c3k

Enigma...(padded)

June, 1944...on the Eastern Front. Bagration, 22nd of June, nice anniversary surprise for the Germans, tore apart any pretensions the Germans may've had about "winning" a defensive war. That battle signified "Game Over".

I visited the UK/Ireland right after college. My buddy and I went into our first "authentic" fish and chips shop in Glasgow. I sauntered up to the counter and ordered..."fish and chips". The lass (it WAS Scotland), asked, "What kind of fish?" and pointed over my shoulder. I turned. There, upon the wall, was 2 storey tall, 30 foot wide, chalkboard filled with 4" writing annotating every kind of fish they had available. I was gobsmacked. (This being the UK.) There must've been a couple hundred varieties listed. I think the only name I recognized was "cod". In that moment, I realized that the US version of fish and chips had nothing to do with fish and chips in the UK.

$10 says you're too chicken to show that ^^^ to her! (I want to see her reading what you just wrote get filmed and uploaded to youtube!)

Hmmm, you need to just sit her down and explain what you've just done. Talk about the need to lead from the front. Discuss how men in combat will look to you to see what they should do. Go back in history and discuss the importance of tactics. I'd start with Cannae and work forward from there. Include 3 examples of battlefield tactics from every ephoch, obviously going into detail about why it worked or failed and how it could've been executed in a better manner. This would allow you to dovetail the effect of technology and its revolutionary impact on the battlefield. Tell her about ballistics. Start with fundemental physics in a vacuum and work up to coriolis effect on long range gunnery. Make it a give and take: ask her which she would prefer, and why, between the German 7.92mm spitzer, British .303, or US .30-06. Mention the Hague Conventions. Discuss nationalism, hegemony, global trade, and quality of life. Show her how much work that turn took. Tell her to give it a try. Then laugh at the results. Actually ridicule her, later, in front of mutual friends, regarding her tactical inexpertise. Show her how your sacrifice, your generalship, is allowing her the freedom to shop. Build an obstacle course in the backyard and have her run through it. This will show her how hard the battlefield can be. Use a bayonet, with gentle prods, to help over the higher walls. She will thank you, later. Ken

... and one bridge.

Thanks. (Padded)

Huh. I JUST had two leader teams do this (The Road to Mountburg (sp?)). It worked as I'd expected it to. Is this only at the map edge? Ken

This is something that I've been looking at. Do you have a savegame? (Or just a screenshot?) Otherwise, while waiting, what was the vehicle type, and what crewmembers are left? (How long have they refused to fire?) The more details you present, the better. (A screenshot showing the damage window, the crew positions, and the green "what are my men doing" UI in the bottom left of the game screen, would be most beneficial.) Thanks, Ken

Once commanded to, um, NOT "open up" (see Vanir Ausf B's post, above), the commander will not open his hatch. The logic is that you want him buttoned up, so he'll stay that way. The opposite, ordering "open up", has logic which will allow the game to button him if the game's AI determines that's what he should do. (It is biased to accept a bit of incoming fire, since a lot of tank commanders are expected to fight with their head up.)

Emmenthal?

akd, Well done. I'll run the same/similar...tomorrow. Pressed hard right now. Ken

The 60mm craters only appear when the mortar shell has fallen into a hole in the ground, such as gopher hole, fox den, rabbit warren, mole hill, etc. The complex underground network of small mammilian tunnels is completely simulated in every map. (BTW, this is why the loading screen hangs at 29%. It is well known that this is "the tunneling effect" oft spoken of by physicists.) Obviously, the crater only occurs if the fuze itself hits within the hole. This is rare, but not impossible. (Tongue in cheek. ) Ken

(AT Gun spotting: How well are they spotted BEFORE they fire? Next, what is the range to the closest friendly unit - which spots the AT Gun - once the ATG opens up? Early war ATG's were more easily concealed and had MUCH less muzzle blast. That blast, coupled with the smoke/flash, is what gives the position away. Later ATG's would kick up enoumous dust/dirt clouds. Perhaps that muzzle blast is being modelled? Again, range would be important. Is it opening up at 800m or 200m? Just a few thoughts on what may be going on.)

I spy with my little eye... That is a great treatment. It looks really nice. Ken

Juju, Wow. Stunningly beautiful. Thank you for your work. Ken

Oh, don't even get me started!!! (If it gets broken, do _I_ have to pay!?!?!) (What about Mexican customs?) Grrr. See what you've done?

Responding to the part I've bolded in your original message: I think you've misunderstood me. I took a hypothetical example and extrapolated possible results. Right now, in game, v1.00 up to and including v1.10, infantry NOT in a building can kill a tank. The tank has to be adjacent (8m or so) to the infantry. The infantry attack is shown graphically by a grenade flying through the air. This is an ABSTRACTION which simulates a man (or two) setting a charge of some sort on the tank. There are NO disappearing/dying men. All the infantry stay put: they are vulnerable - normally - in that location. The soaring grenade is the only clue that they're attacking the tank. I hope that's clear. Ken

Was the StuG buttoned or opened up? (My _guess_ is it was opened up.)

