Kat Johnston

"Die, Englander Pig-Dog!" "Ha! Eat lead, Jerry... and here's a tasty pineapple for afters!"

...and this is starting to bore me, but I said I'd do it so just for the record, looks like Sherman IIs aren't much better: British Sherman II, from 100 tanks, 80 commanders killed. Also for the record, I've been using "killed" to mean "there is no commander active in the tank", strictly speaking I guess they could be badly wounded. And I've not taken account of lightly wounded TCs either, which happens occasionally - but as I've not taken account of them in all the tests and as they're not frequent I think we can discount that as the main results are so conclusive.

Yes, I hear you. I increased the field to 10 tanks at a time and ran 10 tests for each of three types: US M4(Mid) - from 100 tanks, 23 commanders killed. British Sherman I - from 100 tanks, 85 commanders killed. US M4(105)(Mid) - from 100 tanks, 43 commanders killed. The M4(Mid) and Sherman I are more or less identical apart from the British tank doesn't have the MG. Both have a split hatch for the commander. The M4(105)(Mid) has a cupola and the MG is moved to the back. (Unfortunately there are no US Shermans that I could find with a split hatch and the MG at the back.) From looking at the models, the British Sherman II seems to have the commander in a slightly lower position than other British Sherman marks, so I'll try them next.

I ran more tests with some different vehicles: British Sherman V - from 25 tanks, 17 commanders killed. Canadian Sherman V - from 25 tanks, 22 commanders killed. Polish Sherman V - from 25 tanks, 19 commanders killed. US M4A3(105)(mid) - from 25 tanks, 12 commanders killed. Compared to these from before: British Sherman I - from 25 tanks, 21 commanders killed. US M4(mid) - from 25 tanks, 2 commanders killed. The Commonwealth/Polish tanks have no top MG. The M4A3(105)(mid) has a .50 cal, but it's on a rear mount. The M4(mid) and most other US tanks have a .50cal MG. These results show that even when the MG is not present, there is still a discrepancy between the Commonwealth/Polish tanks and the US ones. Looking at the models, the US TCs crouch very low down in the turret (whether or not they have an MG); only their heads are above the edge of the hatch. The CW/Polish TCs stand with more of their upper body above the hatch. This would seem to be enough to explain all the results. It looks like a fairly straightforward case of needing to have the CW/Polish TCs stand a little lower and show the same caution as their US counterparts... or raise the US ones.

Okay... I did some quick testing, and the results were interesting. Didn't get round to TC vs. infantry, but tried US versus British tanks for vulnerability. Short version is British TCs do appear to be much more vulnerable. For the test, I set up five firing lanes separated from each other by high berms. At one end I placed five tanks (all uniform spec., regular, normal, absolutely average) At the other end I placed five squads of fusiliers (all uniform spec.) To start with I used US M4(Mid) tanks and placed the fusiliers at 600 yards. I played as Allied, in real time, and used short cover arcs to allow the fusiliers to fire at the tanks without return fire. At 600 yards the fusiliers did not fire, and the tanks had difficulty spotting them. Tried again at 500 yards, the fusiliers did not fire, but the tanks spotted them quickly. At 400 yards, the fusiliers did not fire. At 300 yards, the fusiliers fired their squad machine gun only. At 200 yards, the fusiliers fired their squad machine gun only. At 100 yards, the fusiliers fired all their weapons. With this in mind I ran the test at 100 yards. From five run throughs: First: 1 KIA Second: 0 KIA Third: 1 KIA Fourth: 0 KIA Fifth: 0 KIA Next I ran the same test with British Sherman Is (which should be pretty similar to the M4 except for the .50 cal). First: 3 KIA Second: 4 KIA Third: 4 KIA Fourth: 5 KIA Fifth: 5 KIA Well, that wasn't extensive, but it was pretty damn suspicious. Obviously bears more testing (I haven't time tonight) but looks like I was wrong to think that the British TCs aren't more vulnerable - they are, in spades, in mostly identical tanks. Is the HMG providing excellent cover to the US TCs, maybe? I'll do some more tomorrow but hope some of you will give this a look!

I wasn't bothered, but I'm gonna have to try it now.

Five rounds rapid!

