gunnergoz

It had to be to keep up with their tanks. Some odd critters there.

Do you have a save for the developers to look at? Might be useful to BFC if you did and there was something wrong. Otherwise, anecdotes just don't carry much weight here...it happened, but we'll never know why without that further research.

My issue is not with drugs per se, be they alcohol, grass, whatever. My issue is with my fellow citizens who seem to be so enamored of them. Even if they were to get all the drugs they want, without restriction, society would be no better off. In my experience, those who use to get high, (be it alcohol, hard stuff, prescriptions, etc) have a defect of character which interferes with their ability to be fully functional human beings. Humans all make bad judgment calls, act irrationally and against their own and other people's best interests - but never so much as when they are high. Sure, if you have a medical need, use whatever it takes to deal with it. But if you are simply wishing to indulge yourself, don't pretend it won't affect others, be they co-workers, spouses, children, parents, friends. It will, sooner or later. To say otherwise is to be in denial. The next time we have a few billion $$ burning a hole in our pockets, I hope that someone does some serious research into the genetic origins and treatments for this so called "addictive personality." We would have never needed this stupid "War on Drugs" if a certain segment of the population hadn't surrendered and gone over to the other side to begin with.

Clearly don't know their aft from a hole in the ground.

OK, I think I see the problem now and what you are saying is that even if you put, say, 3 team survivors (one each from each team) into one action spot for a while, the game engine still ends up giving you a squad with 3 one man teams. I hadn't noticed this but I've not played all the way through a campaign yet and sustained losses that would demonstrate the problem. IRL I would think that most platoon leaders would just reorganize the squad into one team, or perhaps if there were 4 survivors, into two 2 man teams. You can do something with a two man team but a one man team is...a sniper, basically. Who wants to manage an army with a bunch of tiny teams like that? Ideally, I'd like to be able to define the team composition myself, but I suppose this is too much to ask for.

I'd also like a Target Infantry Arc...e.g. for snipers to use so they don't target tanks (except the exposed crews maybe) or when you only want to use limited MG ammo against infantry, or for whatever reason. This way you have the best of both worlds: cover all, cover inf, cover armor, cover light

Didn't the Finns have some made out of tree trunks? If they could fire those from the hip, why couldn't the Brits do the same? Weeners.

Maybe the Force was strong with them.

I'm sure if they came from the same squad, you can rejoin them by placing them in the same action spot for a while. Probably can't create a new composite squad, though, not in the game's time frame at least.

Now you've done it. We'll never hear the end of it now. Quick, Henry, the Flit!

Hits to the panthers lower mantlet only matter in the early versions, the later ones altered the mantlet design with a vertical section of armor across the bottom width which stopped the problem with rounds being deflected into the front compatment. I see where you are coming from if we are speaking of a tank duel with tanks like the panther and tiger that had some substantial armor in the hull. Tanks like the Pz IV and Sherman were the ones that had the most to gain from being hull down, as did the lighter TD's like the Marder. In part we are speaking of different engagement scenarios. In the end, if a tank battle boils down to maneuver, as it often did, being hull down was not really a factor unless you happened to find such a spot as you were moving around. If the battle starts off with one AFV being in a static position and looking to ambush the other, being hull down is the way to go. Even today, Abrams tankers, with a world of frontal armor to hunker down behind, still are trained to look for hull down positions if at all possible. I don't see us reconciling our views on some of these details so I'll leave it with that said.

Good to hear, I may have to revisit it. I do know that the UK replacement situation was so desperate in 1944 that they were disbanding infantry divisions to generate replacements. Manpower shortages were one of the reasons that the Brits had comparatively so many armored divisions and tank brigades...it took fewer men to form them and they had good a good firepower to manpower ratio. If the docu-drama goes into their side of things for a change, that is good too.

This game does teach you that assume "makes an @ss out of u and me."