I'm certainly not in the position to defend design decisions. 1. You are correct. This is one exception. So is buddy aid (where does that guy go?). So, too, is the surrender mechanic. I'm sure there are others. 2. Yeah, I'd LIKE to have that happen as well. But, if there is an abstraction of a man running out of the building, shouldn't his level of protection plummet? What would your reaction be if your 9 man squad, in a building, suddenly became an 8 man squad after a tank drove by? Because, you know, the game abstracted a man running out to blow up the tank, but he got shot. It'd be like a tank counting toll: 8 men left, 7 men left, 6 men left, BOOM got a tank, 5 men left, etc. So, I UNDERSTAND why the squad in a building has to STICK to the building. Players would scream that they never wanted ANYONE to leave the protection of the building. Which decision does less harm? Yeah, having them all stay. In the open, it is much more reasonable for a man to dart over and place an explosive charge, then rejoin the squad. The cover difference of a man leaving one part of an action spot to another is not as great as that of a man leaving a building. I would PREFER to SEE a single man take that action. I ASSUME it isn't done for two reasons: the AI cannot arbitrarily split teams off a squad; the single man concept is anathema to the coding design. If the AI could arbitrarily split teams off of your squad, there would be a lot of problems keeping your guys corraled and moving in the right direction. I would LOVE to have designated tank-hunting teams (even if they're split off a squad), leave cover on their own to stalk a tank in the tank's blind spot. THAT would be a cool thing. Yes, TacAI defenders in built up areas are at a disadvantage. A workaround available to designers would be to buy some tank-hunters and set them up hidden, with ambush commands, in built up areas, but not IN buildings. A fudge, but it would make the attacker at least scout the roads before driving through. It's a game. It's not perfect. This trade off seems to've made with a bit of thought behind it. You may WISH for something different, but this is what it is. Ken

All the following is OPINION, not based on hard data. The grenade throwing is a REPRESENTATION of close assaulting a tank. Tanks are made to be proof against various artillery calibers. In fact, most could survive a top hit by up to a 105mm HE shell. "Survive" is a relative term. A 75mm/81mm HE top hit should not damage the tank, more than knocking out antennae and some ancillary equipment. Now, the above is a ROUGH estimation. Tanks were built to be PROOF against shell splinters from near misses and tough enough to SURVIVE top hits from the most common artillery shells in use. Compare that artillery shell to the hand grenade. Yeah. Now, take that hand grenade and see if you can throw it from within a building and have it actually land on top of the tank...and stay there. I suggest an experiment. I assume you own a car? If not, borrow a friend's. Park it outside your house/apartment. On the street, in a city; a driveway for the 'burbs. Now, if it's your car, grab a few apples. If it's your buddy's, a few fist-sized rocks. Pick a window, on any floor. Now, start throwing the apples (rocks) at the car and tell us when you get one to land on the car. (Through a window doesn't count!) Yeah. Ah, but you say, "I got some apples to roll UNDER the car." Okay. Do you think a grenade sitting on the ground under a tank would do ANYTHING to the tank? It may just knock the mud off the bottom, which would lighten the tank, and improve its gas mileage. So, the odds are a grenade going off under a tank would HELP the tank. Once the infantry is OUT of the house, they "close assault" a tank. They are no longer restricted to staying inside the structure, so, and this is NOT shown, but is simulated (my opinion/experience), one of the men can grab a satchel charge or a bundle of grenades and place it ON the tank. BOOM. (The old "land mine under the rear turret overhang trick.") This is "shown" by a grenade sailing through the air, rather than a guy leaving the action spot and "counting croupe" on the tank. An open-topped vehicle is inviting a rain of grenades. (Borrow a convertible and try the apple experiment again. (Fresh apples aren't needed if it's a borrowed car.)) So...most of the time a grenade flying through the air represents, well, a grenade flying through the air. SOMETIMES (especially against a closed-top AFV) a grenade flying through the air represents a man with explosives attempting to place the explosives on the tank. Capiche? Ken

Yeah, I've done a bunch, but it's not where it needs to be. More work ahead... Ken

I'm not saying CMBN has it right...neither am I saying it has it wrong. The stats posted, above, show the oft-quoted 3:1 ratio of wounded to killed. However, that's theater-wide, due to all causes. Let me repeat that, for emphasis: due to all causes. What we see when we play CMBN is the very gritty front line. We don't see the mortar stonk hitting the rest area. We don't see the truck drive off the road. We don't see gonorrhea outbreaks (would that count as wounded in action?). In short, we don't see any of the wounding mechanisms which would occur in the rear or in "quiet" sectors. Is the classic 3:1 ratio applicable to direct fire combat? Or, is that ratio more appropriate when looking at an entire theater for the duration of an operation? Just a few thoughts. Ken

...and we get into the doctrine aspects of recce units. US-centric view: any unit should be tasked to do so, it's a subse of combat skills. Go forth, find 'em, squawk about it. German (WWII and beyond): it's a specialistic skill requiring a certain dash, elan, coupled with hard-headedness. It needs special vehicles. The job is to find the enemy, push him away, go around him, or defend against him. That's pretty simplistic, and takes the view from the level of battalion missions. FWIW. I think you need to specify the level of command you're discussing when trying to define the differences between scouting and recce. In game, "you and you, run over to that hedge and tell me if the enemy's in that field" is a pretty standard scout task. It's about on par with another of my favorite scout tasks: "you and you, QUICK across that bocage gap and let us know if there are any landmines buried there." (One of the CMSF (NATO?) missions was pretty cool. The designer had you sneak a few sniper teams around and airfield. If you got your guys onto their designated OP's (the objectives) without being seen, the next battle started you with a slew of intel. Nice job simulating pre-battle recce.)

Cease... * * * * * * * ...Fire. That is one well-trained LT. Excellent use of the pause between the preparation and execution. Nice links to the footage. (Nice sounds!) Thanks. Ken