akd

Of course Mikey means when you have the game. Trenches are "units" that can be purchased, and units can't be purchased in the demo editor. You can't freely rotate trenches and other fortifications because they need to be in a predictable relationship to the underlying action spot for the infantry to occupy them 1:1.

Yes, minimum range is shown on the "unit card." If you try to have a spotter order a mission under minimum range for the on-map mortar, your cursor will say "out of range." If you give the mortar a direct fire order on a spot within minimum range, they will just use small arms. Target Reference Points (TRPs) are your friend at night.

Fox holes are "omni directional." They provide the same cover in all directions. Trenches "snap to" eachother. If you place one trench segment next to another, they will form a line in a predictable direction (either N-E-S-W or NE-SE-SW-NW).

Even HC smoke is pretty dangerous for friendlies. You don't want to be putting smoke on top of your own guys, particularly coming out of gun at high velocity. Leave it to CMBN scenario designers to not leave out any historical details. In fact, the opposition in the training mission is a German grenadier battalion set to the the lowest possible quality to represent Ost battalion troops.

My fault Peregrine, I confused this thread with another one on the same subject. Here is my post from that thread: And here is the link to that thread: http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=96575 My fault entirely. This is certainly the most complex part of the game and I'm not sure if all these changes made it into the manual.

Peregrine, read the thread. All is explained.

You got it. In the full game version of this scenario, the mortars have halftracks with radios positioned near them, so no need to move anything around.

Okay, here's the deal: in a US tank platoon, the platoon leader ("platoon HQ," rank LT) and the Assistant Platoon Leader ("1st Tank," rank Staff Sergeant) can access artillery, but the other three tanks (regular Sergeants) cannot. This can be seen in the demo mission "The Road to Berlin." However, if a tank is purchased as a "single vehicle" (this is an option in both quick battles and the editor) and attached directly to another unit, the rank of the tank commander is always corporal. These tanks cannot access artillery. This can be seen in the demo mission "Busting the Bocage." Forward observing is a specialized skill. It is not just a matter of having a radio. However, FOs always carry radios and are "purchased" in the editor or quick battles with their own vehicle. I love it, too. That's why I try to answer.

Not sure if all tanks are qualified to call for fire, but I will check on this. Having a radio is not the only prerequisite to be able to call for indirect fire, otherwise every Private Joe in a jeep or halftrack would be able to act as an observer.

Certain artillery can use time fuzes to achieve some airbursts over the target, but this option is only available during setup. Delayed missions are also only available during setup.

Several US units did ride tanks during the breakout from Normandy, sometimes while in contact with the enemy, but it was hardly a standard tactic and was only feasible in special circumstances. It has not been excluded because it didn't ever happen in battle, it is simply far down the list below more important features.

The green lights and the red Xs in the far bottom left do not show the current command status of the selected unit other than to its immediate superior HQ. It is meant to show the status of the chain of command for the unit's formation. Here is the mortar team that starts out of contact in Closing the Pocket: The lower left corner does not show that the selected team has no comms with the Platoon HQ and the Company HQ, but does have comms with the Battalion HQ. It shows that the selected team does not have comms with its Platoon HQ, that the Platoon HQ does not have comms with the Company HQ, but that the Company HQ has comms with Battalion HQ. Also, three rules were added to the game that allow more flexibility in the use of subordinate units that are cutoff from C2 from their normal superior HQ (either because of separation from the HQ or destruction of the HQ). However, none of these effect display of the normal C2 chain shown in the lower left. 1. A unit that is cutoff from its own HQ but is physically near (voice/visual range) of another HQ can gain "in command" status, but this is for morale and relative spotting (sharing information on targets that they can see) purposes only. It does not alter the standard chain of command display in the lower left, nor plug an on-map indirect fire unit back into the radio net so it can receive indirect fire mission requests. Example, I moved the Charlie Co. HQ right next to the mortar team that is out of contact with its platoon HQ. The mortar team now shows "in command" icons (visual and voice), but the breaks in the C2 chain have not been altered. The mortar team is still not in contact with the Platoon HQ and the Platoon HQ is still not in contact with the Company HQ. 2. Any HQ within visual/voice command range of an on-map indirect fire unit (mortar or infantry gun) can spot for this unit. 3. Any on-map indirect fire unit (mortar or infantry gun) that is physically adjacent to a vehicle with a radio can be accessed by spotters/HQs with radios for indirect fire missions. Not saying this is not difficult to learn or couldn't be improved, but there is no bug here. Things are working properly and predictably based on the system outlined above.

