womble

Doesn't seem very insightful to me. The chance probably doubled or even trebled in the last year. From 0.1% to 0.3%.

Doesn't seem very insightful to me. The chance probably doubled or even trebled in the last year. From 0.1% to 0.3%.

Doesn't seem very insightful to me. The chance probably doubled or even trebled in the last year. From 0.1% to 0.3%.

Some elaboration and enlargement on points already answered:
 
Welcome to the forums, and an infinite well of combined arms tactical sim game goodness!
 
I recommend starting off in turn-based mode, often called "WeGo", while you learn what handles to pull to make the game work. As you say, trying to figure out what's going on while the bullets are flying real time can be even more daunting. With turn-based you get as much time as you feel you need to carefully consider the options available to you and find out how to execute them. And you get to watch a replay of things you'd miss playing real-time, so you can learn more about the effects of what you're telling your pixelTruppen to do.
 
During the setup phase, you too can plot support missions anywhere on the map, same as the AI. You don't need to be able to spot the target area. You and the AI always work under the same rules; indeed, the AI has more restrictions than you (it can't use Target Area, its ability to use Target Arcs is very restricted, for example). Just try it during the setup phase: any unit will be able to call any of the support assets that it is eligible to use and which is eligible to be controlled by that spotter to any point that asset can reach. As has been said, this is considered to be "pre-planned" bombardment, with ranging in done carefully beforehand so no setup time or spotting rounds are necessary. You can also achieve the same sort of effect over a limited area later in the game by using "Target Reference Points". It's probably worth noting that calling preplanned strikes on your opponent's setup area can in some circumstances be considered unsportsmanlike: often the attacker's setup area is unrealistically crowded, and a heavy bombardment in turn one before they can disperse would pretty much end the game. When you graduate to playing vs another human, it's worth discussing with them any conditions they expect to be applied.
 
 
Previous posters have mentioned Target Arcs (TAs). Those are the primary means of enforcing fire discipline on your troops. It can be a good idea to start your setup by shift-dragging a box over your entire force and giving them all a short (say 100m) circular (by holding shift down when you click to set the range) arc. It is important to understand that TAs (and Armour Target Arcs, ATAs) are explicitly limitations on where your units will fire. They don't, in and of themselves, confer any spotting or aiming benefits, and it takes a serious threat for a unit to consider firing at a target that isn't in the area covered by the TA. They just tell your troops "Don't fire on anything further away than this, or outside of this arc." They do also imply a "Face" command, so your infantry will orient themselves in that direction when considering where to take cover and firing positions, and your turretted AFVs will rotate their turret to the midpoint of the arc they're given. This tends to mean more eyes and vision systems are pointed in the general direction of the axis of the arc.
 
Hide has also been mentioned. While it has its uses, it isn't something that you should just slap on any unit you don't want seen. It prioritises staying unseen over everything else, and your troops will spend more time "Hiding" than "Spotting", so the number of "eyeball-spotting cycles" will be greatly reduced for an element that is Hiding. They will be reluctant to open fire even on very nearby enemies, if they do spot them, which can be very unhealthy. Most of the time, the inherent behaviour of your pTruppen is to seek the best-covered firing positions that allow them to engage targets in the rough direction they're facing while remaining as concealed as possible. Static infantry in good concealment are already difficult to see with the unaided eye; most of the time, Hide isn't necessary, and a restricted Target Arc will take care of fire discipline.
 
Hide does have its uses, though. Just don't think you want or need to hit Hide at the end of every movement order.

Which, to me is significantly less useful (since in lower FoW settings I can judge what enemy units are visible to a particular unit by selecting it) than being able to see icons flash, or errant units going where I didn't mean them to while I've got a particular unit selected to give it orders or follow its PoV. C3 is important, but I've got a pretty good handle on what elements will be in contact with their superiors anyway; Iron deducts more information than it adds. Which might be great for immersion, but would be a detriment to pulling the handles on an engagement.

It's "Buying the Farm", which is a base-BN scenario, I believe. You can load it up and have a good old nose around
 
Which is what I've done. Started it as a "Hotseat" game so I can look at both sides. I'll mostly confine my comments to the defense (and therefore "you" is generally addressed to MethodGamer), I think, since Ian knows what he's doing and has his preferred methods. I'll try and comment on the defense setup based only on the very vague appreciation of possible enemy forces(1). So I'll assume there will be infantry, tanks (Shermans) and arty up to 105mm, potentially.
 
My first reaction when I saw the Axis setup was to chuckle... All the fortifications! (2) Then it was to wince when I saw how platoons were split between deployment areas... That's an unnecessary cruelty on the part of the designer. A saving grace is that your troops are not the dross that "OstBatallion" makes one think of. They're Green, sure, but there are good officers here and there, and they are of Standard rather then Poor motivation, so they won't run away immediately.
 