As above, with engineers and charges. I also try to have a tank lined up with the potential opening, so that once it is blasted open, the tank may be able to provide some instant covering fire if it spots a target right away. Also, if you plan to rush troops into the breach, be sure they are nearby and not halfway across the map. I'd give just a bit of space for the line charge though, since I have no idea what it will do to troops who are too close (though it does not seem to hurt the engineers by design.)

I suspect that may have happened to more than one tanker in real life. You severely reduce your situational awareness when you drop into that turret and that .50 may seem as big as a cannon, particularly if you are not too battle-wise yet. It might just be tempting to stay out there and try to take the SOB on yourself. I'm personally glad that the game randomizes such behavior to some extent because it makes the pixeltruppen all that much more unpredictable and human-like. After all, humans do stupid things aplenty too.

What he (Baneman) said.

Watched part of the director's preview; OK I suppose, for a docu-drama, better than most of those. I prefer real footage whenever possible. I do take issue with the opening where it is mentioned that Ike bet Monty that the war would be over by Christmas, then goes on to talk of the "rosy glow" of optimism about the invasion fading after the invasion lodgement battle went on and on. While Ike did make such a wager to Monty, I don't think it really reflected the Overlord planners' actual concerns that the invasion might be very risky. I think Ike made the bet as a sort of friendly gesture of optimism. In fact, Ike was deeply concerned about the possibility of failure and even prepared a note accepting personal responsibility for the failure of D-Day and kept it in his pocket in the event he needed to release a disaster statement to the press. OTH I have not seen the whole thing so there may be more good to say about it than I have seen in just a few minutes. I do appreciate any show that allows some of the few remaining war vets an opportunity to tell their stories while they are still here to share them with us.

I'm talking both in game and real life. The game models the latter pretty well in this respect. I'd just never heard anyone pose an argument against going hull down, beyond the loss of use of the hull/bow MG, that's all. If you need to move to survive, move; if you have to hit someone accurately, stay in one spot; if you're going to stay in one spot, minimize your exposure and vulnerability. And yes, your mantlet is traditionally one of your strongest defensive points on most tanks, so by all means take advantage of that.

My bet's before the end of the year as long as its just a module with new vehicles and scenarios. It definitely could be longer, though, if it includes significant reprogramming of the game engine to add tweaks people have been asking for, e.g. armor arcs.

And viruses. Not sure which is more toxic.

So tell me, statistically, is a larger target easier to hit than a smaller or not? There are always benefits from being hull down: even if it only gives a marginal benefit, on the battlefield that can be critical. If you expose yourself fully and you are not well armored, then you better keep moving. In WW2 terms moving generally means you cannot shoot back if your enemy is distant. Better to hide, not be noticed for as long as you can, hit the target when they do not yet see you and then scoot to a new position if you fear someone will lock on to you. That was basic TD doctrine during the war. Going hull down's first and foremost benefit always has been concealment but it will also minimize the enemy's aim point, perhaps long enough for you to either move or get off another shot. But if for some reason you must stay in one position and the enemy is distant, I see no benefit to taking a hit in the hull - which is easier to hit - than taking one in the mantlet, which is a smaller target.

OK, now I get it, thanks. If that was a Freudian slip on Steve's part, it was indeed classic. If not, it makes him whatever a cunning linguist is in German. And yes - The idea of a Krotchenpanzer boggles the mind. :D

People don't like to be pushed out of their comfort zones. Thinking is uncomfortable and can yield to unpleasant revelations about one's own character. Logical analysis is much more difficult than simply reacting to one's feelings. So people just don't bother to put much effort into thinking through problems, particularly those way above their ability to directly impact. They find people they agree with, settle for letting these others do the "research and analysis" and simply accept those persons' stated opinions as fact. They vote based upon what moves them at the moment. And here we are: "Fools to the left of me, jokers to the right and here I am stuck in the middle with you."

That's why they keep a reserve in real life. Life's a b!tch isn't it?

Blast worked well on wire for me as long as I ran the blast line across the wire.