John1966

Yes, I can see they'd be alright in long range encounters, ones longer than any they're likely to encounter in northern France.

I recall long ago reading the translation of a German report stating that concluded Stugs were a failure in Normandy. The problems you're having with them are the same problems the Germans were having. The combination of low mounted gun with high berms, limited traverse with short LOS. Normandy ain't exactly the open steppes.

The WWII bits we haven't got yet. Those in the poll plus PTO.

I thought I was being all clever, but it seems I was not the only one to figure out what mission it was based on the description
It was my first CM scenario too.
 

My alarm bells ring at "tiring". Usually stop them unless it's a particularly inappropriate spot at a very inconvenient time.
 

How far away were you when you first started shooting? Firing at heavy buildings at very long range doesn't do much sometimes. It might not even suppress them that much. Like RockinHarry posted, the closer you get, the more likely shots are to penetrate. And how far away was the enemy when they shot up your own guys inside the same building? My guess is that might have been why you had so much trouble approaching the buildings, and then your own guys got wasted instantly the moment you got inside. 
You might have been trying to shoot at them from long range ineffectively, and then once your squad finally made it inside the building, they got hit by counter-fire at very close range. I haven't played that scenario though so I don't know. Maybe I'll have to try it.
In my own experience, the best way to deal with buildings if you don't have heavy weapons or tanks is to just get in close as quickly as you can and shoot them up as much possible with as many men as possible. Use smoke, suppress them as much as you can during the approach or whatever, but you don't really have to storm the building itself. You can even halt in open ground in front of the building as long as you outnumber them heavily and have fire superiority. The idea is that the moment an enemy soldier pops up at the window to take a shot, you have 30 guys or whatever right outside the building that will all instantly return fire. If your guys are all just 50 meters outside the building, the enemy will probably be dead within seconds. The enemy might open up on one of your squads and cause a casualty or two, but you should have two more squads right there next to them that should take them down. Sometimes that alone will be enough to clear a building.

That sounds like the second scenario from Road to Montebourg, but could be a lot of them really.

Here you go. From the Task Force Raff training campaign:
 
1 Training - Roadblock.btt

I agree, that'll be the one.  Nice little introduction...

There are three different versions of that engagement. The demo, the stand alone battle, and the opening mission of the Task Force Raff campaign. All take place on the same map, but have subtle differences. A great way to introduce someone to the game whichever one you play.

Well yes, it is a bit odd, but it is also handy so I've never complained about it.
 

 
Michael

I can really encourage doing something in the editor - a ton of fun. Check out "Proambulator" on Youtube, great video tutorials.
 
How about a fictional encounter on D-Day morning, with all the scattered paratroopers making up small groups that ran into German positions. Can be small but interesting and not entirely implausible.

That was well done! Thanks for the laugh. Now, because of your post, I will send a battalion across an enemy controlled bridge.

Well I was quick enough to copy the message before Ken deleted it - it's not pretty reading I'm afraid.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Pitiful if you ask me.
 
P

I'd have to agree with just about everything that John1966 writes. I'd add a few thoughts though. This isn't a history lesson, and I didn't expect it to be one, especially in light on what I had read here. But it would have been nice if it at least shown a bit more respect for real history. For instance, at the very beginning a legend appeared on the screen that read more or less, "In April 1945 German resistance was hardening and becoming more fanatical." Nope, sorry. Once the Rhine was crossed and the Ruhr pocket had been reduced, resistance in the west pretty much collapsed. In the east it was fanatical to the end, but that was because that was the kind of war that it had been in the East. In the West, except for some pro-forma resistance and some small pockets of more determined fighters, the Germans couldn't wait to surrender. Anything was better than capture by the Soviets. The farther and faster that the Western Allies penetrated the country the better because that was land and people that would not fall under Soviet rule...or so they thought.
 
Okay, so it's a tale, a story, a fiction. How well does it hold up as that? How well does it stack up against other movies, including movies in other genres? I guess I would say that it wasn't really bad...but it wasn't all that great either. Maybe I'd give it five and a half stars out of ten. Maybe. In other words, really mediocre. As John wrote, it is mainly a collection of clichés strung together. It reminds me of nearly every war movie I've ever seen, at least of those made in English-speaking countries. But the thing that really gripes my ass, is that its purpose appears to be to make us sentimental about war while claiming to do the opposite. That's just plain dishonest.
 
Oh, just one more thing and then I'll shut up...for a little while. The battle at the crossroads? Nearly everything about it was wrong, both in sum and in its particulars.
 
Michael

I'm sorry, sly, but seeing Brad Pitt firing a .50 cal without even looking where he's firingt at and blowing the heads of a two-man German LMG... well man, sure you can find a WW2 anecdote where something like that happened.
 
My main problem is that you can't make a "good" WW2 movie where you put together every single one of those unlikely occurrences (allegedly that is what the screenplay writer says about it) and try to keep an straight face. You could also make a "novel" by picking up randomly the least common  English words from the Merriam-Webster dictionary index. Would be a 500 pages novel - featuring every two pages very nice illustrations of tanks - but that the text was made up of sentences like "Alsike yogh futhorc kalian?" - all of them perfectly valid English words - be a good one?
 
Another analogy that might give a better sense of my negtivity. Think of Chevy Chase' National Lampoon 2? or 3? when he takes the family to Europe. I'm pretty sure that, at some point in the past, some American tourist in Europe has experienced one of those out of context problems. Now, you collect all of them together by brainstorming friends and family and you make one cracker of a comedy. But, make in the movie feature some real WW2 tanks, some war crimes and some dead civilians, and presto! you got a VERY SERIOUS war film. Or at least, that was the way it was marketed: with those stories of **** LaBeouf not having a shower for a month to get "under the skin" of US WW2 tankers.
 
If Fury works for you, all the power to you. My personal take is that this is an overrated film, which will be probably remembered by Brad Pitt playing very much the same character as in Inglorious Basterds but without the irony. 
 
EDIT - removed the hyperbole.

I'm with you John - the redux version loses some of the aura surrounding several key characters. Much prefer the cinema version.
 
P

Am I the only one who thinks the Tank Commander of the first Sherman crew to bail bears a resemblance to Brad Pitt?
 
Then again, The Real Brad would "go down with the ship".

Naw, they are watching you and aiming

I'll be in the theatre next door, watching The Penguins of Madagascar in 3D.

it is called subliminal advertising, BF is still working on the subtlety aspect of it. 

No. He meant that there will be exactly two Jagdtigers in the game. Once they are destroyed they will no longer be available in future scenarios and QBs, so treat them well.