Defending is hard. The attacker has the initiative, and if you guess wrong about where he's coming at you, significant assets can be rendered useless. Reserves are all very well, but in your case your AT reserves are a single PanzerShreck and some PanzerFaust (PF, or Faust). And Ian knows enough to keep his tanks out of reach of those. Since we know he has the combined arms advantage, one axis of conflict is the denial of that advantage: strip his tanks of their infantry eyes, and your last few A teams with PanzerFaust in the hedges around the farmhouse will be able to deny the armour entry. You don't have the assets to keep the tanks out of the fight unless you get very lucky with mines; their weapons remain effective well beyond the range of your man-portable AT. Hopefully, whittling away at his infantry will also slow the attacker down; in this case his timetable is a fairly tight 30 minutes.
 
So the first key point I'll whitter about is the mine and wire defended field. This will also cover the deployment of one of your key Kompanie assets: the mortar.
 
Evidently the designer has recognised the "straightforward" nature of assault across successive hedgerows when you have plenty of armour and engineers (as the Americans might be assumed to have)! I have to confess, if it wasn't for the confounded(3) wheatfield after the first defended hedge, that would have been my preferred route as the Americans: easy to secure your right flank and overwhelm the defenders of the hedge with 37mm HE, .30-06 and some 81mm. However, the classic deployment (and it's classic for a reason) would want to have mortars or something covering that field as well, to take maximum advantage of the chaos and confusion the mines would cause. And some more MG42s... That means getting an HQ into that hedge. Unfortunately, the only sensible HQ to move is the Kompanie HQ (KHQ): 3PltHQ is not eligible to move, having been placed by the designer outside any setup zone; bringing 1 or 2 PltHQ over from the left would only make sense if you could bring their platoon and make use of them, which you probably don't want to do. Furthermore, the KHQ is the only HQ eligible to provide the C2 chain so that other HQs can call fire from the 81mm remotely, so if you move the KHQ, you have to move the mortar (and its ammo bearers, and probably its foxholes...) too, to keep it in close enough C3 with the HQ that it can receive missions. To my mind, this isn't too much of a hardship, since it doesn't have to be right at the front, where it can be got at by tanks. I'd deploy it in the far right pink setup zone, initially in the hedgerow, but undeployed so it can quickly move a few Action Spots (AS) back and deploy (probably facing SW using a short pieslice TA) (4). KHQ goes in the hedge to spot into the big, miney field, far right of the red deployment zone there, and close enough to pass on requests for fire from other elements. The mortar crew and ammo bearers get a 50m circular Target Arc (which you'll want to reinstate once they've displaced to their firing position, pointed in the right direction and set up). The KHQ gets a 10m pieslice TA pointing West through the hedge. It might seem like an exposed place, but with all those fortifications, even some light defense will hold for a fair while. You can't bring the mortar's foxholes with them, because they won't fit in the setup zone directly behind the hedge. I don't think that's too much of a problem, since the mortar will be out of sight, and in a random patch of field, so won't be drawing intentional fires. If the Amis do come down the right, it will have fired all its ammo by the time they get past the hedge, I'd think.
 
As the attacker, I have a rule: use alternatives to existing gaps in linear obstacles as much as possible. The reason for this rule is that they are obvious routes of approach to mine or set fields of fire to cover. If I pop out of a hedge at some arbitrary point, then it's pure luck (or saturation) if the defender happens to have a mine there. If we assume that the enemy has handy-dandy engineers, as we should, we have a shell-game to play with our mines, to whit: do we want to keep Ian honest? If we assume he's going to avoid existing gaps like the plague, there's little or no point distributing mines around the gaps in the left flank front hedge. He won't be going there, so won't step on them. But the embuggerance of having to blow holes in hedges only continues to apply if we make sure that if he doesn't mousehole through every bocage line, he gets blown sky-high with mines. And secondarily, we could spend a few mines on arbitrary places in front of intact hedge, just for luck. It's probably worth noting that "Mixed" mines are sometimes a bit of a gamble. They're less likely to go off on either intended target than specific AT or AP mines are. It's possible, with a thin belt, that crossing a Mixed minefield will do little or no damage. You can cover the important bits of the gaps in the left flank hedge with 7 mines: he won't come through the middle with infantry, so just mine the shoulders of the gaps, plus the centre of the gate where he might roll a tank. That leaves 10 mines in the right flank field. You could even reduce the right flank field to nothing and saturate the left flank, relying on the wire and bocage-phobia to cover that flank.
 
You also have a TRP. In a way, this should go where you don't put your mines. It gives you a 3 minute (rather than 8) call time for mortar strikes within 50m of the TRP(5), and you don't need a spotter to have eyes on the location, just some eyes to tell you when a strike will do the most good. Your Green HQs all have an 8 minute call time for the mortars or the infantry gun (IG) which is long enough to pull the "adjusting" trick to have a mission on a shorter leash. If you put the TRP in the right flank field, you don't need to shove the KHQ and mortar forward. The right flank has other HQs to call on.
 
