Childress

Thus the problem only arises in Human vs AI battles where the human is on defense, if I understand correctly. If so, no wonder some of us have never witnessed the phenomenon.

Modelling humans is tough, especially moving humans. I wonder if BFC went to an outside studio for those graphics and animations.

They do. Just checked. They also tire faster going uphill. Dunno about downhill. Edit: Troops apparently never tire in the Move state. Under any circumstances. This dates back to CMSF. Not sure, but I believe they don't recuperate from fatigue while Moving either. They have to rest.

Also, the Brits were running low on infantry.

Aren't those stats theatre wide? At the tip of the pointy stick, represented by CM battles, one suspects that casualties caused by rifles and MGs represented a somewhat higher proportion.

That's a plausible KIA/WIA ratio. In CM2 those numbers would likely be reversed. Or even.

Same here. Probably your last scenario given the bug. When I opened the 3rd scenario the briefing mentioned our force consisted of 7 MK3s and 5 MK4s. We got a total of five tanks, mixed. We had lost '2' in the first two battles.

I think you're right. You're naked in full sight of the enemy. Also, the open terrain appears to demote the infantry to a supporting role; tanks, forward observers and craftily placed AT guns rule in CMFI. Additionally the apparent resilience (imo) displayed by AFVs in sloughing off crew casualties multiplies their effectiveness. BTW, I rage quit in the first battle because (SPOILER) I was determined to sneak our FO team onto the bare crag overlooking the left hill without getting ripped to tatters. The second time was the charm but extreme care and patience were required.

I seem to recall from Atkinson's book that the s**t hit the fan when the Axis forces closed to within range of the Allied naval guns. Not before. We did finally arrive at the 'decision' screen following the 3rd battle; CMFI crashed to desktop. Which came as a relief after this finicky exercise in frustration.

I hear you. I should mention that my victory in the first battle was on the second attempt. The scoring system did provide a 100pt bonus for keeping one's losses under 10%, perhaps a clue. Possible of overly optimistic? I didn't play deep enough into the campaign to meet your missing OOB bug; the writing was on the wall. I think the Engel Campaign in CMBN was more interesting and plausible despite the barbed wire issue. My tactics caused a basket full of commander casualties. One thing I did notice was how rapidly the (Regular) crews shrugged off the loss of a member and plunged back into the fray. Maybe the downtime due to such a traumatic event should last longer than a single turn?

OK, we, the Huns*, are striving to throw the Amis back into the Mediterranean sea in Conrath's Counterattack. SPOILERS SCN 1- A kind of insidious setup. Our assignment: advance an armor heavy KG between two hills offering AT flank shot opportunities on our well stocked MK3s and 4s. Nevertheless our ubermenschen carry off a Total Victory ; 19 casualties vs 80. SCN 2- Resisting the temptation to charge uphill in the center our two pronged assault yields another Total Victory: 19 casualties (again) + two tanks versus 120 casualties. We've arrived at the 3rd battle. We're doing well, right? Nope, not at all. Our force is seriously depleted, no reinforcements have been received and none are, apparently, due. Most of our tank commanders are AWOL because our rash and heedless CO insisted on imposing a group Unbutton on their rides. (Wait, that's me...) This campaign is less about winning than avoiding the most minimal erosion of one's forces. The cumulative effect feels punitive. Or is the required goal 'Crushing Victories'? *No offense to our valued and indisputably civilized German co-posters.

Love, the gridded terrain, Bil. It looks great, thanks. But these markers showed up as black squares. And I noticed the brz file is date 10/7/11.

Aye, there's the rub.

The problem with this scenario is that victory conditions seem murky.

Agreed. Panzer General and its descendants were/are puzzle games par excellence, absorbing for some, but exhibit little relation to the actual conduct of warfare. What may be going on here, and I don't single out Erwin, is that some of us ruled in CM1 but struggle with CM2. Many miss the feeling of mastery and control. Hence the nostalgia. CM2 is more chaotic, shocking at times, and puts a premium on patience. Terrain factors are less concrete more impressionistic. Nevertheless it presents a far more convincing depiction of battle.

Sometimes. That's sentiment expressed in the title of the Clint Eastwood film 'Hang 'em High' which is as much compassionate as it is retributive. Nevertheless Eastwood's character is wrongfully strung up to a low-to-the-ground tree branch and left to twist in agony. Which gives Federal Marshall Ben Johnson time to discover his predicament and cut him down. Eastwood, rope burns seared into his neck, turns vigilante.

You're sure your not conflating veterans' accounts with their misadventures on leave in some of the iffier Parisian arrondissements?

Do you remember which method the Nazis used with captured partisans, notably in Russia? /'A certain ghoulishness is necessary when discussing war and death'/

Well, yes and no, Vanir. It depends if one's speaking of the Long Drop, the Standard Drop or the dreaded Short Drop. I happen to be bit of an aficionado on the subject. An apprentice Hanging Grog, if you will. The humanitarian goal of the first two methods is breaking the neck, causing the instant demise of the condemned. The Lincoln conspirators, for example, were executed using the Standard Drop. However, there was a malfunction with Mary Surratt's rope and she 'dangled'. The Long Drop virtually guarantees a quick death but has the downside of causing the occasional decapitation. The Short Drop was performed by placing the condemned prisoner on the back of a cart, horse, or other vehicle, with the noose around the neck. The object is then moved away, leaving the person swinging from the rope. The condemned prisoner dies of strangulation, which took between ten and twenty minutes. So, we can agree, much worse than being incinerated in a tank. This method was outlawed by most countries in the 19th century . Hope this helps.

Amen, bro'. The member who initiated this discussion should be taken out and shot.

Undoubtedly true. Can we move on? I fear this ghoulish back and forth may be creeping out the Silent Majority. This is Kettler's fault.

More unpleasant than getting burned alive in an iron box?

Great Last Words: "I want to die peacefully in my sleep like my grandfather. Not screaming in terror like his passengers." (Jim Harkins)

Yes, ten thousand casualties in the 3rd Armored Division alone. And the manner in which many of them perished was... well, let's draw the curtain. Next to serving on a U-Boat I can't think of a more unpleasant duty than crewing a Sherman. Unless you were in a tank recovery outfit.

Right. It's not modeled. But one guesses that most re-crewing happened outside the time frame of the typical CM battle; an hour or so. Your post seemed to suggest that crews lacked resilience which the extant AARs either confirm or contradict. Hence the reply.