Offshoot

But did you unbutton and pull out your bino's?

Teal and orange overrides War Movie mode - http://theabyssgazes.blogspot.co.nz/2010/03/teal-and-orange-hollywood-please-stop.html What I want to know is why the guy hiding behind the table is ordering the tanks to fire.

I don't think the turns are synchronised. My reading is, Bil lost two half tracks to GaJ's AT gun but thinks that it was an AA HT that got them. Meanwhile, GaJ is unaware that he got two for the price of one as he did not have eyes on the 2nd HT; he also thinks that Bil will now be on the hunt for his AT gun, although Bil apparently doesn't know anything about it. I don't think Bil has the round yet where GaJ's MMG damages his other HT. I must admit, I'm a bit confused about how many HTs Bil has left now or what they were each carrying at this point. So, is recon by HT a good tactic?

I wasn't intending to set up a criticism. I just wondered if this is generally acceptable in H2H because, as you say, it is impossible to avoid knowing what you oughtn't too. I've only played real time vs my brother and not PBEM against people I don't know, so wouldn't want to commit some transgression unintentionally.

I'm kind of confused about where Bil is picking up the contacts for GaJ's armour given these seem to be so deep and in one case behind a building. Are these coming from the dismounted KW drivers, who I'm guessing don't have radios? If so, what are generally accepted guidelines for in-game scouting when playing H2H?

Why use grenades when they have a scoped rifle? In the screeny, I'm sure I see a little head atop that Elefant. Given the difficulty you seem to be having (re)spotting Bil's troops, with hindsight maybe it would have been best to buy nothing but bazooka teams and leave them scattered about like snakes in the grass.

I think it has always been there, but the increased contrast of the movie mode seems to exacerbate it. It will also depend on what anti-aliasing settings Bil is using.

At least GaJ was thoughtful enough to give them an underwire bra for support.

Thanks for considering it. I see my wording was ambiguous; I actually meant for each turn you post on, rather than each turn of the game (should have been "would it be possible to include, for each turn you post, a view of the map from directly overhead").

Bil, if it's not too much hassle, would it be possible to include for each turn you post a view of the map from directly overhead (and squared in the view as much as possible)? I will ask GaJ if he can do the same and then overlay these for posting in the peanut gallery so people can more easily see the disposition of each side's forces relative to each another. There might be some issues with turn synchronization if you both focus on different turns, but I would just use the closest in time for the comparison.

GaJ, if it's not too much hassle, would it be possible to include, for each turn you post, a view of the map from directly overhead (and squared in the view as much as possible)? I will ask Bil if he can do the same and then overlay these for posting in the peanut gallery so people can more easily see the disposition of each side's forces relative to each another. There might be some issues with turn synchronization if you both focus on different turns, but I would just use the closest in time for the comparison. EDIT: for clarification, I am not asking for a view of the map for every turn of the game, just for those turns that you decide to post on.

You could try experimenting with 'Fire briefly'. Last time I used this with infantry they went grenade scramble happy.

Does anyone think it would be rude to ask both Bil and GaJ to provide directly overhead views of the map for each turn they post? These could then be overlaid in an image editor and posted in this thread to provide a complete overview of the battlefield. I (and from comments I think others) found it a bit difficult to clearly see the movement of both sides relative to each other in the last AAR, especially as terms like left and right flank are not absolute to the map.

Yeah, given they were the new elements in the game they didn't get too much of a showing with the armour fight going on. I would personally have preferred an entirely infantry battle on this map, or given the force selections of each, if the start areas had at least been swapped. From this battle, it sort of looks like the Brit paras are good in a close skirmish whereas the German ones do well standing off and letting their organic mortars do the work. It's a shame about the spotting GaJ. There were a couple of instances where you could have done some damage if you had seen Bil's forces.

