John1966

They chuck grenades through bocage all the time. I've lost a lot of infantry by going up to bocage I thought I'd cleared only to have that sole indestructible survivor lob a grenade.

Is that definitely 100% correct? In the example from last night I described, one grenade was definitely dispatched from a building. Thinking about it, I assumed the reason they were reluctant from inside the building was the shortage of windows. There was only one window next to the tank so really only one guy was in a position to throw a grenade at it. But he did. Although, I would definitely agree successful close assaults need to be done from outside. They're remarkably effective too. Perhaps too effective. I definitely don't recommend the fabled "AFV overrun" in CM. Excellent short cut to losing a tank.

I like assaulting tanks and do it a lot. But I have no idea what the answer to this is. Yesterday I had three grenade armed infantry teams in a building with a tank practically touching it. Despite all having direct fire orders on the tank, only one was thrown. So the next turn I moved them out of the building with a move order right on top of the tank. That seemed to motivate them. Two grenades thrown (by the same guy) and one was a bigger bang (bundle?). Tank destroyed. I have no idea what was going on under the hood and I've still no idea how you get them to do it. Sometimes they chuck grenades with gay abandon. Sometimes they don't. My only observation is that they tend to be more motivated when they're outside.

Yeah, I just played a scenario where my British paratroopers were trying to get a King Tiger that just wouldn't stay still. Ended up with about 30+ of them literally chasing it round the corner and down the street several blocks. It was like a deadly version of Benny Hill.

If you can get close to a tank (direct them as if they were boarding it), you'd be surprised how easily they can nail a tank. To be honest, it might be too easy.

Well, yes. I didn't say the TacAI actually worked in that respect. Just that it should and the player shouldn't be needing to be issue orders telling them what to do. Anti-tank gunner has halftrack and Panther in sights: "Someone radio HQ to tell me which to fire at."

Exactly. Although if you're sat behind a dirty great AT gun you might as well use that. Rude not to. The point is that a soldier's biggest threat isn't always going to be the biggest enemy asset they can see. Depends where it is and what it's doing. The player might want them to go after the bigger asset (especially if they've got a reasonable chance of taking out) because it's the best option for the battle, but they're going to do the thing that keeps them alive longest.

Quite. It's not that common to have multiple targets but, when the situation arises, it shouldn't be down to the player to start issuing orders on who to attack. The TacAI should cover that. IRL you'd expect a gunner to target their biggest threat. But that won't always be the Panther at 600m if there's a halftrack at 20m and it's firing at you.

That is interesting. I wonder what it tells us. It was the experienced German divisional commanders who were most likely to ignore Hitler's commands not to withdraw. They'd withdraw and counterattack, usually with more successful results than if they'd done as they were told. I suppose experienced troops need less orders as they know what they're doing.

I'd agree with that most of the time. One thing to hold your fire until they're within a certain range but entirely another to ignore a target because there might be a better one. I'd have thought that in the heat of battle most people would just fire on anything they identified as being the enemy. Everything happens fast and you wouldn't have the thinking time to make tactical decisions like who is best to shoot at. Just get them before they get you. Identifying whether someone is carrying an MG42 or a rifle wouldn't be a priority. And I say "most of the time" as there would be exceptions. Snipers picking out officers etc.

Actually can someone clarify armour arcs for me? If you set one, will they ignore infantry outside it?

I tend to think that's gamey but I certainly do it. I've charged tanks with infantry to provide them with a "target rich environment" so that they're occupied when my tank makes its move into LOS. Usually works but I feel dirty.

Well possibly not (I've actually no idea). But many slit trenches and foxholes were dug in gardens. So it's not a totally unreasonable place to find one. I just thought it'd be nice to add a picture. Gardens are definitely the default locations for mortars in a few MG scenarios. (Often gardens with those high wall I don't think Dutch gardens have)

Seems reasonable. Just surprised that scenario designers had put put them in default positions that were actually bad places to put mortars. I could of course move them in the set-up but it's interesting that from what I've read about Market Garden (and photographs I've seen), the gardens of Dutch houses were actually where they got placed. We've all seen this fella. Maybe CM doesn't lend itself to close quarters quite so well. That's disappointing as indirect fire would seem their primary purpose. Certainly in the context of MG where they were pretty much the main non-mortar artillery support that was available. Their presence was also mis-sold in the briefing. Got the distinct impression that was what they (and the two FOs) were there for.