Using "target light" will slow their rate of fire.

The casualty-causing potential of 105mm HE over 81mm HE is not huge. In some situations, 81mm mortar fire can be more effective against personnel. People seem to assume that caliber automatically equates to increased performance, or that mortars are weaker than artillery because they are "small". The most important difference is range, as the 105mm gun can deliver these effects thousands of yards beyond where the mortar becomes useless.

It is simply that the "?" contact icons do not elevate above the terrain the way the unit icons do. I don't think it has anything to do with Allied vs. Axis. If you were playing at a higher fog of war level, you'd see the friendly "?"s down lower as well. The "?" icons show the true (or suspected) location of the unknown contact (or last known location, which fades over time), so elevating them above the terrain would make it difficult in some circumstance to tell where the contact actually is or was located. With an actual unit (or the individuals in the unit that are visible in the case of enemy), you can see the unit beneath the icon when selected, so having the icon correspond to the exact location is not necessary.

Not saying this is the case with you, but in general this is great example why feelings and anecdotes will not be considered when it comes to complex simulation details like ballistics and terminal effects. Because of the level of complexity, there will be outliers, so anecdotes are seldom helpful in determining whether or not there is an underlying problem. Then you add to that the fact that the player's subjective experience can effect their emotional investment in an outcome. Have you ever noticed that these anecdotes always involve the impossible shot the player's opponent made against them and caused them to lose the game, and never the awesome shot their own forces pulled off guaranteeing them victory. Of course, this effect is further amplified playing against human opponents. The tests Steve alluded to above involved over 400 individual tanks, most taking multiple hits, so probably well over a thousand instances of an individual shot connecting with a individual tank in game. And this was to test one single aspect of terminal performance. Here's my feeling on this subject: anecdotes and feelings should lead you to tests not conclusions. Tests need to be controlled, repeatable, and conducted in sufficient numbers to provide meaningful data. While you can't do this in the demo, the tools you need will be in the full game.

This is very similar to my setup (although not a dual core) and I have no problems running the demo. Probably need to look at any security software you have first.

Problem is that scenarios are made with AI plans tied to time triggers. Changing the time for a scenario could significantly hobble the AI, or deny a player reinforcements set to arrive at a certain time, etc. This would break many of the finally balanced scenarios and campaigns in the game. Quick battles are different and you can select any time length you want between 30 min to 2hr for any size battle. But if you really want to change the length of a standalone scenario, you can open it in the editor and set the length up to 4 hrs. However, then you are responsible if the scenario becomes very easy or everyone runs out of ammo after 2 hrs.

The concept of an "area fire arc" order is a longstanding suggestion that BFC has expressed interest in implementing in some form.

Unless you have targeted an enemy unit directly, your target order will result in area fire on the targeted 8x8m action spot, which causes the firing unit to spread fire across various points within that area. If their line of fire is barely clearing ground or obstacles in between their position and the targeted tile, some rounds might impact different spots.

Direct fire is the most accurate but accuracy and effectiveness are not always synonymous with mortars.

It's a hedge and it does present a minor obstacle that will slow them down. If the hedge were under fire, slowing down to cross it would be a bad decision, so whether or not going around is good or bad is contextual. If you want to force your infantry to cross these hedges, just add waypoints to either side of the point where you want them to cross.

There is a foot bridge and a road bridge at the farm.

Jagdpanzer IV with the L/48 gun saw action in Normandy, but I don't believe the IV/70(V) did, having only entered production in August. Three versions of the Jagdpanzer IV are in the game.

Looks like it got stuck on part of the bridge. If you aren't able to post a save here, you can PM me and I'll give you my e-mail address to send it along to.