noob

I thought of doing some slower movement orders at corners myself so i did some more tests with the overunning vehicle, it was a jeep by the way, and i found that using the quick command instead of fast at corners and turns solved that problem. As for the pauses, i used them originally to no effect so i did some more testing and the problem is repeatable, just load the scenario Huzzar as a single player turn based game and choose the US side, then without moving any units plot fast movement orders down the paved road to the town for the two Greyhounds and the Jeep belonging to the left hand group, give the second Greyhound a 5 second pause and the Jeep a 15 second pause and then watch the results, everytime i run it the second Greyhound and the Jeep run off the road and then follow the first by driving alongside the road in the verge only to move back onto the road near the first corner.

Well given that the situation was at the start of the game and the units were under no pressure from enemy fire i think its quite bad and definately needs fixing, however i am going to test to see if its anything to do with the spacing between the vehicles.

I started my first game with the new patch the other day and my first task was to move vehicles in column down two paved roads and as i never allow vehicles to turn at right angles i plotted some extra way points for a gentler turning curve. I was very dissapointed to see two vehicles drive off the road and proceed along the side of the road in the verge which allowed units behind who were still on the road to catch up and overtake them which messed with the order the vehicles were supposed to travel in. Another vehicle overan its waypoint at a corner and drove through a hedge which damaged its wheels and given its mission was one requiring speed the error stung even more. When i came to do my orders one vehicle that was just approaching a gentle corner had lost one of its waypoints and was now drawing a straight waypoint line from the vehicle to a further point down the road thus cutting the corner into a hedge, fortunately i had the chance to rectify this. Given i wasn't trying anything fancy and all my vehicles had pauses to stop pile ups i would of thought the instructions given would of been carried out properly, but if there is so much unpredictability about simply driving along paved roads then any missions that rely on speed will be seriously compromised. I would be interested to hear from anyone that has experienced something similar.

I noticed when i was in the QB purchasing lobby that it was possible to change the experience, motivation, fitness and leadership of units but not their supply status. Adding a supply level modifier will allow players to utilise operational supply effects if they are using the QB function in paper campaign games.

I would say one good option for squads would be to keep concealed if tanks are prowling around outside efective bazooka range but i agree with your position about observing how the fixes work in proper game conditions and not in the lab so i will reserve judgement until i start new games using the patch.

If the tanks had taken longer to spot the firing units allowing them the chance to relocate the next turn that would of been an improvement, but maybe thats one of the penalties of playing WEGO over real time and as Steve has said it would be more informative to see how the fixes perform in a proper game rather than laboratory conditions

Good point, i should of mentioned in my original post that the newly buttoned tanks located the firing units quickly enough to allow them to administer a lethal dose of HE before the turn ran out

I see your point, i never play the AI so i overlooked that potential situation, the only compromise that i can think of would be to reduce the range that infantry squads will engage unbuttoned tank crewmen to a 100 meters or less or whatever range gives the rifleman a reasonable chance of a kill.

If your comment is aimed at me i can assure you i have run this test ad nauseum and always see the infantry squads alert the tanks by taking unnecessary shots at the exposed crewmen with predictable results, if it was just the sniper in the team that took a shot with the aim of killing or buttoning up the tank i could understand that because i doubt the whole squads location would be exposed by a single shot or two, but three or four Garands firing away just seems like a suicidal tactic for no substantial reward given the whole squad becomes compromised by the act.

My problem isn't with the length of time the infantry squad fires "after" the tank crewman has buttoned up, it's with the with infantry squad firing at the unbuttoned tank crewman at all without a direct order from the player, its such a low percentage play with huge risks that are far out of proportion to any expected reward.

I have just finished testing the "infantry firing at tanks" problem to see if the patch has fixed it and it hasn't In the patch description the chances of infantry firing at tanks was meant to be reduced but it's the same as it used to be far as i can see. I set up three US Infantry squads on a flat map , one behind a wall, one behind a hedge and one behind low bocage, i split off the AT elements and hid them with tiny cover arcs to stop them firing at the tanks. I then placed three Pz 4s at various distances from the US infantry, one tank 150 mtrs, one tank 175 mtrs and one tank 200 mtrs with the all the commanders unbuttoned. As soon as i ran it the infantry started to fire small arms ineffectually at all the tank commanders, then continued firing small arms ineffectually at all the tanks once the commanders had buttoned up. I think that rather than "reducing" the chances of this happening, infantry should not fire small arms at unbuttoned tank crews or buttoned tanks at all unless ordered to by the player as within the mechanics of the game its pointless and just exposes the infantry to long range HE fire for little or no reward, and i would be quite happy to miss out on the chance to kill a tank crew member if i knew i could successfully conceal my infantry from tanks. I think this should also be applied to AT guns as well to make it so they only fire at infantry when ordered to by the player, that would go a long way to rectifying the absence of an armored only target arc, it wouldn't be perfect but i think its better to err on the side of missing out on some infantry kills than having AT guns expose themselves prematurely by firing at infantry when it isn't desired.

This model is a work of art, its like a real tank shrunk to scale, totally awesome build, could you post more pictures of this and any other models you have made ? The last time i ever saw modeling at this level was a programme i watched about Japanese modelers.

