c3k

Yeah... I'd love that kind of imagery. Meantime, there are some good mods out there that add a bit of zest to the stock explosion. I'm partial to Vein's, but there are others to also choose from.

Hmmm.... I -think- that LOS/LOF is determined from future waypoints based on current unit ELOS height (or it assumes standing: I forget which). This means that if your unit is upright (or assumed to be upright), then that future waypoint LOS/LOF is drawn from, say, 2m elevation. Once your unit gets into position, they go prone or squat. That drops their elevation to .5 or 1m. Could that explain it? Ken

Outstanding turn (and pix)! I didn't know you could demo hedgehogs! Somewhere I thought they were permanent. Nice to know... Looks like your attack is about to generate some self-sustaining momentum. This is a critical 2-5 turn period. (As opposed to the other, non-critical, periods. )

Glad to see the game continues! Tanks: get close and grenade them. Yeah, not a great plan, but better than rolling over, curling up, and crying. Whatever happened to that 'schreck? Trenches: have your troops HIDE. They'll say below the parapets and should reduce the suppression they've been getting. Once their morale increases, then pop 'em up (un-HIDE) and kill some of those green meanies! (Get their HQ's near 'em. Eyeball and mouth.) Otherwise, don't cluster. The tanks will rip your groupings apart. Make Ian disperse his attack to deal with his flanks. Meaning, hold the shoulders of the penetration. Units which can put flanking fire on Ian's advancing troops will pin them and slow down his attack. Tick, tock. Tick, tock.

Great job, love the pix. The clusters: different tanks, or the same tank being given a new target command at the same bunker?

Early on in the release, I, too, had difficulty with my Stingers. Then, the next turn, all 3 of my teams launched. I'm not saying there isn't an issue...but there may be something else going on. Facing or status complicates it.

The cool detail: the fired smoke launchers are visually empty whereas full ones are not.

Late war German tank production was fell far short of the requirements to fill the losses suffered by formations. As well, Hitler had an obsession with new formations being fielded, rather than bringing older ones up to strength. This meant that the 4 companies in a tank battalion (abteilung) could not all be the same tank. Sometimes it was Pz IV's in some companies and Pz V's in others. Sometimes, instead of tank companies, they used Stug's or JgPz's instead.

Thanks for doing, and sharing, that.

Bil, Thanks for taking the time and effort to do this. It seems like a little more luck with the plunging fire could've changed this one around. Ken

Each Sherman has 5 crewmen? They have .45's with some reloads. Two tank crews could, theoretically, wipe out all of Doug's forces. What are you waiting for? (In a different battle, I've been peppering a Panther with a plurality of popgun shots from my poor 57mm ATG, to which it has proven impervious. But the hit decals look cool. I've gotten it over 2 dozen times....)

Yours to LOSE!?!?! Are you crazy? That kind of defensive mindset starting at the top will allow a rot to creep in at the bottom! Your troops will get "bunker disease". Best for everyone if you push Bil off the back edge of the map! Attack!

Yeah, that gets a LOL and a possible sig quote.

I am left wondering about your mental stability. There is no indication, implicit or explicit, that you were joking, sarcastic, or trying to make a deep statement on the horrors of war. Instead, you've posted a statement expressing a desire to see children in battle, with all that entails. A public apology would be appropriate, or I will add you to my ignore list as I consider the type of sentiment you've expressed to be the product of a sick mind or a depraved and evil individual. And then you posted this: My bold. Really? Perhaps you need to rethink your opinions. Back OT: I'm glad to hear a roadmap for further development and releases. Thanks, Ken

The link agusto provided... ...should be something you look at. It has replies by several beta testers and then an explicit statement by ChrisND that it will be examined. If a fix can be done, past history would incline one to believe a fix would be released. Perhaps not with a Battle Pack, but a patch. (Patches are free and apply to anyone who's installed the game; Packs imply a purchase.) Ken

Really? THAT'S your contribution? First, I'll say that I think smoke may be off. So there. There's your attempt to "justify" this event. (I prefer "explain".) Second, I'll note that there IS a "?" contact. So, perhaps the dismounted crew can hear the T-34 but not see it? Third, I'll add that there are some LOS anomalies. The more savegames we get that show them, the sooner they can get solved. Fourth, I'll ask: are you still a'mazed? Ken (P.S. There are some GREAT LOS threads. Some describe the limitations, as they currently exist. This may fall under one of the types previously described. And, no, I don't think some of the limitations are "good", but I hope for improvement.)