The second major element in your defense is your ATG. And here you're faced with a dilemma of obviousness... Leave it where it is, and it has a fine FoF through the gate into the flank of anything coming out of the woods on the left. But it can't fire down the road. If he had Shermans, it wouldn't even be worth sighting down the road because all you'll see is glacis to ping off (or get a lucky 150mm HEAT, but I've never seen one of them hit...) In some ways it's not worth changing the siting to fire down the road The diagonal hedge poses some siting problems too. In the location the designer has put the gun, it apparently can't see anything. This is because it's in an AS which only touches the hedge with a corner, and you have to be careful which way you Face the gun, to make sure it's close enough to the hedge to see through it properly. This initial position also doesn't bear down the road. There's an adjacent AS, though, which is bisected by the hedge (the one where the ammo bearers start; move 'em out the way). Even there, it's potentially necessary to use a Face command to get the gun in a position where it can have the angle to fire down the road. The road is defended with Hedgehogs, so the Amis can't just trundle on down it. Even with engineers, they can't remove those obstacles, but they could bypass them by blasting a hole in a hedgerow. So, paradoxically, it might be more important to have anti-infantry defenses on the road. And the paradox on the paradox is that if you do that, he can just park a tank at standoff range and neutralise your MG (handily, the ammo bearers have an MG42) or whatever with DF HE, so you need the ATG there after all. The other option is to commit to having the gun guard only the left flank field and put it on the road facing southwest. It's a small gun, and would be in some of the best concealment available, so it might remain unspotted for a few shots, even at the knife fight range it'd be working at. Until it's spotted there's more than one AS to suppress. I'd leave the ATG and its ammo bearer where they are. Be aware that if Ian is coming down the road, he'll lead with HE. The Ammo bearers should be under a short Target Arc and Hideing to gain the most protection from the bocage until Ian stops bombarding their location. Then they should pop up and hose down any infantry trying to pass the obstacles or blow holes in the hedges. You could even have them an AS or two back, or swipe some pink-deployment foxholes for them to weather the storm in.
 
It's worth noting that even 50mm ATGs are pretty nasty infantry killers too. So it's worth considering opening up on any juicy infantry targets you see, in service of "stripping the tanks of their eyes". Generally, though, you want to have a Target Armour Arc (TAA) set, and engage any armour immediately, and manually control when you want to engage infantry.
 
Your third major asset is the lIG18. Its 75mm HEAT can KO Shermans, and its HE round will give pause to infantry while they cower, Pinned... But I'd be wary of leaving it in the defalt position. In the trenches it's going to get spotted and neutralised in double-quick time. Even if you move the trenches around, they're just so visible. I suggest setting the thing up near a gate into the road, Limbered (so not "Deployed") and have the crew push it into position(6) on the road, pointing through the Bocage onto the field you choose. It takes about 3.5 minutes to get to the left hand firing position, maybe a bit over 4 to get to the right hand side. Should be in time to stop any rushes, and it won't be in an obvious place to shell at game start.
 
Your fourth major asset is the MG. You could put it in the top floor of the farmhouse for a good field of fire, but that will attract a godawful shellacking until you don't have an MG any more(7). Whether it'll last any longer in the trenches, or fire any more rounds, I'd question. Again, like the IG, you might be better off placing it near the road and running it to a useful position behind bocage.
 
Then there's your Panzershreck. It's in a good position to guard the left flank of the farmhouse. Unless you want to get it forward to participate in a tripwire ambush (qv) you might as well leave it there.
 
Finally, to the nitty-gritty: infantry.
 
For once, the defender isn't fighting a reverse slope defense. You want to slow Ian down and bleed his infantry. He has three general axes of attack: left, right, or up the road. He's pretty much bound to concentrate one or two at the expense of the others. Given that the tactical map suggests he's confined to the left (south) of the road initially, so deploying to approach via the bocage fields would be time consuming. It would also be risky, since a TRP in the area behind his "jumping-off hedge" could chop him up nicely while he's prepping the first defended hedge for his infantry to advance upon. The road is tempting; it's relatively straightforward to secure the flanks of an advance down the road to a point, and the road permits enfilade of the front hedge on our left. Suppressing any opposition placed to defend the road looks eminently doable. On our left, he has a covered approach to the first hedge, and an open field to sweep clean with HE and HMG fire from the cover of that hedge. Even without having read Ian's posts ( ) I'd mostly expect a centre and left combination. Scouting the right would reveal the wire, as an additional disincentive.
 
