division left in the entire continental U.S. by the time of V-E day. All this is off the top of my head so if I mis-remembered something or left important details out, please feel free to jump in.

AFAIK, No one is advocating "a slide toward letting the AI take control." No one is making "excuses for what the AI does or does not do." No one is advocating "removing these cover arcs." Improving the cover arc "is what MOST of us are hoping for." Where did you get these far out ideas? I was of the impression that every one posting here has found one flaw or another in the cover arc and wants its performance improved or enhanced. Until it is, many of us find workarounds for it - like not using it, except under narrow circumstances where it is not as likely to have a bad outcome. Yes, the Tac AI isn't perfect and they are working on it. But that's no cause for you to jump on someone simply because they figured out before you did that the cover arc command isn't working right yet. You are entirely correct about one thing, friend: "Chill out" is good advice and it cuts both ways.

While you're at it, rename the enemy units after your "favorite" bosses, co-workers and in-laws. That should add a new level of satisfaction to your victories.

No and no one is arguing for 100% unpredictability, either. Like you say, it is about finding a balance. But there is no doubt that some will find it hard to give up "total control" no matter what is done. Total control games remind me too much of RTS twitch fests the marketing people like to call "strategy games."

Here's an online copy of the US Army study "Busting the Bocage" http://www.cgsc.edu/carl/resources/csi/doubler/doubler.asp

Its called "sympathetic detonation" but I don't think there's anything simpatico about it...

While we're at it we may as well add Anzio Annie, Dora, Karl and the US Little David 36" heavy mortar...none were in Normandy, but what the hey...

I don't think many here would disagree with you. It happens to MG teams too.

His name was Vic Morrow and he eventually lost his head...literally; he was decapitated while filming a Viet Nam war sequence for the TV show Twilight Zone in which there was an actual accident with the Huey they were using. Morrow and two little girl actresses were killed. A lot of us remember him fondly.

And if you model different comms you have to model different freqs, comm charts (not every unit can talk to the other - US tanks could not talk to infantry alongside them most of the war over their on board radio), then do wire, etc, etc.

Sure: both sides start killing off each others' men of military age and the first side that runs out or blinks, loses. Very deep tactic. About 6 feet deep.

What always irked me about Combat was that this infantry squad fought the war by itself and was never part of any platoon or company, that I could see.

Actually, most officers were issued M1 Carbines and it seems to me it was the squad leaders and platoon sergeants who tended to collect all the Thompsons and grease guns...trust the NCO's to scrounge big time. Here's what the TOE's said at the time per an Osprey book on the GI in WW2:

Also, it helps to leave movement trails on while plotting your moves. Alt P is what you want.

Decimation did not help the Italians in WW1 but go ahead and try. You can also threaten to unplug their universe and send them screaming into the void...until you boot up again. :D

Except for the experienced and/or very well trained and disciplined infantry, the natural impulse of many at the first sighting of tanks, is to bolt for the rear, not fire away at the d@mn thing. Seems to me that firing small arms at the tank should be the final act of desperation of an infantry unit that either can not or must not withdraw. If they are armed with light anti-tank weapons like rifle grenades, bazookas, etc then possibly it would behoove them to wait until ordered and - again, maybe - all open fire at the same time as the AT teams so as to maximize surprise and shock effect on the tank(s) as well as hopefully hit exposed crew, damage optics, and other wild-@ssed hopes of desperation. Sometimes those things actually accomplish something positive. The other thing to consider is that if the enemy is halfway smart, the tanks will only be slightly ahead of their accompanying foot infantry and that is what your defending infantry should be aiming to preserve their firepower for, and not unnecessarily exposing their positions to by shooting at the tanks with little hope of gain. If the game doesn't always work this way now, it is something I hope to see improved as it evolves. Hopefully the new cover arc commands supposedly in the works for the Bulge game will address some of this.

If they are moving in column, I usually space them out by having the second and subsequent ones start after a delay...5 seconds for each subsequent one...so the 5th tank in column would have a 20 sec. delay, for instance. If in column, I also do not have their end points all in the same line...I offset them a bit so I can see where each is going to stop. If they are in tactical formation and you are trying to move all together, make sure that the one that is in the center is the first one you select...that helps me envision where they will end up. If the formation has to go around obstacles or has a bunch of vectors on the way to the end point, the AI is less successful in giving coherent group movement orders and you will see this bunching up and wackiness. In general, I only move formations like this in straight lines or at a slight diagonal, with no or minimal legs to the movement and preferably where there are no obstacles on the way like trees or buildings. If there is a choke point, expect chaos.

I got a chubby watching the Panther video, I have to man up to it...

If you look closely at the T34/"Tiger" in the film, it is not neutral steering but simply locking the pivot side and turning on it while operating the opposite tracks conventionally. True neutral steering runs both tracks in opposite directions. Here's true neutral steering:

Did you want the engineers to assault through gaps in the hedgerow or to blow gaps into it? If it was the former and there were no gaps for them to go through, I could see the AI just ignoring the order if it could find no paths to assault through nearby. And the command to blow gaps is of course different entirely.

Yes, kudos to the "whiners" who first noticed this and put up with griping (mine included) about it. Goes to show we can always learn something new.

Rankorian: More or less agree. The best defense is to not draw fire in the first place by trying to move from cover to cover so you are out of observation once you reach your destination. Shorter legs if possible because those long jogs in the open are real invitations to join a mortar-murder-fest. If the rounds do start coming, I run like heck if cover is near by and issue the hide order once there. If that is not possible and you are really stuck in the open, the last, desperate thing to do is to try to hide in place but this is generally the last order you may ever give those particular troops. My two bits, your mileage may vary.

It's a game that makes you think. Maybe that's why I have a lot of headaches these days...

These German tanks, with their many forward hull sections and angles, are not so easy to define and that has undoubtedly caused confusion here and elsewhere. Then too, the terminology is coming from a half-dozen directions: Hull and deck are terms held over from maritime lingo, glacis and mantlet come from medieval armor terminology and then we have all the terms common to ordnance and ballistics. It is an advanced education just grasping what is being talked about. At least I've been reading about this stuff for 50 years...I feel bad for newbies.

How easy is it for engineers to detect mines in the dark, one wonders? Is that even simulated in the mine discovery code?