Erwin

Ammo sharing is more complex than it needs to be. It would make more sense if any unit could share with any other unit. eg: A German 4th Platoon is "heavy weapons". In a game I have right now the 4th Platoon HQ is ico 2x81mm mortars each with its own ammo carriers, and 4xHMG's. However, each HMG team is in a "squad" of two and one of the HMG teams is the "HQ" of each squad. (IIRC the 4th platoon is also ico 2xStummels.) So, does that mean ALL the HMG's could in theory share ammo since they are under the 4th Platoon HQ, or only the two teams of a single HMG squad since one of those HMG's is a "HQ"? (Until an HMG runs out of ammo AND an HMG is KO'd but its team is alive and with ammo it will be hard to test.) Also, if the Stummels are under the 4th platoon, could the Stummel crews share ammo with other members of the 4th platoon? It's weird that the Stummels have ACQUIRABLE ammo, but you have to dismount the crew and mount inf to get it. (This is a good argument for simply having units adjacent to a supply vehicle in order to ACQUIRE instead of having to mount and dismount since in WEGO it's a PITA when one really wants to focus on tactics. And I dislike loading everyone to the max in the set-up turn.) I did experiment having the mortars deploy next to their truck (and kept the carriers in the truck, altho so long as they are nearby I don't think it matters). What I found is that the ammo in the truck (not ACQUIRED by any carrier) is being used first. I haven't exhausted the UNACQUIRED shells in the truck yet, so not sure what will happen next: Whether the ammo will be used first from the carriers or from the mortars' own stock. And speaking of AT teams, I had one guy WIA while the ok guy (with the schreck) performed buddy aid. While the WIA guy was on the map, the ok schreck guy showed 5 or 6 rockets. When he'd completed buddy aid and the WIA guy disappeared, the ammo count went down to 2 or 3.

Conscripted at 17 in '43.

Well, I guess we shold add it to the list of extra features we'd (or someone) would like to have: Tying an inf escort to a tank so they "work together" (however that is interpreted).

"only one member of the team or squad would be keeping lookout while the rest kept their faces in the dirt." That seems to be what the graphics show for the default (non-HIDE) posture. But, we don't know if that is an accurate interpretation of what the computer AI is actually doing/"seeing". And for PBEM and us WEGO players, we most often are unable to UNHIDE at the right moment. The question is whether units that HIDE are harder to spot than the default. If they are, then that's an argument for an AMBUSH command.

He even looks a bit like Clint in Kelly's Heroes.

So, that is the Section HQ which is an HMG unit itself? (ie: Not a separate section HQ unit ico 2 HMG units.)

Thanks! That is a really good-looking and very well edited sequence. I think they shot a lot of it with quite a bit of "zoom" magnification to get that close-up effect. Any chance we can find out what graphics card settings they use? My in-game images don't quite that nice and I hope it's just that I have not got optimal nVidia settings.

Sounds very interesting... However, may not have a chance to play it till December.

Yeah... I know how meticulous you are after JOKER. Glad your PC is working again. What an amazing fix! I'll be out of town in a week or so till maybe TG or even December. I rarely take any computer with me that can play games on or I would never get any work done while traveling. So, I may post here, but no play till I get back. (Sadly, cold turkey is the only way for addicts.)

Troops will override the covered arc limitation in certain situations, but we have little/no info on what those parameters are. I can see how a "Return Fire Only If Fired Upon" order would be useful. But, personally I think I would have used it very little in any games I have played. Probably a set of "Standing Orders" commands would be useful, including tank and inf formations when moving. But, that would mean a radically different UI.

I agree with Womble, but per my previous post as I observed in my own games it does sometimes seem that units in default position are too easily seen by advancing troops and tanks.

Yeah, I was hoping that someone had experienced having had his HMG's abandoned etc. Hard to duplicate since it involves firing at an HMG unit till it's KO'd which usually kills the team as well. The CM2 manual is well written, but sadly doesn't contain much of this sort of useful info. Well, anyone who has had HMG's abandoned or KO'd in a scenario with team members surviving plz let us know.

I get the impression that the default inf stance is "taking appropriate cover while keeping a look-out" and is hence the default desired position for an ambush. ie: Everyone lying down in whatever cover is available while one guy keeps a look-out. HIDE on the other hand is complete cowering, everyone hugging the ground for dear life with their faces in the dirt. The question is could an actual AMBUSH command do/give any advantage over what the default stance position provides? It does sometimes seem that units in default stance are too easily spotted by moving/advancing enemy units. But, if they are in HIDE position the enemy can literally walk over them.

That is such an interesting-looking vehicle. Dreaming of NA scenarios with LRDDG/SAS vs Axis desert recon forces.

Troops with "HIDE" orders are face in the dirt, not looking around. So, even with covered arcs, a hiding unit may well not ambush approaching enemy, and often said enemy can walk right on top of them and kill the hiding troops. HIDE is helpful to reduce casualties from arty barrage, and for when you really don't want them spotted. But, they won't be good at spotting anything else either. So, re your question, it all depends on the situation.

"And of course "the powers that be" also built and used the likes of Monty and Erwin purely for when it suited them......" I think you are being a bit unfair to me. Oh wait... never mind...

Oh, and for those of you who do have DirecTV, these programs (and a lot more) are on the LINK Channel.

Thanks... will definitely take a look. Have to travel without my CM computer in a week till December tho' (Otherwise, I'll play all the time and not get down to biz.)

Thanks for the update Vanir. I have been watching Al Jazeera and Mosaic (both really interesting and available on DirecTV here in the US) to get their version of news on the ME situation, but am behind in watching recorded shows.

Just to extra clarify, if you have an HMG team that's had its HMG KO'd so they are wandering around as inf with thousands of rounds, they can provide ammo to another HMG so long as it is in the same section (eg: German HMG sections usually have an HQ HMG team plus a 2nd HMG team), but NOT to another HMG team from a different section even if they share the same Platoon HQ? Or, is the Platoon HQ defined as their "immediate HQ"? So all 4 HMG crews could share ammo with each other(?)

That video was hilarious GAJ. Who knew that Tiger II's were actually powered by a economical "green energy" massive rubber band?

"You nullify his artillery by letting his men get to close to you." Yes. Good point... And in attack the problem is often the reverse.

Is it the third jerry can from the left, 2nd row? (I also like the metal plate thing to get one over soft sand.)

Condolences re your CM PC. I know how hard that can be. So you don't think the Syrian rebels can just wait in ambush? I assumed it would be a bit like JOKER 3 - an element of 4th Armored is cut off and surrounded and has to fight its way out while a rescue attempt from the main force attempts to reach em. But the streets are blocked with rubble or somesuch, so inf has to go in without armor.

I'll try it. Thanks.