The infantry are unfortunately handicapped by having elements from the same platoon assigned to different deployment zones. There's red, pink and orange, as far as my deficient colour vision is concerned. I would be inclined to lift at least one of the mines in the right hand field, and deploy a "Pink zone" A team(8) (probably 3/1/A) there to get into the hedgerow and harrass the flank of the road/stick a Faust in any tank coming through the gate by the field building.
 
Did I say the defenders don't have a reverse slope? Well, strictly, they don't. But the Americans will come upon that first hedge at very close range, exiting the woods. I suggest that a strong piquet there will slow Ian down considerably. I'd grab all of 1/1, 1/2A and 3/2A and all the pink foxholes, along with one red one and put them in position against that hedge. They won't have other opportunities to employ their fausts. Bringing a few mines over from the right flank field to provide a surprise on their flanks and leaving the TRP where it is to cover the last 100m of hedge completes the forward defense. All the remaining A teams from that flank will be put in the orange deployment zone at the back. Maybe with some trench sections for cover against bombardment. Them and the Shreck are the reserve. Not having a TRP on the right flank means moving the KHQ and mortar up to provide cover in case Ian tries his left. That leaves the HQs and the MG42 teams in the trench complex. The HQs should try and survive to fall back into the Farmhouse and bolster their A teams there.
 
That's my suggestion. I think you're up against it. The IG and the MG on the road give you some additional flexibility to respond if Ian comes down your right. The forward defenses are all pretty much "Forlorn hope" units. If any survive after the first minute, you might be able to bug them out, but hopefully they'll've done some damage and slowed Ian down some.
We can metagame the approximate size of the attacking force: if it's just an infantry company with no support, it'll bounce, so that's no good. If it's a full Battalion, we'd be steamrollered, so it's unlikely to be that sort of odds. We know there are probably some tanks, so it won't be two companies plus tanks. So it'll be a reinforced company. "How reinforced?" is the question, but we'll only be able to answer that once the fight gets under way. Given that he has tanks, though, you're at a distinct disadvantage. The "Combined Arms" bonus in CM is much bigger than the "Dug in" bonus (to put it in olde-skool wargame terms). With one ATG, 3 rounds of IG HEAT and a Shreck, you'd better hope the metagame has persuaded the designer to not give the attacker a short Sherman platoon... (which we obviously know is the case here in this "face up" game - I'm just illustrating that it could be otherwise). One thing I've noticed on my version of the map is that there is a misaligned wire section in the barrier. This is obviously a game artefact; even OstBattalions can't mess up wire laying that badly... If you've not gotten too far into the setup, it might be worth agreeing to edit the scenario and turning that sucker round, if it's borked that way in your game start (it could be a mistake in the way the engine set the thing up; it might even be corrected at the first BRB push...) and resending the intital password-setting-up turns. Wheatfields are forever confounded because they stop you area targeting the next hedgerow, but leave any upright troops exposed to vision and sight from that same hedgerow. They have become doubly-confounded since the reduction in spotting capabilit of AFVs, because there is only a slender chance of your overwatching tanks spotting the unsuppressed defenders who are picking off your advancing dogfaces and being able to return fire. Sometimes, the extra height of the tank will mean they can apply the suppression, if you can be sure the hedge they're targetting doesn't have any effective AT assets in it. When you're setting up a heavy weapon, it's a good idea to give the Deploy order at the waypoint, rather than waiting til they arrive, then telling them to deploy in the following orders phase. You can waste a lot of time, as they inevitably arrive at their destination 5s into a turn and sit there having a smoke til you tell them to set their weapon up. While you've got the waypoint selected, you can give a Face or TA order to set what direction they'll be pointing. Face doesn't apply any fire discipline, whereas TA will point them the way the midpoint of the TA is facing and tell them not to fire on spotted targets outside that arc. I find it useful during setup to put a waypoint on the TRP's location and draw a 50m circular arc from that waypoint to see exactly what the TRP's advantages cover. If you've got an element you're not planning to move (a mortar say, or an FO), you can use that as the element that has the Waypoint and leave it there as a reminder of your asset once the game starts. Don't forget to give that element a "permanent" Pause order, or they'll go scampering off to meet their maker on an orange cross in a circle... I haven't suggested you move the ATG to a better position than is available at setup because they get a bonus to concealment so long as they don't move which is absolutely essential for surviving long enough to take more than one or two shots. The Farmhouse is the only structure worth beans in terms of protection. All the other buildings are "barn" type, and offer no cover (protection from incoming fire) and little concealment. Don't place troops in the barns, shelter behind them (Ian's troops can't shoot at what they don't know is there) and ambush the Amis as they come round the corner or enter the building. Split your teams. There are some in the backfield that aren't (and one of them is in a barn). Short range weapons like MP40 are useless in trenches that will be pounded with HE. At least the MG42 ( teams will be able to reach out and touch some dogfaces before the US armour drives them out of the trenches. Splitting this organisation using "Split Teams" gets you all the Fausts, the MP40 and the grenade launcher in the A team. Ideal for the last-ditch defense of the farmhouse.