And some more (from the tiger commander looking sideways thread): "At the range I was testing at the best chance of spotting was by the Commander. The other guys would have eventually figured it out, but without optics (gunner's sight is only good if you know what to look for) it should be much slower." ( http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=94734&highlight=crew+spotting&page=2 )

This is the closest I could find with a quick search (was looking for info only from the horse's mouth): "Spotting happens by each crewemember's eyes having a chance of seeing things based on various conditions. For vehicles the most important thing is if they are unbuttoned or buttoned. Next is if the tank commander has a cupola (and some are better than others). Next is what sorts of vision blocks and optics are present, which includes visual arcs. Lastly, number of eyeballs able to see out at any given time." ( http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=96642&highlight=tanks+crew+spotting&page=3 ) Still not 100% unambiguous, but I think that the idea that each crew member spots individually (rather than as a cumulative 'number of eyes') is reinforced by another post: "Yes, while they are unbuttoned spotting goes up for those positions ...From a gameplay perspective it's better to have the Commander more exposed because it's easier to see from higher camera angles and from longer distances." ( http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?p=1231306&highlight=spotting#post1231306 ) At least it would seem the commander is separate for LOS.

It's intriguing how GaJ was regretting having sent his tanks on walkabout to his left but from Bil's latest description it sounds like it is the presence of those that has caused him to abort his attack on that flank (especially after losing a Sherman). Will GaJ be able to reposition his tanks to thwart Bil's new attack on his right? This battle is teaching me the necessity to have eyes on the enemy. I think GaJ is about to have two of Bil's platoons traipsing over one of his TRPs (in the ruined buildings) but will he see them in time?

In Bil's own words: "I think his [GaJ's] right side force is a DIVERSION". How big he thought the diversion was is another question.

Yeah, uncertain. I had edited my post straight after to reflect this. I still think Bil's decision at the time was the best one given the intel. I'm pretty sure he thought (correctly) that GaJ's main force was on his left and so he was striking against a diversion force on his right (turn 13 on page 11).

Yeah, as it stands, a push in the centre could pay dividends, but when Bil initiated his plan he still didn't know where GaJ's armour was and I think suspected that it was covering the far 'exit' from the centre valley. He did know that GaJ was weaker on Bil's right and I guess by going right Bil would avoid being flanked himself by keeping enough force in the centre and left. If he does take the ground on his right (without great losses - I suppose Bil committed a lot in order to be sure to outnumber GaJ), he then only has to hold for a win in terms of points.

It depends on how early GaJ can see what is going on. He still has two TRPs essentially straddling Bil's line of advance and I'm guessing, given his usage to date, plenty of off-board ammo. At the least, it might buy GaJ time to extract himself and at the best do some serious damage to Bil's forces as he seems to be throwing a lot that way.

Does he need a vantage point given the TRPs he has set up? Are they in the right place though (see page 5 of the Axis thread)? He certainly has the overwatch ridge (P523) pegged, but the one on P511 might have been better off covering the avenue of approach through the (sparsely) wooded valley. If he can see what is going on, perhaps some early fire missions would be enough to delay the Allied deployment instead of committing tanks. EDIT: actually, I haven't played for a while and now can't remember. Do you need to have eyes on a TRP to be able to use it? If so, please ignore what I just said, and also, would anyone else have been tempted to use pre-planned strikes with longish delays instead given the nature of the map?

Given that the test involved the 'Move' order specifically and not a generalised state of moving, has this been tested with other orders such as Hunt, Reverse, and Fast? Any debate about appropriate penalties aside, this would be useful to know for when playing.

Perhaps the overriding decision was that it would be best to make the arrow rotate in the same direction as the mouse. I think a lot of the confusion comes from how the arrow does not line up with the direction of view; in this sense, it looks to act like a compass but does not read like one. If I recall correctly, if you could just reverse the rotation direction of the 'arrow', you could mod the arrow into a ring with the cardinal points on it and it would work as a compass with the direction you are looking in lining up with the appropriate cardinal point at the top of the ring. I had tried making a mod like this (as had someone else I think) but to get it to work correctly you had to swap the east and west points on the ring, which was also a bit confusing.

I'm not sure that is the case. Rather, some are arguing that the status quo (where, assuming the test is correct, moving = paused != stopped) is not correct and should perhaps be moving != paused != stopped. In this case, pausing would have costs compared to stopped. Assuming that, in-game, a tank that has stopped moving (i.e., does not have further move orders) for just 1 second is as accurate as a tank that has been stopped for much longer, scenario c could be gamed in some circumstances to have less costs than the others by making sure your end of movement and firing coincided with the end of a turn. Unfortunately, I think that the only way to overcome this would be to program accuracy as a function of time stopped, as mentioned.