I'm getting a bit confused with some of this, probably as I've been doing a fair few Market Garden scenarios of late (and those paras rely on more on-map arty). 1) Wasn't going to bother asking about this but (since I'm here), I seem to get a lot of times when mortars simply won't fire when FOs have called them in. Mission looks OK, two green lines, and it gets as far as "spotting". But the mortars never fire. It just stays like that. As it's MG, sometimes those mortars are in Dutch gardens and I wondered if that's the problem. Maybe they're too close to the houses and can't get the angle. I've had some success in moving the mortars to alleviate the problem. But that's not always an option in the machine gun-raked street of Arnhem. 2) Now this is the real puzzler. Playing with some pack howitzers last night and when they start firing, they don't seem to be doing indirect fire as I understand it. It seems to be some low angled thing that's closer to direct fire. Most of it is hitting intervening trees and buildings and in one case the only rounds getting through were to a spot that they actually had a LOF to. They could have done that without a FO. I think that might be the first time I've used on-map arty fire missions that weren't just mortars. Am I doing something wrong? It occurred to me they were too close but the low angles they were firing out didn't suggest that and you'd assume I'd not be able to set up the fire mission. Is there an art to these?

That's annoying. The 65% off didn't last 24 hours as advertised. Only 10% off. I may need to wait.

Sounds like I was going slower than you as it was occupied by seven Shermans plus infantry when I got there... ... or more likely your human opponent played it very differently to the AI plan (that I was playing against). Never got to the far end of the slope as the Polish surrender made it redundant but I think I just about about had enough time left.

Not a shame at all. He's a fine young man. Very clever and can an do things we can't even imagine. But that doesn't include listening to his dad's interminable CM anecdotes. I think I got a total victory. The Poles surrendered. All the Panthers and the Stug III survived. I did lose the Panzer IV on the hill though. It didn't stand a chance under the circumstances. But (as ever) it annoyed me that the Shermans who were moving spotted the stationary Panzer IV first. And the time my ATG crew couldn't see the Stug III and King Tiger 30m in front of them that could see them. And the sniper who couldn't see the Tiger that spotted him. And innumerable times tanks feet away were invisible etc, etc. <insert favourite outrageous LOS inconsistency you've ever seen>

He's autistic and tried to be interested. Wandered off before I got to the end. I can think of two very good reasons why she won't believe that (and neither reason involves the Polish). Interestingly enough, The Mace is German vs Polish. Well, interesting to us anyway.

Ooooh! I like the look of that! Always wanted a game like that. Have you played it? What do you think? Dirt cheap for next 24 hours. Might have to take the plunge...

Enjoyed it but a little strange in some ways. *SPOILERS* I played it as the Germans and, for an hour, it felt like I was playing two different games on the same map. The guys taking the hill and the ones doing the stuff down the bottom. Working totally separately. Then the Polish armour turns up on the hill and you realise you have to get your Panthers up there to deal with them. I was still trying to work out how to engage the Shermans on the Knoll at the time. Of course, it's impossible to generate a distanced engagement with them (which is what you want when your Panthers are outnumbered) so you've got to do it the hard way and break cover at close range together and hope for the best (because you'll be needing most of the Panthers on the hill). As it happened I got lucky and nailed all seven Knoll Shermans without losing a Panther. But the main reason I mention this is the length of the engagement. Desperate to tell someone and it turns out my son is not interested (and I didn't bother telling my wife). In a two hour game, the first armoured engagement from first to last shot was 15 seconds! Seven Shermans left smoking after 15 seconds. I had to rewind it several times it was so exciting to watch. (I think there were eight Shermans in the scrap on the hill and that engagement lasted three or four minutes with a Panzerschrek team getting two) Thank you for listening.

I just played that. Why is it called The Mace? A search brought me here...

Yes, just spotted the "out of range". I didn't realise off-map artillery actually had a range, seeing as we don't actually know where it is.

Right, I'm totally confused. First time I've noticed this and apologies if everyone else already knew. I've got an FO/HQ trying to call in OFF MAP artillery. I assumed that if they have a LOS, they have a LOS. They had visual contact with the target. But no "strike cursor" when they try calling in the arty (just the red "no LOS" circle). Fair enough. I assumed it was a quirky thing where they can only see the top of it or something. But they couldn't call in the arty anywhere near it. Frustrating. But after playing around with it about for a bit I discovered they had the strike cursor with some OFF MAP artillery but not other OFF MAP artillery. I thought it wouldn't make a difference. Why would it make a difference? For example, apparently no LOS if they tried the calling in the 81mm battery. But the same FO/HQ in the same spot could call in the 120mm battery. (Which means that ATG is getting more HE dropped on it than I wanted). Why?

They get killed faster if they keep coming. Apart from the fact that they're closing the range if they don't rout, they get a few minutes out of contact in they do. Seriously, two crack sides is a recipe for an unrealistically high casualty game. Broken pixeltruppen are primarily concerned with self-preservation. Crack troops just want to take the objective. And if your boys are all broken then you're unlikely to ever get near the objectives if they're defended by unbroken troops anyway. Broken troops have their uses, all out assaults are not really one of them. I had a long break from CM after playing Bloody Omaha. Because it was a three-hour game and having broken the German MLR after an hour, it then became a very tedious process to take the rear areas with mainly broken troops who were low on ammo. Never did take them all.