noob

The cherry on the "Titanium play mode" cake would of course be a ground level unit camera lock, thus bringing high ground and multi storey buildings more into play, and adding a new level of immersion to the combat, and a new level of tension to scouting with vehicles.

I would like to see an option to disable the LOS function of waypoints. This would add a level of realism, and reduce the workload of the orders phase, thus speeding up PBEM games in general.

Or, aggressively rush into a weak spot in the enemy line, catching them by surprise, and getting all your men kills

I think it's safe to say that Hunt, along with Move and Slow, are passive orders, and Quick, Fast and Assault, are aggressive orders. So if the move you want to make is aggressive, don't use Hunt.

I concur.

That makes sense, the cover arcs for all my tanks were overlapping, so they were all primed to react to any one of their groups contacts. I'm just going to use "Fast" in those situations in future. Thanks for all the replies.

Yes, the arcs have a 300m radius, well beyond the enemy locations. All the tanks stopped immediately the first one was hit, even though they had no LOS on the enemy tanks.

In a game I am playing, I rushed two PzIV's in cover in a ditch with five Shermans across open terrain. All had a "hunt" order, and a cover armour arc. So, I assumed that when each of my tanks made visual contact, or was fired upon, they would stop and engage, no problem. However, that didn't happen, when the lead tank got a sighting, and a hit, the rest just stopped outside the LOS of the enemy. So now I have to change their order to "move fast" to get them to engage, and have now lost the element of surprise. So I checked the manual regarding "hunt". Vehicles - orders vehicles

I was being silly

It would be nice if some clever person could come up with a handicap system that would factor in all the advantages / disadvantages of each side in a given scenario, then cross reference those parameters with the actual result, to come up with a new result. That way, one could "lose" a scenario, but still win if the "loss" wasn't as bad as it should of been. For example, I played a scenario that was so Pro Allies that one was left with the feeling that it was impossible for the Axis to win, yet it was classed as a H2H game. So one could have argued that if the Allies did not ach

There's an English superstition that goes all the way back to medieval times, that binoculars brought bad luck. It still persists today.

Thanks Ian. I changed the parameters of the map in the scenario editor from Axis Attack, to Axis Assault, and now I see it in the QB map menu.

I have just set up a QB using a modified scenario map. I placed the map in the QB map folder, set the QB parameters to Assault, but could not find the map in the QB map list. When I set the parameters to Attack, I could.

Do you really want to know