You won't go back
 
Recent discussion about Iron makes me think I should give that a try, too.

One "trick" with artillery that's easiest to do and most useful with assets that have longer call times is to keep adjusting a mission called drastically early, before you get to "Spotting" so that it's "loitering" waiting to arrive when you know you've fixed the other guy in place for long enough for the spotting rounds to fall. If your opponent commits to a route that isn't covered by that observer, you lose a turn "Ceasefire"ing that mission so that a different spotter can start the "call, adjust-to-stall, let-it-fall" sequence.
 
Another trick is to bring in two half-sized missions on the same rough location. Hopefully, the spotting rounds will confuse the enemy as to quite where you're planning on dropping the strike, so he might not just high-tail it out of the danger zone. The AI does this to me all the damn time

Would it be feasible to post the two setup turns to a publicly shared dropbox, and possibly occasional subsequent turns too? That way, the collected kibbitzers can get a proper look at the terrain from the perspective of the Master and his Padawan... Or at least let us know which map you're using.

The game. That's amazing overall. Best tactical wargame, bar none.
 
The inventory system doesn't contribute to that greatness as much as it could.
 
Fixed quanta of ammo acquisition based on how many rounds are there to be taken (so the first element to get at the ammo has to take a quarter of it, even if you only want to take a bit)? Inability to return ammo mistakenly acquired? Lack of any grenade resupply at all, or light mortar ammo, or the ability to provide chosen ammo types to support longer/higher intensity scenarios? Cramped info boxes in the UI that don't have enough lines to show all the types of ammo that some units carry (and no scroll bars so you can look)?
 
It certainly feels like an afterthought, and the general lack of WIMPy UI features (scroll bars; in-line editing/navigation tools) doesn't make it feel any less like a red-headed stepchild. Some of the design decisions strike me as fast-and-dirty attempts to speed up inventory management for RT gaming (like the massively ill-conceived, and thankfully deprecated "relative" command hotkey system), but actually end up making (re)supply vastly more of a ballache than it should be: why, if I want to split 1000 rounds 4 ways during setup, do I have to load the last two elements onto the truck at the same time, have each select 200 rounds and then 50 rounds, because once the first two elements have grabbed their 250, I can't grab 250 any more, nor 50 until it's down to 100. It's crazy.

The game. That's amazing overall. Best tactical wargame, bar none.
 
The inventory system doesn't contribute to that greatness as much as it could.
 
Fixed quanta of ammo acquisition based on how many rounds are there to be taken (so the first element to get at the ammo has to take a quarter of it, even if you only want to take a bit)? Inability to return ammo mistakenly acquired? Lack of any grenade resupply at all, or light mortar ammo, or the ability to provide chosen ammo types to support longer/higher intensity scenarios? Cramped info boxes in the UI that don't have enough lines to show all the types of ammo that some units carry (and no scroll bars so you can look)?
 
It certainly feels like an afterthought, and the general lack of WIMPy UI features (scroll bars; in-line editing/navigation tools) doesn't make it feel any less like a red-headed stepchild. Some of the design decisions strike me as fast-and-dirty attempts to speed up inventory management for RT gaming (like the massively ill-conceived, and thankfully deprecated "relative" command hotkey system), but actually end up making (re)supply vastly more of a ballache than it should be: why, if I want to split 1000 rounds 4 ways during setup, do I have to load the last two elements onto the truck at the same time, have each select 200 rounds and then 50 rounds, because once the first two elements have grabbed their 250, I can't grab 250 any more, nor 50 until it's down to 100. It's crazy.

As MOS says, it's important to note that some vehicles, come with their own driver, and others, mostly jeeps and kubels and the like, are driven by the teams that own the wheels. So sometimes you'll dismount the HQ or MG team or whatever, and the vehicle will still have a driver mounted, other times there won't be. If there's a driver left on board he'll show as a yellow spot on the left side of the "vehicle spaces" display, and if you hit "Dismount" will actually get out and crawl in the mud like a proper soldier If the inventory in the vehicle is showing when there is no driver on board, then it's a bug and I certainly can't explain it.
 
As to the ammo count thing: when you grab an AT rocket, it's assumed you're going to grab a bomb with it, yes. Which is annoying if your team just wants all the ammo and they can't have it without taking an extra tube.
 
Maybe one day we'll get a proper inventory system rather than the half-assed, bolted-on, afterthought kludge we're stuck with right now. I know inventory management isn't what the game is supposed to be about, but I think there's room for something rather more complete and complex in this niche of detail-obsessed geekery.

Some elaboration and enlargement on points already answered:
 
Welcome to the forums, and an infinite well of combined arms tactical sim game goodness!
 
