c3k

I like the handy aiming stick right behind the rocket pod. I assume one uses the stick to keep the pod on target while it's firing.

Also, think about casualties. Marines are expected to take more casualties...and remain effectively in combat. (This is at the unit level.) Army units are assumed to have access to reinforcements to replace casualties. There has been a lot of thought over the years about the minimum effective size of a squad. The numbers flux, but less than 7 and you cannot take a casualty and stay in the fight. (Play the Germans with their 6 man squads. You'll see how "brittle" they can be at that size.) Anyway, these numbers are subject to a lot of heated debate. Regardless, the Marine squad can take a lot more casualties and still be an effective SQUAD when compared to the Army SQUAD. That's the role of assault troops. (Emphasis to ensure that this idoes not inflame the individual soldier/Marine comparisons.)

Addressing only the first part: there is a global morale system. You don't have the cool bar measuring it that we had in CMx1, but then no commander ever had a barometer like that, either. The global morale issue should cause an auto-surrender at a certain point. Why didn't it happen for you? I don't know. The size of your forces may've had an impact. A small unit may have a more robust global morale. That makes sense. Otherwise every small battle would end after just a few losses. Another factor is that reinforcements count towards the morale base. If a side has reinforcements scheduled to enter, they will hold on far longer. (You can game the system by having the reinforcements scheduled to enter AFTER the battle ends. That will keep the guys on board fighting to the end.) Ken

Ahh, that is part I didn't get from reading your first post. If the AI is causing that, then, indeed, it should be fixed. If it was you who ordered it, well there are reasons why you should always be allowed to TARGET any space you'd like.

PM me (my profile). Ken

What if you were assiduously trying to position that .50 to avoid exposure to some enemy weapon on the top of that hill? How would you feel if, after placing it where the .50 was safe, it autonomously moved so it was able to see the top of the hill? I think there'd be screams of angst. At least, based on what you posted, you were able to get the .50 right where you wanted, albeit with more time and effort than desired. Ken

No explanation (or excuse ). If the nearest known enemy is at least 75m away, and he's a squad of buddies already sending rounds downrange, that MG'er should be setting it up and firing. I would excuse it only if the enemy were MUCH closer. C'mon, pistols at over 75m? (You only do that when those 9mm are getting too heavy and you need an excuse to dump 'em.) I can explain that for a bolt-action sharpshooter far more readily than someone with a belt-fed, 2,000 round per minute, machinegun. For the boltie, maybe he needs rapid fire downrange. Then the pistol could make sense at longer then optimal pistol range. This is odd. Ken

In fact, this is where the strength of the flexible TO&E comes into its own. Have a squad create a scout team. (Some squads can create several scout teams.) Use them to find the enemy. Short covered arcs will keep them from shooting. (That's important for their survival. Two man teams don't survive a firefight for too long. As well, a scout team which is unspotted will perform surveillance so much better.) Put them in good LOS locations. Base your subsequent moves on INTEL, not INTUITION. On defense, scout teams perform picket duty. MikeyD put it very succinctly; impatience is often the cause of tank losses. If you can avoid it, do not ever advance a tank into a location already under the gun of an enemy tank. Flanks or rears are best. Let us know when you get it all figured out. I'm still trying. Ken

Regarding Low Bocage as vineyards: they look good, and points for original thinking, but one of the characteristics of low bocage is their impassable nature. Perhaps hedges would act more like rows of vines?

Steel core. These were issued at a light rate... reference not handy... of a few rounds per rifleman in the East. Similar to today's M855 round in 5.56mm; the steel core makes for a better penetration of hard surfaces, be it tempered glass at an angle, or steel plate. The rounds in some MG34/42 issues are AP to reflect the higher likelihood of these weapons - mounted in vehicles - of encountering lightly armored enemy vehicles. Ken Edited to add: the AP round could be fired by any weapon capable of firing the non-AP round, and vice-versa. They are identically chambered.