That's a very interesting observation. Thanks. First...I'll deflate your expectations and say that you only get this with mods. Caveat Emptor...or Caveat Modder. Second...I'll state that it's a case of LODs, as mentioned, not correlating with one another. Unmodded it works: modded it doesn't? Third...I'll see if I can post a report to BFC about this. I'll link (internally) back to this thread. So, post PICTURES! The more, the better. (And if you have a link to the SPECIFIC mod you've used, please post that link in this thread, too.) Fourth...I'll tell you that there can be no promises. This is an issue with mods, not the released version of the game. Fifth...Well, fifth, I'll have another sip of my beverage of choice and go back to my secret beta testing. Ken

Now, don't get me wrong: I -try- to protect my men, but they shrug off my efforts and demand to storm the enemy to prove their worth to me. It's a burden, but I carry it without complaint. In fact, I tell my men I envy them the ease with which they so willingly give up their pathetic, drab, pointless little lives for me. Sigh. Ken

(An interesting aside...a lot of websites show similar req'ts for fieldwork resistance to 120mm mortars and 122mm howitzer. If anything, I would've thought the howitzer would've been a lot more effective at penetration. This is not borne out by what I saw on the web. So...120mm = 122mm apparently...)

I used Hamachi awhile ago...CMx1? or maybe CMSF... It was almost like a VPN. Once it was setup, it was very easy. The setup took a few steps, but nothing hard.

The waypoints that vehicles use for movement are freely placed. Waypoints for infantry are tied to AS. (The LOS calculations for BOTH still use the AS for blocked LOS, but actual positioning for LOS checks. If curious on this, start a new thread.) Infantry self-position within the AS; vehicles stop right at the waypoint.

Yes...this does happen and is frustrating... Improved positioning (force the "special" item to be placed precisely on the waypoint?) would be a good thing to have. (I'm reminded of good LOS from a bocage, but the HMG gets blocked after it gets there. Some of that has been already been improved. It used to be worse. There is room for improvement. Savegames always help.)

Yeah...it's looking like something may be a bit too robust. HOWEVER... some real data to verify against the game behavior would be nice. The hits on the engine slats would seem to be something that should at least cause engine failure. I'm not saying it's wrong, I'm saying it "seems" like it should. A large blast should propagate through the baffles. I don't know if the cover is just simple louvers or if there are more complex geometries behind the slats. (E.g., multiple slats... /\/\/\... in layers.) I don't know what type of HE the Brad was designed/tested to be proof against. A video of mortar damage against a tank: http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=120mm+mortar+vs+a+tank&qpvt=120mm+mortar+vs+a+tank&FORM=VDRE#view=detail&mid=3891FCA6C0BEB5F876353891FCA6C0BEB5F87635 Unfortunately, that's from Iwo Jima and the tank is an M4. There is NO information about the type of mortar. It could've been friendly fire or from the Japanese. Simple HE is ineffective against tanks. (This does NOT mean that fragments are ineffective. I'm talking about bare HE laid on a tank.) Special anti-tank rounds have been developed for 120mm mortars. They contain seekers and HEAT warheads. Seekers, because you want to hit the top of the vehicle, not miss. But the warhead is changed because the standard warhead is not effective enough to assure a kill. Therefore, standard 120mm mortar rounds, even if they hit, are lacking in their kill ability.

a) I'm not sure I understand what you mean. I agree. The diamond point spots (diagonal features) can be frustrating as well. c) Hmm...Not sure if this has to do with action spots, nor if I agree it is a problem. (The ? appears should allow better area fire than non-? area fire ?)

It's not MY side armor! It's my MEN'S side armor. Makes all the difference in the world...