I recommend starting off in turn-based mode, often called "WeGo", while you learn what handles to pull to make the game work. As you say, trying to figure out what's going on while the bullets are flying real time can be even more daunting. With turn-based you get as much time as you feel you need to carefully consider the options available to you and find out how to execute them. And you get to watch a replay of things you'd miss playing real-time, so you can learn more about the effects of what you're telling your pixelTruppen to do.
 
During the setup phase, you too can plot support missions anywhere on the map, same as the AI. You don't need to be able to spot the target area. You and the AI always work under the same rules; indeed, the AI has more restrictions than you (it can't use Target Area, its ability to use Target Arcs is very restricted, for example). Just try it during the setup phase: any unit will be able to call any of the support assets that it is eligible to use and which is eligible to be controlled by that spotter to any point that asset can reach. As has been said, this is considered to be "pre-planned" bombardment, with ranging in done carefully beforehand so no setup time or spotting rounds are necessary. You can also achieve the same sort of effect over a limited area later in the game by using "Target Reference Points". It's probably worth noting that calling preplanned strikes on your opponent's setup area can in some circumstances be considered unsportsmanlike: often the attacker's setup area is unrealistically crowded, and a heavy bombardment in turn one before they can disperse would pretty much end the game. When you graduate to playing vs another human, it's worth discussing with them any conditions they expect to be applied.
 
 
Previous posters have mentioned Target Arcs (TAs). Those are the primary means of enforcing fire discipline on your troops. It can be a good idea to start your setup by shift-dragging a box over your entire force and giving them all a short (say 100m) circular (by holding shift down when you click to set the range) arc. It is important to understand that TAs (and Armour Target Arcs, ATAs) are explicitly limitations on where your units will fire. They don't, in and of themselves, confer any spotting or aiming benefits, and it takes a serious threat for a unit to consider firing at a target that isn't in the area covered by the TA. They just tell your troops "Don't fire on anything further away than this, or outside of this arc." They do also imply a "Face" command, so your infantry will orient themselves in that direction when considering where to take cover and firing positions, and your turretted AFVs will rotate their turret to the midpoint of the arc they're given. This tends to mean more eyes and vision systems are pointed in the general direction of the axis of the arc.
 
Hide has also been mentioned. While it has its uses, it isn't something that you should just slap on any unit you don't want seen. It prioritises staying unseen over everything else, and your troops will spend more time "Hiding" than "Spotting", so the number of "eyeball-spotting cycles" will be greatly reduced for an element that is Hiding. They will be reluctant to open fire even on very nearby enemies, if they do spot them, which can be very unhealthy. Most of the time, the inherent behaviour of your pTruppen is to seek the best-covered firing positions that allow them to engage targets in the rough direction they're facing while remaining as concealed as possible. Static infantry in good concealment are already difficult to see with the unaided eye; most of the time, Hide isn't necessary, and a restricted Target Arc will take care of fire discipline.
 
Hide does have its uses, though. Just don't think you want or need to hit Hide at the end of every movement order.

As MOS says, it's important to note that some vehicles, come with their own driver, and others, mostly jeeps and kubels and the like, are driven by the teams that own the wheels. So sometimes you'll dismount the HQ or MG team or whatever, and the vehicle will still have a driver mounted, other times there won't be. If there's a driver left on board he'll show as a yellow spot on the left side of the "vehicle spaces" display, and if you hit "Dismount" will actually get out and crawl in the mud like a proper soldier If the inventory in the vehicle is showing when there is no driver on board, then it's a bug and I certainly can't explain it.
 
As to the ammo count thing: when you grab an AT rocket, it's assumed you're going to grab a bomb with it, yes. Which is annoying if your team just wants all the ammo and they can't have it without taking an extra tube.
 
Maybe one day we'll get a proper inventory system rather than the half-assed, bolted-on, afterthought kludge we're stuck with right now. I know inventory management isn't what the game is supposed to be about, but I think there's room for something rather more complete and complex in this niche of detail-obsessed geekery.

Some elaboration and enlargement on points already answered:
 
Welcome to the forums, and an infinite well of combined arms tactical sim game goodness!
 
I recommend starting off in turn-based mode, often called "WeGo", while you learn what handles to pull to make the game work. As you say, trying to figure out what's going on while the bullets are flying real time can be even more daunting. With turn-based you get as much time as you feel you need to carefully consider the options available to you and find out how to execute them. And you get to watch a replay of things you'd miss playing real-time, so you can learn more about the effects of what you're telling your pixelTruppen to do.
 