They can seem silly, but they do provide the useful service of ensuring a certain outlook gets expressed. Ken

SPOILER ALERT*** MOSwas71331, At the risk of giving conflicting advice, what I did was set up my mortars in the courtyard of the farmhouse near the US setup zone. I then placed the Company CO up in the top floor. He spotted for the mortars right below. That allowed effective spotting and firing on the far German positions. In each of my play throughs, on Elite vs. AI, wego, I pushed on the US left. I would fire on "?" German locations with the mortar and MG's. After sufficient suppression, I would advance 1 up with 2 in support. Hope that helps. Ken

user38, Thanks for posting. I have to take exception to your comment "the game is fundamentally flawed and broken." If it was meant in jest, the tone didn't get conveyed. The rest of your post is concise and serious. There is nothing to differentiate this final statement. If you are serious, we have divergent views on the seriousness of TC vulnerability to marksmen. Recognize this SEEMS to be a specific case of exposed TC's being fired at by aimed rifle fire. Sometimes it hits. It is a specific case with a low probability of a hit. Hardly fundamental. Ken

Yeah, my explanation was a bit simplitfied. I'm curious about your description. Post the savegames somewhere here or PM me. Thanks, Ken

Yes, yellow soldiers tire more quickly. Once tired, they gradually lose the ability to move at the faster speeds.

These results track with my preliminary results vs. TC, as well. Thanks, Ken

Yeah, a CONVOY command would be great. In the meantime, remember that the vehicles do not have pre-knowledge of the next movement command. They will go FAST (for example) right to the endpoint of a FAST command. They don't track the path, they aim for the endpoint. If the next movement endpoint is 90^ to the left, the FAST moving vehicle will overshoot the path. It will eventually get turned to face that next point and will go directly at it. It sounds like you understand that, based on plotting multiple points for curved turns. I include it for others who may learn from it.

This is exactly my thought, as well. The editor is your friend. It would be nice to find out about BAR's, but that is merely satisfying a curiosity. It has no bearing on the game. (The editor can add as many BAR teams into your airborne units as you'd like. The lack of BAR's in the game's pre-existing TO&E is nearly meaningless in this regard.) Having said that, we should also recognize that not every unit hewed to the actual TO&E. Even when they did, individuals would gather whatever they could. It very well could be that the Pentagon did not think a single airborne soldier had a BAR, but that many parachuted into Normandy with them. That's what makes relying on HQ level documentation a bit inexact. Ken

Alt-J will get rid of the objective zone color.

Actually, JG11Preusse, what you wrote is worthy of checking online. It was an easily made spelling mistake with a bit of humor. No one is making fun of your English. Onto marksmen/snipers. I, too, have the occasional feeling that they are not as accurate as they could be. I will perform some tests. Setting up QB's are not good tests. There are far too many variables that could be at play. Regards, Ken

Amizaur, Thanks for noticing and posting this behavior. It has (already) been noticed and posted to BF.C's attention. Thanks, Ken

Multiple issues here. Agreed, as stated by others, that specialists should concentrate on using their special weapon. When they do, the other team members should not act in a manner which is detrimental to the team's purpose. (Spotter opening fire at long range instead of the sniper; ass't firing K98 while Schreckman is about to fire, etc.) Second issue: Firing at exposed TC is a delicate issue. Of course TC's should get fired at. The question is by whom, at what range, and with what weapon. A Thompson at 250m is a bit much. A scoped rifle at 300m would be fine. The TacAI needs to be tweaked a bit, that's all. Third issue: Self preservation after missing TC. In the example stated, if a sniper fired at a TC (giving CMBN the benefit of the doubt and assuming that the sniper fired at an exposed TC), and missed, then the tank began turning to his direction, a FAST move out of there would nice. Ken

Zero radius turns: that requires one track to move forward while the opposite track moves in reverse. This is VERY hard on the transmission. The opposite drive, in German tanks, took place in the final drive unit. The Germans made 2 significant compromises in the design. First, to ease production concerns, they chose a more-easily produced gearing arrangement. This allowed more final drives to be produced, but create greater stresses on the unit. Second, due to raw materiel shortages, the "doping" ingredients used to create hard alloys were not used. These two factors exacerbated each other. A higher stress design using weak metal. Not a good combination. The knowledge was there, but the production pressure and economic realities forced a weakened end product. The result was many failures of the final drive when the zero radius turn was used. This eventually meant that it was prohibited except for emergencies. Given that, would you order your driver to use a zero radius turn, knowing it may immediately immobilize the tank? Post WWII, both these restrictions were no longer in force. German tanks used turn-radius steering, where specific gears produced specific turn radii. The driver was expected to know which gear to use for the turns, as he judged them. Western tanks - for the vast majority - used brake steering (this was used by German tanks as well): To turn, apply the track brake for the side you wish to turn towards. Does that help? Ken

Grill takes very close to the advertised 54 second deploy time.

It depends. TARGET if you really want to hit that spot with no known enemy. TARGET if you want that particular enemy hit. (You can use TARGET, PAUSE for however long you think is appropriate, then move in some form ever so slightly away and add a FACE command or COVER ARC to let the TacAI regain targeting control.)