sand digger

Anyone with high scouting skills is best, for some strange reason engineers don't have an advantage in clearing mines. Not sure what they are good at.

What is such a shame is that this game's visuals are brilliant and totally immersive, its not eye candy, its real. Or so it seems. This sort of game is so hard to get near right though, good enough so that you will keep coming back to it. Unfortunately here with the obvious gun emplacement positions and an inflexible defensive arrangement that has not happened for me. 1C, you came so close

Hmmm, you don't have to do anyhing fancy like you describe to take out AT guns, just use artillery to pound every gun emplacement. Game problem is all these emplacements are visible when they should not be so attcking gets to be a very methodical and eventually boring exercise.

Its impossible to follow everything that happened plus the comments but I'd hope that any snipers would play a relatively minor role in the outcome and that the bombardment effect on morale would be less than predictable. If troops that were bombarded are always reduced in effectiveness for the rest of the game then that would suck, as well as being completely unrealistic. I can't recall the influence of leadership here, if any, but realistically at the platoon and squad level it it can be crucial, particularly immediately after a bombardment and when attacking where the unit is taking casualties. The other thing was the surrender bit. Attackers don't usually surrender, they may go to ground or run away but they usually don't surrender. Defenders may surrender, particularly when attackers get close where they usually start to gain an advantage. So basically attackers may go to ground or withdraw while defenders may withdraw or surrender. While the infantry aspect seems a lot better than in CMx1 I'm yet to be convinced that its good enough to spend my time on.

"This is a direct consequence of my own 75mm artillery falling short – this squad’s morale has been so shaken by that event that they’re no longer capable of attacking. Suppression of units goes up and down according to the amount of fire they’re receiving, but lowered morale is fixed for the duration of the scenario, leaving this squad – and the majority of my force by this stage – for defence-only." That all sounds a bit artificial to me, particularly the 'Suppression of units goes up and down according to the amount of fire they’re receiving' bit. Perhaps there is a bit of a misunderstanding but we are talking about complex situations involving humans, its just not anywhere near as simple as it sounds like in that quote. But this is what testing is all about, finding out the game's weaknesses.

There is that but what happens on a battlefield is not always number or statistic related, thats what I was getting at. Also the leadership issue, particularly for green troops this seemed often to be crucial as to their performance, particularly in adversity. I'm just hoping the game reflects all this and does not eg say, you have lost half your men therefore your performance has been downgraded to X. Which seems to be what you are saying.

Thanks for the explanation Elvis, providing there is some randomness in all this then it may be that your particular spooked troops are just an example of that? In other words, some troops will tough it out and some won't for no apparent reason. Although junior officer and NCO leadership often seems to be relevant as to performance under fire.

Your men constantly going to ground Elvis, are they doing this to gain cover or simply because they are green or what? As you know, going to ground is an instictive thing to do but without gaining cover its usually better to keep advancing, particualrly towards cover or to get into a position to attack the enemy. Could you explain and comment on whether you think their behaviour is approptiate to the circumstances. I have bad memories of CMx1 where constantly going to ground meant it was usually impossible to mount an attack unless everything was in favour of the attacker.

Yes I saw that, nothing beats the feel of the game which only the players can experience though no matter how well reported. Besides, we have to keep those involved in game development on their toes

Yes I have Jon S, something I missed?

So, how would this soldier have fared at BF's version of Normandy? http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/national/digger-who-took-out-taliban-machine-gun-nests-to-receive-the-victoria-cross/story-e6frf7l6-1225991961201 Cliffs: SAS soldier charges multiple machine gun nests, routs Taliban single handedly.

Playing the CM:SF demo sounds like a good idea, I do agree with joe that the sort of LOS tool he describes would be good but knowing BF you would expect something that works reasonably well anyway.

How about a floating preview somewhere around Brisbane?

Yes, but was there good reason for them to believe that hmmmm? Or are you bound by the BF Secrets Act to say nothing

That's a but no effect, apparently.

There is a bit about it in Antony Beevor's D-DAY, the battle for Normandy, he mentions an incident where one underneath and one on top resulted in a brew up. I hope there is some recognition in the game of infantry being able to disable tanks, cause retreats or abandonments. Obviously it did not happen very often but its the occasional factually possible incident in a game which helps make it unpredictable and therefore aids realism. Nothing kills a game more than predictability. And infantry going to ground all the time as is happening in the feature AAR saga

Another Allied infantry weapon that was used successfully at close range against German tanks was the white phosphorous grenade, it could brew them up. Obviously not used very often but it would be nice to know that occasionally ordinary infantry could disable a tank at close range in CMx2. Of course with the phosphorous grenade we would want to see the accompanying fiery spectacle

There was the British Gammon AT grenade which I believe the US used sometimes.

What makes me optimistic is that the infantry problems have been recognised and the effort to fix them has been, apparently, put in. On this infantry tank support all arms thing, I just hope that the success or failure of infantry is not irrevocably tied to it having tank support. It goes without saying that all things being equal infantry benefits from having tank support but in the real world that support was not always available for many reasons. Yet infantry was still able to get the job done and advance under fire, like they did in WW1.

Playing the TOW2 demo does not qualify for the full experience and anyone who dismisses it as a 'clickfest' was playing a different game to me. I have already mentioned it's serious big picture shortcomings but then I don't get hung up on relatively minor detail that may be inaccurate, basically it plays OK within its limitations. Which is a whole lot more than many games can truthfully claim.

Some amusing comments on how great the infantry is/was in CMx1, it was rubbish. I forget how many times that infantry in attack fell to the ground and wriggled around until they were eventually killed. That was it, if the going was too tough thats what they always did, no exceptions. But the thing that sticks in my mind was the use/misuse by the British of the Bren LMG, it could not be fired unless the user was prone on the ground! No 'marching fire' with WW2's ultimate assault weapon no matter how many times it had been used for that purpose in real warfare!!!!! So I am not a CMx1 fanboi but it was relatively good perhaps because it had bugger all competition. So the infantry aspect is interesting, I see in the featured AAR that there is some US infantry surrendering when perhaps fight and flight may be more appropriate? Its obvious to say that in similar situations infantry may react in different sometimes inexplicable ways, hope that this is what CMx2 incorporates.

TOW is in some ways a great game but there are a couple of aspects that spoilt it for me. Firstly, all the defensive works (trenches etc) were fixed, if you were defending they were the only defences available. To make it worse they were often poorly located. Secondly, if you decided to move some of your defending forces to alternative locations or use a mobile defence the game could not be finished, the attacking AI would simply stop the action. So defensively its very scripted, play by numbers. After you work it out the challenge is lost and it all becomes a bit pointless. But some aspects of it are great. The detail is amazing, the comprehensive graphics add to the spectacle, it has a very realistic look and feel and the help is very good.

Exciting to know that there has been a lot of attention given to the infantry, that was the one aspect of CMAK etc that used to drive me crazy, not being able to successfully use recognised tactics particularly when attacking. I hate having to play a game in accordance with its mechanics irrespective of their realism. Which reminds me, is bayonet use recognised? Not only for its physical effect but also for its shock value?

More please, reminds me of the huge potential of this game spoilt by scripting and inflexible defences. The movement detail is just marvellous, sigh.

What do your think of your infantry losses? You seemed to have played well enough but your losses seem excessive considering what has been involved, I just hope that the game plays realistically in that regard and does not create blood fests. What happens with the crews of disabled tanks, are they available to join in the fight? Keep up the good reporting, useful and enjoyable.