During the setup phase, you too can plot support missions anywhere on the map, same as the AI. You don't need to be able to spot the target area. You and the AI always work under the same rules; indeed, the AI has more restrictions than you (it can't use Target Area, its ability to use Target Arcs is very restricted, for example). Just try it during the setup phase: any unit will be able to call any of the support assets that it is eligible to use and which is eligible to be controlled by that spotter to any point that asset can reach. As has been said, this is considered to be "pre-planned" bombardment, with ranging in done carefully beforehand so no setup time or spotting rounds are necessary. You can also achieve the same sort of effect over a limited area later in the game by using "Target Reference Points". It's probably worth noting that calling preplanned strikes on your opponent's setup area can in some circumstances be considered unsportsmanlike: often the attacker's setup area is unrealistically crowded, and a heavy bombardment in turn one before they can disperse would pretty much end the game. When you graduate to playing vs another human, it's worth discussing with them any conditions they expect to be applied.
 
 
Previous posters have mentioned Target Arcs (TAs). Those are the primary means of enforcing fire discipline on your troops. It can be a good idea to start your setup by shift-dragging a box over your entire force and giving them all a short (say 100m) circular (by holding shift down when you click to set the range) arc. It is important to understand that TAs (and Armour Target Arcs, ATAs) are explicitly limitations on where your units will fire. They don't, in and of themselves, confer any spotting or aiming benefits, and it takes a serious threat for a unit to consider firing at a target that isn't in the area covered by the TA. They just tell your troops "Don't fire on anything further away than this, or outside of this arc." They do also imply a "Face" command, so your infantry will orient themselves in that direction when considering where to take cover and firing positions, and your turretted AFVs will rotate their turret to the midpoint of the arc they're given. This tends to mean more eyes and vision systems are pointed in the general direction of the axis of the arc.
 
Hide has also been mentioned. While it has its uses, it isn't something that you should just slap on any unit you don't want seen. It prioritises staying unseen over everything else, and your troops will spend more time "Hiding" than "Spotting", so the number of "eyeball-spotting cycles" will be greatly reduced for an element that is Hiding. They will be reluctant to open fire even on very nearby enemies, if they do spot them, which can be very unhealthy. Most of the time, the inherent behaviour of your pTruppen is to seek the best-covered firing positions that allow them to engage targets in the rough direction they're facing while remaining as concealed as possible. Static infantry in good concealment are already difficult to see with the unaided eye; most of the time, Hide isn't necessary, and a restricted Target Arc will take care of fire discipline.
 
Hide does have its uses, though. Just don't think you want or need to hit Hide at the end of every movement order.

It's always been like this in the CMx2 titles. It's been noted and remarked upon many times on these forums. I don't recall the issue ever being addressed by BFC-core. Maybe it's an engine limitation that turret elements cannot counterrotate against the hull rotation, maybe it's just not reached the top of the "refine this feature" list yet (I'd hazzard it's the latter, since wheels can rotate independently of the hull...), but thanks for reminding of another thing that could do with a look at some point. Lots of people have lost tanks that might otherwise have survived to this weakness in the simulation.

It's always been like this in the CMx2 titles. It's been noted and remarked upon many times on these forums. I don't recall the issue ever being addressed by BFC-core. Maybe it's an engine limitation that turret elements cannot counterrotate against the hull rotation, maybe it's just not reached the top of the "refine this feature" list yet (I'd hazzard it's the latter, since wheels can rotate independently of the hull...), but thanks for reminding of another thing that could do with a look at some point. Lots of people have lost tanks that might otherwise have survived to this weakness in the simulation.

You do know that CMx2 was written from the ground up, don't you? And that the environment is different? And that CMx1 wasn't perfect?
 
Or maybe you think it was perfect and should be playing that.
 
And IanL isn't putting you on his ignore list because you aren't happy with everything BFC does; I'm not happy with everything BFC does, and I'm not on his ignore list. He's putting you on his ignore list because of your attitude and lack of anything useful to say. Very nearly every time you post, it's a dig at BFC.
 
Your hyperbole is so one-eyed: you assume that because people disagree with you on certain points they think CM is perfect. You've gone far enough now that I can't be bothered to refute your nonsense; you won't listen. I'll leave you to carry on living in your own solipsistic little world where you're always right.

You do know that CMx2 was written from the ground up, don't you? And that the environment is different? And that CMx1 wasn't perfect?
 
Or maybe you think it was perfect and should be playing that.
 
And IanL isn't putting you on his ignore list because you aren't happy with everything BFC does; I'm not happy with everything BFC does, and I'm not on his ignore list. He's putting you on his ignore list because of your attitude and lack of anything useful to say. Very nearly every time you post, it's a dig at BFC.
 
Your hyperbole is so one-eyed: you assume that because people disagree with you on certain points they think CM is perfect. You've gone far enough now that I can't be bothered to refute your nonsense; you won't listen. I'll leave you to carry on living in your own solipsistic little world where you're always right.

