jwatts

I absolutely HATE QB scenarios. The map design and flag placement are usually pretty mind-bogglingly (is this a word? it is now!) bad. Add that to the shoddy unit placement of the AI, and they just aren't very fun. Notable exceptions include (obviously) H2H play, and tank only battles (I like to pick crappy tanks for the AI, and completely wreck shop!) Give me a good scenario any day, plus I love knowing that what i'm playing either happened in real life, or at least could have.

Hm this is great but for one thing. When you say "units hidden until x meters" is that when they are deployed normally but holding fire, or even when they are shooting? Probably a stupid question but I'd hate to miss out on the usefull aspects of this because I didn't understand it well

I was actually going to make a new post on a similar topic, but decided to piggyback on this one, since it seems this post has some people who have the time to run tests looking at it. Generally, when my tanks are knocked out, I send the crews to a far far away location near the end of the map. Would it be a better idea to send the dismounted crews of tanks,on-map guns/mortars/FOs with no ammo left completely off the map? I feel like i would take a morale hit on that but just have no clue. Also, in the many scenarios that give the player truck-borne infantry, is it best to hide the empty trucks in a (seemingly) quiet corner, as I've had more than a few knocked out this way, especially from air attacks, or should i just move them off the map? To make my question a tad more concise, is it better to hide crew members and useless trucks on-map, or send them off? If there IS a morale drop, is it significant enough to worry about?

Timing your tank is unfortunately, for some of us at least, the easiest way to get it flamed, or is that just me? When I am faced with situations such as these, I personally prefer 'hunt' to 'move to contact'. 'Hunt' will stop the tank on anything that can kill it, but won't waste a turn because a MG opened up across the map, or an infantry squad decides to relocate. I appreciate being able to get a few rounds into a random enemy, but most times I get no kills for the waste. Does anyone have any particular reason why 'Move to contact' is preferable to them?

For me it's not gamey at all, as the battlefield commander I make the decision of whether or not the threat of enemy armor, and my ability to take on said armor, necessitates the use of infantry anti-tank weapons. But it IS a pretty hard task on ANY scenario, large or small, to keep the 'zooks/PIATs/et al moving with the infantry, especially if time is a factor, since they are just a smidgeon slower than the ground pounders. That is also why so many of mine are gunned down by MGs 500 yards away.

For me it's not gamey at all, as the battlefield commander I make the decision of whether or not the threat of enemy armor, and my ability to take on said armor, necessitates the use of infantry anti-tank weapons. But it IS a pretty hard task on ANY scenario, large or small, to keep the 'zooks/PIATs/et al moving with the infantry, especially if time is a factor, since they are just a smidgeon slower than the ground pounders. That is also why so many of mine are gunned down by MGs 500 yards away.

I'm calling anyone over 30 an old coot, and rightfully so! Whippersnapper is a good word, definitely got the mood right. I think it's a kind of cookie, or should be. Ya'al just wait until I can get my internet computer to be my CM computer, then I'll be totally letting everyone ride roughshod over me! That'll teach ya!

I'm calling anyone over 30 an old coot, and rightfully so! Whippersnapper is a good word, definitely got the mood right. I think it's a kind of cookie, or should be. Ya'al just wait until I can get my internet computer to be my CM computer, then I'll be totally letting everyone ride roughshod over me! That'll teach ya!

Yes, typically that's what I do, or rather attempt to do. Sometimes it's just frustrating when there a)is no enemy armor and they get killed or they are trying to follow their platoon and get routed/killed because they're so damned slow! Of course I also realize that these are real world problems, and the real world isn't perfect. I'm 21 and hear that ad naseum as is, so I certainly don't need it from you old coots!

Yes, typically that's what I do, or rather attempt to do. Sometimes it's just frustrating when there a)is no enemy armor and they get killed or they are trying to follow their platoon and get routed/killed because they're so damned slow! Of course I also realize that these are real world problems, and the real world isn't perfect. I'm 21 and hear that ad naseum as is, so I certainly don't need it from you old coots!

Oh certainly. Then again, the scenario is historical, and the terrain REALLY isn't well suited for armor, especially for the defender. They are entrenched on a high, rough-covered escarpment. If they do, it should be pretty easy to deal with, and i've got plenty of overwatch.

Oh certainly. Then again, the scenario is historical, and the terrain REALLY isn't well suited for armor, especially for the defender. They are entrenched on a high, rough-covered escarpment. If they do, it should be pretty easy to deal with, and i've got plenty of overwatch.

Yeah? It's called "All is Fair...". Seems pretty fun, but two battalions plus is quite a lot of troops for me, I've never really been too successfull with a force that large. Since my first post I have made initial contact, and am trying to supress his ATGs, but am still quite a few turns from a good fight. After my recon, I'm pretty sure there is NO WAY for the 'zooks to get in this one, at least not for a while, since those damned Fallshcirmjaeger have waaaaaaaay too many MG42s. For some reason my 'zooks don't like MG42s too much, no clue why though.

Yeah? It's called "All is Fair...". Seems pretty fun, but two battalions plus is quite a lot of troops for me, I've never really been too successfull with a force that large. Since my first post I have made initial contact, and am trying to supress his ATGs, but am still quite a few turns from a good fight. After my recon, I'm pretty sure there is NO WAY for the 'zooks to get in this one, at least not for a while, since those damned Fallshcirmjaeger have waaaaaaaay too many MG42s. For some reason my 'zooks don't like MG42s too much, no clue why though.

I, like any find the infantry antitank weapons like 'zooks, PIATs, and 'schrecks pretty useful in some situations, such as close in defense when all the ATGs are down, or ambush situations. In these applications they work well, as long as they are used properly, and I think I have a pretty good handle on it. What I am having problems with, however, is using them on the advance. Sometimes, when I am using an infantry-heavy force, and there's a good chance of enemy armor being encountered, I feel that they are vital, but I don't quite know how to advance with them. Should I keep them with their platoons, maybe a little behind to avoid them getting killed too quick? Or should I keep them bunched with another commander in a sort of antitank platoon, then move them forward when I need them? That's what I usually do, but often my forward platoons take significant casualties before I can engage the armor. On a side note, I am playing a scenario right now, with two US infantry battalions (mid42, North Africa), with a lot of integral bazookas. I have a pretty decent number of Shermans, and have been told the enemy Fallschirmjaeger have little AT defense, and certainly no armor of their own. My tanks can handle the initial approach, but the flags are on a rough-covered escarpment, prohibiting the use of armor on the final assualt. Should I pretty much ignore my zooks, keeping them far, far away, or should I advance them with the infantry and use them to reduce hardpoints like bunkers? I REALLY hope JasonC notices this, his knowledge is encyclopedic to say the least!