akdavis

Couple of issues discovered playing this scenario as the Germans: 1. ATRs begin scenario with "empty" ammo. All other units appear to be at full ammo. Is this intentional? 2. AI will not advance. A few tanks moved 100m or so out of the treeline. Infantry appeared to be just milling around back and forth in treeline, even when under no fire. Continued all the way through turn 27 of 30, at which point I quit. [ October 28, 2002, 10:27 PM: Message edited by: akdavis ]

Well, think about the experience necessary to differentiate between a regular and a veteran: experience in combat. Now how about the experience difference between veteran and elite: highly specialized training and extensive combat experience. Not too surprising if they don't show up very often. You will get them though. In QBs with veteran troops, I've even had a "crack" team or too show up. Try playing troops that require special training, like paras or mountain troops.

lol, me too Panzer. I saw some footage of some very suspicious looking Tigers in that doc. I prefer looking at Salma Hayek.

The Soviet Union was not a bright and happy place!

This, along with some sound contact issues, is a good argument for less generic unidentified unit markers. I understand not immediately identify the exact model of every vehicle or exact type of infantry unit, but sound and shape should provide a great deal more immediate information. For example, once in visual contact, halftracks should be identified by "Half-track?" Similarly, based on sound, mortars and ATRs should not receive the "infantry?" sound contact. Their sounds are unique and immediately identifiable.

Is that the one where your troops were animated turning 180 deg. and extending their middle finger in your general direction?

I would say that it is more difficult, but in a good way. There are more orders to learn, but these let you do more things. Now, more than ever, real life tactics pay off. The AI is more challenging as well, but this helps make every battle different. You will not find one proven tactic that you can defeat the AI with in every situation.

Depends. If there was no AA fire and the target was in open ground, I think a competent pilot stood a pretty good chance of landing some rounds on target.

Nope, enemy had no vehicles on the map. The only crewed weapon in LOS of the ATR was a light gun which was still alive at the end of the battle. As far as I can tell, the kills were on a Coy HQ in a foxhole.

Wasn't there a discussion about white turret stripes being a late-war air recognition aid? Yet this suggests the photo is 1941, and it sure looks like a white stripe around the turret. Interesting...

Chris, see my post above concerning Italian ATR with tungsten rounds.

I had an Italian ATR with Tungsten rounds score 4 inf casualties during a mission. I just left him with a cover arc and he did his thing.

Well, yes, but I'm not disputing that they should fire at infantry targets, I'm just disputing their usefulness in the area fire role. Unless you score a lucky penetration on cover, it really wouldn't be any more effective than one guy with A K98 plinking away at an area. Not very "suppresive."

Well, having an ATR area fire would be about like ordering a sniper to area fire. They have a limited amount of highly specialized ammo and a relatively slow RoF. They aren't going to just waste ammo. To be fair, in the example I cited, my ATR had a height advantage on the enemy foxhole.

I had an ATR wipe out an MG team in a foxhole.

Make my little Nazis and Communists stop being GREEDY and use their smoke rounds without me spanking them repeatedly.

Unfortunately, the recent introduction of the single finger, but highly potent "Dynamite" has seriously confounded this issue, making ladder play all but pointless.

They are green crews. They don't know that. Those ignorant Russian peasants probably think the Germans have lasers. Seriously though, I don't think a green crew would wait around to find out if their armor is really as impenetrable as they've been told it is.

And don't forget the fallout effects!

Stop whining and give it to that StuG UP THE ASS!!!

In WWII you could drive your tank over as many huts as you wanted...if you didn't mind throwing tracks all the time. I've heard of cases where tanks were used to collapse exterior walls of structures, but actually driving through rubble of a collapsed building would be asking for an immobilization. One thing you might check is what visual scale (SHIFT + C) your units are displaying at. If the scale is set above realistic, your tanks will appear larger than they actually are. At realistic scale, they probably won't dwarf those huts.

I'm sure this doesn't balance things in all cases, but maybe with the 1942 Stug issue: isn't the Soviet player allowed to spend more points on armor? So while the T-34 and Stug come at similar prices, the Soviet player might be able to get 2 T-34s for every German Stug. I think 2 T-34s used well can probably deal with a Stug used not-so-well. I think that answers your specific complaint.

Ehh...What the hell version of Armored Roadblock did you play? *Spoiler* . . . . . . . . . . . The one I played had 37mm ATGs versus a KV-1! I'm confused.

My only problem is that I often have units take fire, start sneaking for cover, then exhaust themselves out in the open and just sit there till they route. Many instances where they'd be better of using some sort of movement that involved sprinting and dropping to the ground until they got into cover. Perhaps "withdraw" or some sort of reverse "advance?" But then there are other times when I'm very glad they get their little lego asses down in the dirt.

Or, if you're allowed to dig-in, just put your men in foxholes immediately behind buildings. Once demolished, crawl right on in.