Combatintman

Apart from pretty much every set of orders in a 34 year military career I've received or read having them ... you're probably right.

The vehicle commander

No - Combatintman was on the other side .... surprised they hung on for so long really ...

Every infantryman had a ride and, as others have pointed out, this would have been an extremely lethal battlespace with NBC and masses of artillery. The BMP series was designed to reflect this reality. Strain all you like, but it would have been a suicide tactic. From an implementation point of view, it was discussed and discarded. The coding is done and from similar discussion held on the CMBN forums over the years, it is a PITA to implement and I doubt Battlefront will revisit this original design decision so unfortunately it is one of those things you're going to have to live with.

Painted white in the grooves - so yes.

The other thing that sometimes causes problems is elevations, particularly when trying to blast building walls. If the ground in the adjoining tile is slightly higher than the building, your troops will just go around and look for a door. Best bet with your blast commands is to have show all moves toggled and check that your blast unit is showing a brown/blast rather than yellow/quick move before you hit the red button. As I said earlier, it is annoying, it is fiddly and it should behave better than it does currently.

To fight it has to be maintained - pack lift, track bashing ... ever thought about those considerations?

Happens often - the blast command is fiddly and should behave better than it does. If you have a save of the order you gave to the blast team that would probably add more.

Not as much as the cost of a Stug mind ....

Dhobi dust I reckon ... household, washing, Henkel detergents and washing powder, Imi Stock Photo - Alamy

Let's see shall we ...

I don't know the exact figure but it is in the ballpark of 60% casualties suffered by the AI force based on testing my scenarios. I generally add stuff from the get go to prevent an AI surrender for most of my scenarios so haven't come across it for a while.

No it isn't. Victory Points for unit objectives are set by the designer in scenarios - if I want to make a Stug Zug 500 VPs , a Tiger Zug 100 VPs and a scout team 5,000 VPs as a destroy/destroy all objective I can.

Should have gone to Specsavers mate ... page 81 refers:

Adds to red is correct. Always one to be aware of if you don't want a turn one or relatively early ceasefire to result in a victory for one side or the other.

Can't speak for the M-577 but all British Army armoured vehicles have this capability. Gentlemen, I present the Boiling Vessel (BV): Well, two actually, but you get the picture.

Correct - also the abundance of sand is not particularly reminiscent of northern Europe. Nonetheless that is how they set up. I was in the British Army during the Cold War and we would set up in very much a similar fashion. The trick was to try and find an empty factory or a big enough farm with plenty of barns to set up in.

It is exactly this - map boards and radios. They generally set up in groups with tents extending from the back of them, often in a cruciform. The middle of the cruciform is generally where the commander will stand over the map along with the principle staff officers and direct the battle. The bigger the HQ the more vehicles and they are generally parked backed up so that all of the tentage is in the middle (see image). It is not supposed to be charging around shooting at stuff.

I'm a generous scenario designer.

Fixed that for you and show 'em some pics of the naval gunfire support smashing the forts

It is the Australian Army, not the Royal Australian Army. Certain corps and regiments in the Australian Army have the prefix 'Royal' such as the Royal Australian Infantry Corps (RA INF), the Royal Australian Regiment (RAR), the Royal Australian Armoured Corps (RAAC). People make the same schoolboy error with the British and other Commonwealth armies.

You make maps? ... everyday's a school day

Some awesome scenario designers will tell you what the time is during the situation paragraph and tell you what time the mission finishes by using a 'no later than' statement in the mission paragraph.

I have no set rule. Your weighting will depend on the type of scenario it is. If grabbing or not losing bits of terrain is the key bit of the mission concept then it is logical to weight VPs towards terrain objectives. If your mission is about killing the enemy or not being killed then you can weight towards parameters and unit objectives. If you then follow that logic and you have a mission which emphasizes grabbing a piece of ground but not losing too many troops in the process then you're looking at balancing your terrain, parameters and unit objectives. That should be the starting point but always needs refinement. If your scenario is going to be playable by both sides, how do you stop one player getting a turn one victory by hitting ceasefire because they are the defender sat on all of the high VP terrain objectives? How do you keep one or both players in the game by ensuring that neither side has an advantage until just past the mid point in the scenario? The mechanism I use for the latter eventuality when testing is to save and ceasefire at between five and 15 minute intervals and screen capture the end game screen. The numbers there inform me as to how the casualties tick over and allows me to adjust unit objective values for instance. It is rare that my original VP schema survives testing so you shouldn't think narrowly about 'terrain is the most important' or whatever. You need to just use what is perhaps the biggest and most flexible toolkit in the editor to get the right scores on the doors.

You're all missing the point ... given BFC's record with predicting conflicts in their games, it must mean that Black Sea will get Brits in a module.