If you know the answer why ask the question ? (I actually know the answer to my own question so i shouldn't be asking it but i will anyway)

Ali you are correct, i just did some testing and it takes about 1 min 30 secs for the MG to start firing after it has come to rest if it has moved into the firing position, but i noticed another thing with the blue LOS line. I set up 5 MG teams to move fast to the top floor of five multi story buildings and 3 teams started firing after a minute and a half whereas 2 looked like they were firing but no muzzle flashes appeared so i shifted the target line to another target and all weapons started firing with muzzle flashes. When i checked the LOS of the teams that werent firing they were very tenuous, i could only get their LOS line to turn blue in one spot, so i think that in some situations a blue line isnt really a blue line if it only stays blue on one spot, therefore the firing unit will ignore it or will raise their rifles looking like they are firing without the muzzle flashes even though technically they should be firing, so now i think its like a glitch rather than a bug, my advice iwould now be dont try and fire an MG42 at a target you can only get one spot to show blue with the LOS tool.

Not true, i am aware of the time it takes for the weapon to be set up, its in the unit info box, but i had a team in a building with a fire command and a blue LOS for two full turns and the MG was silent while the rifles fired quite happily and there was no semi or not deployed message in the info box either. Its the non conformity to the facing order thats bugging me the most though.

Here are some screenshots of the problem im having, the MG 42 in the MG 42 team is not conforming to the ordered facing. Also in the picture where the team has a red targeting line only the riflemen fired eventhough there was a blue LOS line when checked, this happened to another team in a one storey building, blue LOS line but only the rifles fire even when the MG 42 has the correct facing. Has anyone else had this problem, if it is prevalent it shoud be fixed as you should be able to put units in a building and have them conform to the correct facing otherwise why have a facing function via the face order or target arc position.

No matter which way you look at it a paper campaign cannot automatically workout a units operational LOS, how far a unit can move, if its in or out of supply and hidden movement so they will always be inferior to operational PC games when it comes to time taken to process operational moves and calculate status. I did and the manual to one of the GMT Eastern Front games had about ten times more text than my system so unless the other games you mention have considerably less text to wade through i still claim to have a simpler system. I am doing an opertion and it is successful at the moment, and when its over i will write it up so peope can see how it worked in practice, plus there will be feedback from the participants of which there are fourteen.

Complexity is relative, compared to other paper operation systems ive seen this is much simpler, im running an operation using this sytem in a game with 7 players per side and it took 10 days from getting the team members together to the first round of CM battles. Once the players are familiar with the unit identification system its then just a matter of them drawing arrows on hex maps using a basic paint package and the umpire providing screenshots of the LOS from whatever positions the players request and the reachable hexes for each players units, and even the reachable hex screenshots could be dispensed with if the players trust the umpire to move their units correctly as long as they give a final destination position. Which cardboard game did you have in mind ?

Below is a link to the latest version of my system showing any prospective umpires how to create and run an operation by combining Combat Mission with the game series John Tillers Panzer Campaigns. John Tillers Panzer Campaigns covers most theatres of WW2 and therefore can be used with any current WW2 version of Combat Mission.

Below is a link to the latest version of my system showing any prospective umpires how to create and run an operation by combining Combat Mission with the game series John Tillers Panzer Campaigns. John Tillers Panzer Campaigns covers most theatres of WW2 and therefore can be used with any current WW2 version of Combat Mission.

Below is a link to the latest version of my system showing any prospective umpires how to create and run an operation by combining Combat Mission with the game series John Tillers Panzer Campaigns. John Tillers Panzer Campaigns covers most theatres of WW2 and therefore can be used with any current WW2 version of Combat Mission.

Below is a link to the latest version of my system showing any prospective umpires how to create and run an operation by combining Combat Mission with the game series John Tillers Panzer Campaigns. John Tillers Panzer Campaigns games cover most theatres of WW2 and therefore can be used with any current WW2 version of Combat Mission.

Given that all one can know about whether a player cares or not about winning a game is discerned by the dialogue between the opponents during and after a battle all i can say is that when i play guys in this category we make gentlemens agreements about what is and isn't allowable, thus the caring about how the games are won or lost, but then if i am kcicking their arses they laugh about it in their email responses where as i maintain a stony silence if im the one being having my arse kicked, and then in their AAR discussions they just seem to brush off what has happened to them whereas i, being a do do, have to openly analyse every mistake i made in the battle as a form of catharsis, so unless the dont do opponents i play are lying i have to assume they dont care as long as the battle was played according to the previously agreed methods.

No, artillery is a real beast in this version of CM, especially the morale effect it has on troops, so if i was going to play a game where me and my opponent could buy our own forces i would establish a limit on artillery along with a ban on setting artillery to strike on the first turn, this removes the temptation for me and my opponent to hit probable set up zones at the start, which could finish the game before it got going.

Thats an interesting thought, in retrospect i do something similar but rather than go to the darkside of the do donts or the dont donts i gravitate towards the dont do if it looks like im going to lose, so i've either got some sort of personality disorder or its a neurological safety mechanism that protects me from chewing my legs off with frustration at losing