GS_Guderian

It could be ok, if setup BEFORE the 1st turn. Sadly you have to do it once the game starts, on some maps you are able to see the enemy by then. Then it has a foul flavour, yes.

Ok, maybe my answer was to short. Among those Geo-specialists are Geographers as well as Geologists. The Geologists provide data about available drining water, building material, evaluate if digging is possible (before an engineer tries it out ) and if the terrain will be passable by vehicles.

The German Army still fields those specialists: The "Amt für Geoinformationswesen der Bundeswehr" is responsible for weather forcasts as well as supplying the armed forces with all kinds of maps, satelite photos etc. Actually that is quiet understandable I think.

Guys, nobody ever questioned the imortance of high ground. Nobody ever questioned the better performance from high grounds vs. lower grounds. BUT the author of the threat asked IF Combat Mission models an efficiency difference for two platoons of Inf shooting at each other, one from above, one from below. For this setup he asked to have ALL other circumstances equal, thus no weapon differences, no number adavantages, no moral or experience bonus. AND he wrote that LOS (Line-of-Sight) should be equal, therefore those things should be neglected in the answers. Now it is nice to know and surely true, that it is harder to attack uphill, than downhill, but that wasn´t asked. It is also true, that you can see more from above and thus negate any cover since the view angle changed. But this concerns LOS, and is not the answer. Code 13 has the idea that shooting down is easier than shooting upwards. I don´t know where he derrives that from, but I never experinced that. At least not with modern assault Rifles. It makes no difference. Unless you are talking about shooting streight up or streight down, it´s all rather the same. I don´t know, why my shots are more likely to strike upper body parts, when I am elevated either. I have a chance to strike any part I see. Since LOS was asked to be equal, this can´t be a solution. Both platoons are seeing the same. If not, your platoons do not fit in the question. Personally I said that I think this question is rather awkward from the first post, since the only big difference that comes with elevated Infantry positions is concerning LOS. And I think it´s funny to exclude it in the performance question.

I´ll try. Being exposed because of the better view angle top-down, no? Again, that is a LOS advantage! I know what you guys mean, but I since the Artist asked vey precisly to NOT inlcude LOS in the efficiency comparision I won´t use any advantages that derrive from the vision advantage. Tanks "may" have advantages other then LOS derrived ones, when sitting on top of a hill. Like Yankee and me described. For Infantry I can´t see any. PS: The Handgrenade range is a good point, but CM propably doesn´t model a difference in this case.

Cover blocks LOS. LOS wasn´t questioned, or rather excluded. I don´t think that is what he asked for. Again, height might help in medieval battles when you roll bolders downhill or throw stones down a wall, rather then up. But a K98 bullet won´t do more harm just because it was fired from an elevated postition.

Why would there be a difference other then LOS? Of course a steep hill could provide for enough height difference to hit the top of a tank, rather then it´s front/side, which in most cases will be better. (As long as your tank can actually aim enough into negative ° with it´s cannon, could be hard with turretless vehicles) But a soldier won´t shoot "better" just because he sits higher. He will propably have a better result because he SEES more, and thus is aple to bring some good shots on the enemy.

Of course you could order that guy to lead. Question is, does an Artillery Officer lead your Infantry anymore efficient then the Panzergrenadier Coporal?

Germany used to have Handflammpatronen in service, unil 5-10 years ago. Small tube filled with phosphor. You fire it and it spreads small dashes of fire up to 90m or so. Maybe neat to fire over a trench or to "blind" tanks. Spreads out after 50m with about 15m width. Anyway, not in our arsenal anymore. for more info: http://members.fortunecity.com/sni_tb/flecktarn-infwaffen011.htm

Never said anything else, then those guys sticking together. They won´t stay alone, if they see friendlies. That´s all.

So you actually think that soldiers rather stay alone and do not pair up, as soon as another guy struggles through the fire? I am not talking about Jimmy doing a full scale search and rescue action. I am talking about a look right and a look left. The guys inside a company and especially inside a platoon know each other. They won´t debate about the issue, that it is better to stay together until they made it out of trouble.

Actually it´s even easier in hectic. You scattered men will simply follow the neighboring seargent anyway. (Suming he is from the same platoon/Company and known)

This is a eligible question, but I´d like to remind you, that we tend to think to much in game terms here. Just because some soldier is a "lieutenant" doesn´t mean he is actually good at leading a platoon of infantry. Best example might be the section leader of infantry guns. His job is to lead those guns, and he is trained for that task. Just because his guns are seperated and under command of some company HQ´s to benefit from their extra values, doesn´t mean that he is free do to something else. The game implies that, but in reality he is still in charge of those IGs. And he won´t do a counterattack with totaly foreign Panzergrenadiers about 2.000 meters away. Same goes for Company HQs. Since the game works with "borg-spotting" you don´t need those HQs in their natural role as a filter for info and orders. Each sighting reaches you in the instant it is made. No official channel needed, no soldier-group leader-platoon leader-company leader chain. And no communication between Btl. and company either. But that is a game flaw, that allows you to use Captain miller as a front line hero, while as in reality he would be sitting in the rear of his platoons, coordinating the action. Of course sometimes HQs did fight, especially to encounter the breaching of forward lines, but their job is to lead the platoon leaders and heavy weapons, not to lead a platoon by them selves. Imho the game makes it very easy as it is, and even though it might be inconsistent with other games features to not allow all kinds of regrouping, I still wouldn´t like to see a change here. I love the fact that the game recognises leaders at all, and I don´t want to perforate the hierarchy even more.

To be honest, this doesn´t take more then 3 minutes in reality. Platoon leader: Hey Jones, where is your group leader? Privat Jones: He is dead, only me and Jenkins survived. Platoon leader: Dam! Ok, SMITH!!! SMITH!!!! Corporal Smith: Ay! Platoon leader: You take care of Jones and Jenkins now, let´s move we need to get outta here! .... that´s it. Can be done even on the run. But I guess in game terms it is rather hard to be represented.

Never questioned it is. I even said I do the same. But 2-3 planes in one turn are still enough circumvent this setup, and sometimes new planes appear before the turn ended. Thus you had no time to re-adjust them. No big deal, cheer up.