Bone_Vulture

Perhaps my armchair colonel comment was a bit brash, but the story sounds just too ludicrous: they have an enstranged enemy tank crushing panzers and taking out a handful of AT guns. Yet the Germans manage to sneak close enough to the tank to set mines under it, but somehow fail the utilize this amazing window of opportunity. The tank is besieged for "a couple of days", which means that the tank crew would be by then suffering from serious sleep deprivation. And finally when the tank is shelled with an '88, it seems to possess both incredible armor tensile strength and crew tenacity. This could be an isolated example of a particularly fanatic tank crew, but I'm not sure.

I partially afree that the terrain plays an important part in the effectiveness of mortar bombardments: they're next to useless in urban areas. I do however think that mortar shelling can be fatal even against entrenched enemies; it would appear that the shock factor of medium mortar rounds has been increased in the latest CM games. And you've probably noticed that even if the constant mortar shelling doesn't cause immediate casualties, it tends to drive the receiver of the barrage to panic.

WADR - An acronym for "with all due respect", I'll need that nowadays - that story sounds like complete bollocks.

As Boo stated, it depends on the circumstances. You have to foresee the need for HE when purchasing units (the probable amount and potency of the soft units your opponent has), and be aware of the blast values and typical fire mission delays these units have, as to decide whether to order bombardments on the go, or pre-plan them. Personally, I love the artillery. Yes, it sometimes feels a bit overpriced, but the warm feeling I get from seeing the opponent's infantry flee in blind panic under a heavy artillery barrage is priceless.

LIES

Isn't there a tiny base chance in CM that an assault on a buttoned tank succeeds, even with mere hand grenades?

Also notice that you can set this pre-planned fire mission to start on a certain turn, not just the first one.

Tell me - were there any open spaces inside the remnants of te factory that offered little cover? Or was it all just a big pile of rubble?

I never read any of your posts; I just pick several key words to formulate my response.

Not that I want to steer this discussion off topic, but people really shouldn't be shy about using pre-planned fire missions. You'll be able to time the bombardments with your other maneuvers, and they always fall with excellent precision, without the need for spotting rounds or LOS. The key to success is good foresight: the ability to see the battlefield from your opponent's point of view, and figure where to plot your fire missions.

I don't play operations often, but I'd guess so?

I know, I know. I do consider it to be somewhat non-kosher to use conscript spotters to fire pre-planned fire missions in order to save purchase points. There is another important factor, however: if your planning to order fire mission on the move, the spotter team experience is a serious factor. A conscript team can hardly have a clear LOS to enemy fortifications, as it'll panic once the first stray shell lands nearby. Also, exposing the team to enemy fire for even seconds when, say, streaking from one patch of woods to another is impossible with risking the morale of the spotters.

Ok, let me reiterate the ideal conditions before using the assault command: 1) Distance to target less than 50 meters 2) Assaulting team launches from good cover, is fresh and in command. 3) Target pinned down with supporting fire from the distance. 4) [important addition!] The assaulting team must be under the command of a HQ team with a morale bonus the whole time. The problem with your fire superiority tactic is that it will drain the ammo supplies of your infantry teams, unless you use machine guns exclusively. If your opponent utilises delaying tactics that drain your ammunition, your troops might be suffering from serious shortage of ammunition once they're supposed to capture and hold the victory flags. Yes, close combat drains ammunition too, but the point is that even with some additional casualties on your side, the absolute annihilation of enemy teams will prove more cost effective in the long run.

Ah, you and your sissy non-Finnish tactics.

What is the actual effect of the spotter experience level to the fire mission delays? It seems quite cosmetic to me. And BradLats - A good rule of the thumb is that if the spotter's organization level is anything above battalion or regimental, you might want to pre-plan its fire mission. Only certain heavy artillery assets, like the German 105/150mm sets are swift enough to be ordered on the go.'¨ Oh yeah, an exception to this rule is when you're targeting TRPs, obviously.

Just haul the gun to thick woods, and sneak it to a position that has a clear field of fire to victory flags. Let rip on an unsuspecting enemy. Obviously doesn't work in the desert, but worth a shot elsewhere.

Don't be a cry baby! Some sissy little runny nose isn't a valid excuse to fail miserably in offending the Finnish folk. Stand up and figure a better insult, you soggy sauerkraut! :mad:

Aww come on... You need to come up with fresh trolls. Mobile phones aren't the hot topic in Finland anymore. Our next big export article will be wooden wall clocks, shaped like Finland. You just watch those babies sell.

Maybe that's just because it weighs more? Less worrying about recoil.

Were you all at different locations?

My take on the question: Do not use the move command when there's a chance your troops will come under fire. Use it to maneuver troops that are well out of combat, and you want them to stay fresh. Other posters have given good advice about the advance command, but I disagree on their view about the assault command. First of all, take note: assaulting wears down your troops fast, so don't expect them to charge over 30 meters at a time without running out of breath. Also, I think using assault is a good way to "steamroll" enemy positions: use suppressing crossfire to pin down the enemy troops. In an ideal situation, your supporting teams will pin down the enemy by firing from two directions, and your assault team will charge from the third. With good timing, the combined barrage of your teams will cause the enemy troops to panic, making short work out of them in close combat. Just be sure that your troops are still relatively refreshed when they reach an arm's length of the enemy, and that your HQ team has a all your assaulting teams under command the whole time. If the assaulting team falls out of command when it reaches the enemy position, there's a serious risk that it will break and become annihilated. So plan these maneuvers carefully.

A confusing auto rifle?

I'm aware that such a "multiplayer" feature would only function over TCP/IP. I can't even fathom the chaos of sending e-mails between more than two people.

I do not know how difficult implementing this feature would be, but I'd sure love to take a Romanians + Germans vs. Russians match. (Yes, I know that it's possible now, but you know what I mean.)

With all due respect - again - if punching in twelve digits is too mentally taxing, then you're probably too stupid to play CM. Or own a credit card.