Hehe, no game developers are ever allowed to fix the right thing - or if by some miracle they have fixed the right thing, they're never allowed to have done it right... Mind, as far as the poor TCs go, it seems to me like they're now more vulnerable to bullets than Joe Infantry at the same distance, which... well, I guess they're 2 metres off the ground and it's obvious where they are, but by the same token they're mostly covered by a bulletproof shell of armour. *shrugs* Question for me is how abstract the computer model of the vehicle shape is, and whether that's taken into account when determining whether the TC gets it, or whether the TC is being treated as an exposed infantryman in plain sight high above the ground... no idea what the answer is, and the guy upthread talking about TCs getting shot in exercises sounds good.

Certainly worth it. Much more variety.

Playing thoroughly random (random forces, objectives, and map) quick battles (not scenarios, which are better and harder) against the AI, I'd say the AI provides a proper (though beatable) challenge about one time in three, and most battles are enjoyable in any case. I rarely lose random quick battles against it, but it can happen. The main drawback to playing against the AI is that once you've a feel for how it operates, you can get away with doing things that you know a human opponent would spot and act against - you can concentrate forces where a human would realise and mortar them, you can flank knowing that the enemy likely won't change position if they see what you're doing, that sort of thing. Oh, and it doesn't do recon-by-fire, or other forced fire, which we humans love. If you fancy more challenge from the AI you can always stack the odds by increasing the forces available to it using the force adjustment settings, or by deliberately taking on fights using "unsuitable" forces.

My tank crews are never lazy. Why, every battle they make a point of leaving their vehicles and running right back to the start line!

Or the Royal King Bengal Uberkitty II Ausf. B? Sheesh.

Artillery. ^^

I recommend Assault Division, by Norman Scarfe, though it's dense.

Having the AI identify and target "suspicious" locations - even if it only has a limited range of options, even if the fire is not heavy, sustained, coordinated, intelligent or anything else - would make a difference to play, because it'd take away the element of security you have when playing against it that you don't have against a human player. And seeing an enemy squad or vehicle pause to spray fire into the third building on the left wouldn't be any sillier than seeing them sprint down a wide open street into waiting guns...

As Sergei says, they aren't losing the weapons, they're carrying both. Once they've fired the rocket they'll go back to using the gun. (Just tried it to be sure there isn't a bug specific to these particular soldiers, worked fine here with a random mech inf. platoon mounted in LAVs.)

I always have my guys provide buddy aid unless the area is under a prohibitive amount of fire.

CMx2's UI isn't stellar but it doesn't make me want to throttle the developers, which is what happens each time I see a UI crippled by being designed around the specs of some crappy console with less buttons than the average vibrator, low resolution graphics, little disk space and little working memory... which goes for most mainstream games these days. :mad:

The red and yellow outlines round the unit icons are good. I wouldn't want to have the left of the screen taken up with UI, because it reduces the panoramic view. Better to leave it on the bottom. I'd like to see more information provided on the unit icons - like your red and yellow outlines, and maybe with a little ammunition box icon showing their supply status and a little visual/voice/radio one showing their C2 link. Toggle on and off to avoid clutter.

Some geezer (when he wasn't busy with ethnic cleansing, misogyny and demon-hunting) came up with the wizard idea of calling Scotland and England/Wales "North Britain" and "South Britain" respectively back when the countries were first United. It didn't catch on. I think I'd settle for people (at home and abroad) appreciating that the "Great" in "Great Britain" is the name of the island (it being the big one and all) and isn't a boast about how super-smashing-marvellous the place is. Yup.

"You naughty moose!"

Check the file properties and see if the file has been blocked? If it has there should be an "unblock" button on the properties page. Windows will sometimes do that if the file is from a source it doesn't recognise as safe.

No, and it's a shame and a missed opportunity. We were promised one with modular terrain blocks and all. I'll take randomly-generated-but-a-bit-odd-looking maps over oh-look-it's-this-one-again any day. Sometimes when map generators turn up strange things it's really cool - ask anyone who's played Dwarf Fortress.

I recently watched "Theirs is the Glory" about Arnhem - granted, it's a film/documentary, not genuine footage, but the people acting it were people who fought there, it was filmed in the right place and only a short time after the battle. They were certainly inside (big, solid-looking, town) houses a lot. It looked to me like they were mostly standing well back from windows and at an angle to them, which seemed sensible, but they weren't acting as if bullets were going to come though the walls.

Same gun, same barrel length AFAIK.