sand digger

Thanks Mr L, will check that.

Successfully downloaded Caffino's grid mods but nothing is happening in the game, the bought version not the demo. Can't get them to work. Done a lot of searching but zero. :confused: Anyone?

Got a forward moving Sherman 'bogged' once. Put it in reverse and it got out. Nice touch, AI.

Well when the game arrives, demo worn out, I'm going to try what the 9th div AIF actually did successfully in NA. Providing there are some carriers available. And if it doesn't work, I'll be back.

Having worn the demo out, I have had to buy the full game. So when it arrives the grid mod will be first priority. Thanks to those who do these mods, particularly Caffino et al.

Going back to the original question, I have read accounts of 2pdr AT guns being used to target motorcycles at long range in 1941, and hitting them with severe results for the motorcycle. So there is no reason why a direct hit on say a gun could not be made knocking it out.

It would be interesting to hear of any mounted SPW 'overrun' attacks in NA 41-42, because that is my preferred sphere of interest and there is always more to learn. However all indications are that in that part of the war anyway the Germans avoided close quarters combat where they could and usually folded quickly where they couldn't.

As recorded in the official history, the Australian 9th Div developed a form of mobile attack using universal carriers during the series of battles known as El Alamein 1 in 1942. Such attacks were made against defensive positions, often those on a low hill or rise. Basically the position was shelled for a short time, smoke was dumped on it and then the carriers loaded with infantry raced directly onto the position, the infantry dismounting and engaging the enemy, with bayonets if required. When properly timed and executed in appropriate circumstances it worked very well.

The Centurion was an excellent infantry support tank and performed that role for many years after WW2. But its engine was powerful enough, and its transmission and suspension capable enough, so that it could be used as a main battle or universal tank, although it was not the fastest MBT around by a fair margin.

What CombinedArms said, hunt is pretty impressive, particularly the smoke pop reaction.

Yeh, agree entirely. The time aspect gets right out of kilter with reality, particularly in attack. </font>

Yeh, agree entirely. The time aspect gets right out of kilter with reality, particularly in attack.

Good on you Cap'n. Just what my visually challenged men need.

May I suggest that you get together the basic material such as maps, OOB's, etc and then ask for assistance in putting the scenarios together? Most of that sort of specific detail is not readily available to private persons and it would help to ensure that the scenarios are historically accurate. I'd like to be involved at some level, I've read a lot of Aussie and related WW2 material, but can't do the tech stuff. So I'm not sure what I could do.

Pity some have to get personal when they don't agree with a POV. To repeat the point, though god knows why it needs repeating, on real ground you can see what other ground in your LOS is higher or lower. And being trained as an artillery spotter inter alia involves the aiding and development of such skills. Now if suggesting that the replication of that skill in the game will lead to something that is other than realistic, then............

JonS, right on the money, re Jock columns.

Had a few more goes at the Line of Defence scenario, attacking with the US, and finally found the secret spot from which you can observe those pesky German AT guns on the left. Now I had scanned that area heaps of times using all camera angles and there was no, no, visual indication of the spot at all. And I had had men all around the spot, within meters of it. Eventually the spot was found in a very gamey way. Just sent a couple of Stuarts through an area where tanks had been fired on previously. One Stuart gets nailed, crew bail out. Crew LOS reaches the two German guns, beautiful, the mortar observer gets sent to keep the crew company............ Now it would be more realistic IMHO if such spots could be located as they are in real life, by observation. Not by sending in your least valuable vehicles as bait.

One of the 'Rommel a good tactician and that is about it' ilk. Actually he did also concentrate his forces to often achieve an overwhelming local superiority, while the British, including Auchinleck, dispersed excessively. Actually Auchinleck was one of the worst for breaking up divisions into Jock columns and other piece meal ad hoc units. Montogomery OTOH recognised the strength of the division, particularly in regard to the artillery force it could bring to bear.

Sorry, but it is very nice to know that others experience the Tiger induced ridiculous response syndrome. It begins with ignored orders and deteriorates from there. But it is kind of endearing, oooh look, theres a Tiger. Now it is going to take him about ten minutes to rotate his turret this way so lets play silly buggers in the meantime. No don't get behind that building, drive right out into the open where he can get a good look at your nice new shiny Sherman...............

Thanks for all your responses and ideas. No doubt with more experience, although I did play CMBO quite a bit, it would be a bit more familiar. But time is a factor, I'd like to spend time actually involved in a gaming experience, not scanning terrain endlessly looking for certain features that an electronic slave can do just as well in a fraction of the time. There is nothing challenging about the process of working out the lie of the land, it is necessary information in order to play realistically and well but the present process is just plain tedious. It looks like the grid mod will help a lot though, the work some of you people have put into mods is amazing.

Because Michael you would look around you as you approached for the highest area facing the direction you wanted and head for it. In the scenario there are open areas and various densities of vegetation which would help, if it was all very tall, dense vegetation then the task would be much more difficult. But the present excellent LOS takes that into account, see the suggestion in the patches topic.

Some of you are taking the point way past what was made. FOW does the surprise thing, but being half blind should not be on the agenda. Unless you are partial to that kind of thing. Good example. On the second (in Italy) demo scenario I was trying to place the US mortar spotter where he could see a certain area. Had him on the right flank up in the hills. Must have moved him to about ten different spots before by chance I got him in the right place. Now that would not happen in real life, particularly with a trained spotter, particularly in such a relatively small area. Visual feedback in real life is much, much more informative than that in the game I hope we would agree. It is in 3D for a start. Which is why you need something more than the various angles of view which don't help much at all I've found, particularly given the inevitable misproportion as to size as rendered by the graphics.

Following on from my complaint about a lack of contour or other visual indicators of land rise and fall, here is something constructive. And before rushing into say that it is excessively unrealistic compared with the real world, in practical use it would be impossible when using this suggestion to have anything near a 100% knowledge of every bump and fold in the terrain. Plus it is simple. Modify the present LOS tool so that you can do a LOS check from any point on the map. Thats it, simple. Retain the excellent 'degrade over distance' feature which will help to make the change far from unrealistic as to the knowledge which may be gathered from using it. And a second suggestion, give recce units an improved ability to spot concealed enemy units.

The shading of marginal LOS areas would be realistic, a black and white distinction would not IMHO. It is not a matter of having 100% vision, it is merely a matter of having a fair idea of what the lay of the land is like in areas you would normally be able to see in a real life situation. It is a bit late when you move to a position and then find upon using the current LOS tool that you're exposed like a shag on a rock. I'm not an avid gamer, more a WW1 and 2 student and particularly NA. So its potentially fun and interesting to play out something that you have a historical knowledge of, particularly at a tactical level. Hence the frustration, specially because the rest of the game is of such a high standard. Guess I'd better do some searching and see what mods are out there.

Why is this otherwise great series of games still lacking suitable means of judging unit exposure to enemy LOS and proposed move LOS? Geez, a couple of old games I had incorporated the means to do this eg contour lines. It is one of the most essential features of any war game, particularly when you are trying to manouver vulnerable tanks. It is also not unrealistic to use such a feature, eg men on the ground can judge distances and heights with some accuracy while usually you can at least sneak a look towards a proposed destination to judge its exposure. Fog of war takes care of the rest as far as realism goes. I've been waiting since Beyond Overlord for this to be fixed, that plus a means to bulk move units forward without having to plot a path for each individual one. Sorry, let me know when this is fixed and I'll start buying again.