c3k

There was a reason why the Germans added armor to their tanks...

Hmm, he should get something. Any ideas?

As others have suggested, and I'd like to reinforce, is that you should not let the computer autopick if you are trying to learn the game. Try the first scenario (the smallest tutorial: The Farm?). Play it again and again. Don't worry about the outcome. Focus on how to command and control your forces. It's a great little battle on a very nice map. Work it to death. If you THEN want to try some little quickbattles, pick the forces yourself. Frequently the autopicks give oddities with small units. Larger point pools allow more spread, so the computer can pick a more balanced force. But, it is programmed to give a wide spread of possible picks. You can get weird allotments. But, the important thing is to get past the learning curve. The first battle is there for that reason. Ken

Soft willow trees...

Excellent find! "Feature" not "bug". Use it while you can. It will probably be removed pretty soon...

I saw it happen to my guy, he died, and I liked it. The StuG has NO close defense mechanism. If infantry approaches, the crew MUST get them away, or flee. Otherwise, the vehicle will be destroyed. Better to pop up, spray the troops, then button back up. Of course, I did not look at the vid: if they were shooting distant targets, then ignore my writing, above. In the one case I had, the enemy infantry were pretty close. Ken

^^^ Agreed. The ONE thread which has a lot of anger coming through has lost focus on the CARE and ATTENTION that a SINGLE customer is receiving. Too bad. The angry face and thread title here actually does a bit of damage, IMHO.

So, there I was in Ukraine about 15 years ago. Winter, shuttling between Dnepropetrovsk and Kiev for a few weeks. Damn cold. There was a Ukrainian military chow hall. Early morning, steam coming up from the vent: they had food. As we approached, the stench was outrageous. I cannot describe it. The nearest analogue would be Korean kimchi. We entered, and saw that the only thing being served was some sort of stew. Breakfast. It stank, but it was hot. Plus, it was the only thing on the menu. It was delicious. However, one of our guys was so repulsed by the stench, he fled without eating. The rest of us had seconds. He was weak. Hours later, we were all in a small room, except for the guy who'd fled the chow hall. He came knocking on the door. As he entered, he almost puked. He ran out yelling something about how we all stank and it was coming out our pores. Hmmm, once it's in you, you can't tell... Good eatin', Ukrainian style. (The vodka was another tale... I've had smoother kerosene. But at 10 cents a liter, it was tough to pass up. ) Ken

IS-2 was a great tank. The Soviets have always excelled at realizing that the offensive potential of a tank should be emphasized. Their gun bore size have led the tank design world. Big gun = big boom. They had years of practice with the drive train/chassis. It was a direct descendant of the KV series. The drawbacks were the horrible human factors. Slow ROF, crammed compartment, etc. These matter. However, if I have 10 IS-2's and you have 4 Tigers (I's or II's), and, no matter the result of the engagement I will get 10 MORE IS-2's tomorrow and you will never get more Tigers, I will win. Maybe not today, but certainly by early next week. The cost of production is a factor. For that time, in that area, it was a great design. For a counterpoint, look at how the late-war Soviet tanks performed in the various Arab-Israeli wars when they fought western designs which emphasized crew coordination factors over pure gun size. (I wonder how hot it got inside those tanks in the Sinai? Not a temperature, but how sauna-hot, coupled with the gases, the fear, the hunger, and the ops tempo of combat. An idea for a theme-park?) The Soviets continued in that vein with their T-55/64/72 series. Small, few crewmembers, big gun, minimal crew comforts. I think the western approach has proven better (after they fixed the lamentably poor performance of the 105mm vis a vis Soviet armor) in the long run. It takes a lot of work to keep a tank running. 4 men in a tank is barely enough for all the non-shooting maintenance, etc., needed. 4 weeks in the field, with heat or a/c, chairs you can sleep in (barely), makes a difference in effectiveness. Western tanks have defeated Soviet tanks in every post-war engagement. (Hmm, Indo-Pakistan?) Results may be due to training, but that's part and parcel of the design philosophy. Shrug. Back on subject... Tiger I was a dead end. It was the ultimate example of the early-war, slab-sided, tank taken to an extreme. The Tiger II was a similar example of the mid-war design taken to an extreme. (Think Panther on steroids.) What good is accurate gunnery at 3,000 meters when the terrain only allowed engagements at sub 1,000 meters? And only 1/3 of your tanks could get to the battle before breaking down? The Soviets focused with remarkable clarity on what was needed at the front and could be made cheaply and rapidly. (For a counterpoint, examine the memos and letters passed back and forth between the German Waffamt 6, their factories, and the other production facilities. The arguments were very self-centered as their forces were being ground to dust. Can you imagine Stalin putting up with that?) Bah. Back to the game...

Are you former military? If so, you'll understand that no one wants the hassle. Everything is harder for everyone. Both sides suffer equally. Mopp gear is a drag. The tempo slows down but the results really wouldn't change.

But the t34 had sloppy gear lash. Fast spinner, sloppy spitter.

DAF has a great answer. As for gameplay, the Soviets bring something that no one else does. It becomes a very different battle/game than other fronts. (Similar to how CMFI and CMBN are so different from one another, yet are the "same" game.)

The conversation would not be boring.

Skid steer vs. zero radius turn. Now, the above is NOT universally true. Also, even when it IS true, the Germans may not have used their zero radius turn ability. I ascribe it to their sporty euro suspension. Kind of like the handling difference between a Lincoln Continental and an Audi R8. (<-- That's me humor leaking out...) Skid steer: one track is braked, the other is "run". The tank hull slews around. The turn describes an arc, the center of which is well off to the side of the tank, depending on how hard the inner track is braked and how slippery the terrain is. Benefit: easy to manufacture and maintain. Drawback: inefficient, large steering radii Zero radius: one track goes forward, the other reverses. The tank can literally spin over its center point. Benefit: zero radius turns. Drawback: requires very complex gears, prone to breaking when used (with German wartime alloy shortages), nearly impossible to repair in the field when it breaks. The other way of turning was to use specific turning gears. Each gear gave a different radius. The driver had to be adept at judging the turn and then implementing the correct gear at the correct time. Ken

If he had two of the sharpest eyes on the forum, imagine what he'd spot... Nice.

Depends on how mislabeled the firearms are...

Every drop is accounted for.

Rumors? The woods echo with smg fire. The cries of the wounded fills the forest. No rumor...

Interesting and non-intuitive...

...only April Fool's Day.

Bah. I used my uncle's programmable ti calculator - it had 8 LED's!- and would play lunar lander by entering in throttle position. Those were the days...

Gah! Real life caught up with a vengeance. Most impressive: I must contact Bil. I will send some submachinegunners to deliver my message...

Sigh. My significant other told me that the previous post was just plain mean. Sigh.

What does the function key "F5" do?

I would create a special download which thins his tanks' armor and makes his men act like frightened schoolgirls. But that's just me...