Because it ain't realistic. In real life, the building would probably create a pile of rubble high enough to still prevent LOS, or at very least create a smoke/dust cloud that'd definitely last more than several measly minutes.
Ditto. I've never seen field gun receive a "hit", but if you manage to land a HE shell in the vicinity of it with a 75mm or heavier, the gun's usually a goner.
Maybe I should add that the troops need to be "pounded" first: otherwise a situation where the troops would surrender simply leads to a heap of casualties and a few survivors fleeing. Blocking escape routes is a good tactic.
Risk of extreme casualties (flamethrowers, MG fire in the open) and hopeless odds (being sent to assault a tank front-first without any AT weaponry) seem to encourage surrendering.
There's just one thing that I find gamey, and it's destroying buildings to gain LOS.
I hardly think this is the way it happened in real life: "Hmm, this field gun is hard to maneuver, and our troops need heavy support just a couple of blocks ahead of us. So maybe we'll just demolish the buildings in front of us to get a clear view!".
No, the command "star" bonus does not increase the ROF of field guns either (tried it with ZIS 76,2mm guns), nor does it reduce the firing delay when calling artillery missions.
Sadly, I cannot confirm your claim - I did a quick field test with two regular M43 76.2mm inf guns: both fired an equal amount of rounds (7) per turn, even though the other crew was under the influence of an HQ team's +2 combat bonus.
Infatry squads and machine guns are obvious, but what about other assets that can be placed under the HQ team's command, like mortars or field guns?
An accuracy bonus, perhaps?
[ March 23, 2003, 05:43 PM: Message edited by: Bone_Vulture ]