You do know that CMx2 was written from the ground up, don't you? And that the environment is different? And that CMx1 wasn't perfect?
 
Or maybe you think it was perfect and should be playing that.
 
And IanL isn't putting you on his ignore list because you aren't happy with everything BFC does; I'm not happy with everything BFC does, and I'm not on his ignore list. He's putting you on his ignore list because of your attitude and lack of anything useful to say. Very nearly every time you post, it's a dig at BFC.
 
Your hyperbole is so one-eyed: you assume that because people disagree with you on certain points they think CM is perfect. You've gone far enough now that I can't be bothered to refute your nonsense; you won't listen. I'll leave you to carry on living in your own solipsistic little world where you're always right.

Wiggum: you're engaging in asymmetric warfare. You can type any old nonsense as fast as you can vomit it up and call it argument. Shooting you down in flames takes time and effort that you're not worth. So you can rant all you like; this'll be the last time I waste any epithelial cells or electrons responding. Ta-ta.
 
I noticed the other day that I haven't even seen any "there was a post here, but you're ignoring the author" for a long time from the sub-handful of people who've graduated onto that list... Looks like ignoring the garbage is the best way of reducing it. Another way the Internet doesn't mirror real life. Tends to suggest their ilk are only here for the argument, not to make any positive change. Do. Not. Feed. The. Troll.

You do know that CMx2 was written from the ground up, don't you? And that the environment is different? And that CMx1 wasn't perfect?
 
Or maybe you think it was perfect and should be playing that.
 
And IanL isn't putting you on his ignore list because you aren't happy with everything BFC does; I'm not happy with everything BFC does, and I'm not on his ignore list. He's putting you on his ignore list because of your attitude and lack of anything useful to say. Very nearly every time you post, it's a dig at BFC.
 
Your hyperbole is so one-eyed: you assume that because people disagree with you on certain points they think CM is perfect. You've gone far enough now that I can't be bothered to refute your nonsense; you won't listen. I'll leave you to carry on living in your own solipsistic little world where you're always right.

You do know that CMx2 was written from the ground up, don't you? And that the environment is different? And that CMx1 wasn't perfect?
 
Or maybe you think it was perfect and should be playing that.
 
And IanL isn't putting you on his ignore list because you aren't happy with everything BFC does; I'm not happy with everything BFC does, and I'm not on his ignore list. He's putting you on his ignore list because of your attitude and lack of anything useful to say. Very nearly every time you post, it's a dig at BFC.
 
Your hyperbole is so one-eyed: you assume that because people disagree with you on certain points they think CM is perfect. You've gone far enough now that I can't be bothered to refute your nonsense; you won't listen. I'll leave you to carry on living in your own solipsistic little world where you're always right.

Along with dreaming and naievety?
 
There is a difference between constructive criticism and what you and Wiggum do. Clue: what you two do is waste electrons and the epithelials that get scraped off your finger ends onto your keyboards (at least in regard to achieving meaningful changes in the game). Claiming that BFC don't listen to the user base when they've put so many features in that have been asked for that they initially thought were unnecessary (Target Armour arcs, Command lines, flame weapons leap to mind) and fixed any number of bugs and oopsies that have been brought to their attention by the user base is frankly plain ignorant. BFC have always said the game is a work in progress, and you are always welcome to decline to buy a new family if you don't think it's worth the money. Deciding at the pre-alpha stage that it's not going to be worth the money is, again, plain ignorant.
 
Fortunately for everyone, BFC have pretty thick skins by now, so I don't expect the cavailing and hand-wringing is actually going to stop them giving sneak previews, but you could understand if they were a bit reluctant to tell us anything in future. And one day they'll decide it's not worth the trouble any more, and I don't see anyone else stepping into the breach, so how about not pissing them off any more than absolutely necessary, huh?

Along with dreaming and naievety?
 
There is a difference between constructive criticism and what you and Wiggum do. Clue: what you two do is waste electrons and the epithelials that get scraped off your finger ends onto your keyboards (at least in regard to achieving meaningful changes in the game). Claiming that BFC don't listen to the user base when they've put so many features in that have been asked for that they initially thought were unnecessary (Target Armour arcs, Command lines, flame weapons leap to mind) and fixed any number of bugs and oopsies that have been brought to their attention by the user base is frankly plain ignorant. BFC have always said the game is a work in progress, and you are always welcome to decline to buy a new family if you don't think it's worth the money. Deciding at the pre-alpha stage that it's not going to be worth the money is, again, plain ignorant.
 
Fortunately for everyone, BFC have pretty thick skins by now, so I don't expect the cavailing and hand-wringing is actually going to stop them giving sneak previews, but you could understand if they were a bit reluctant to tell us anything in future. And one day they'll decide it's not worth the trouble any more, and I don't see anyone else stepping into the breach, so how about not pissing them off any more than absolutely necessary, huh?