A Canadian Cat

One thing I do is split off the AT team and give them a tighter cover arc so they don't go shooting at targets to far away. It helps.

Awesome work - I cannot wait to play with the Churchil. Is the King Tiger up there on your list. A friend of mine and I are about to start a huge PBEM battle which will feature Churchills and King Tigers prominently. I would love to capture screen shots featuring you mods:) I know you work on your own schedule - which is good. Never hurts to ask though:D

Interest peaked. I thought a destroy unit objective was an all or nothing thing based on destroying a specific target unit. Do I have that wrong? Must read manual - oh the pain, the pain.

In general I could see a 3rd party being used but we will not be. If the German player chooses first then the allied player will not accidentally see the German force selection. We are working with a high level of trust. I have known my opponent for over 15 years. Plus, as the saying goes I can punch him I real life:)

Well we are planning to write an aar and post our experiences plus instructions. In a nut shell we used the QB screen to choose 12000 points. Then we recorded each unit's stats and what we bought. Then we used a large map to create a scenario were we each recreated our force selection. Then we will play it. Right now we are still testing that our machines can handle a game this size.

I am about to start a huge battle (we are custom creating a QB with 12 000 points) with 14 Tiger IIs and 12 Panthers. I hope my luck is better:-) I have not commanded Tigers before - killed one and it cost me 7 shermans to do it. I have had command of Panthers before. One battle I lost three and the main gun on a forth. I have also had a 75mm sherman take out an opponent Panther's main gun. So it happens to the wonderful Panther as well. @phil stanbridge I think you are just experiencing a string of bad luck. Get a Tiger next time and go shred some enemy tanks - you will feel better:-)

I agree. Huzzar! is a classic. My friend and I really enjoined it. In the end I won as the Americans. In my case my plan was to move my forces to the right side via a ford. After loosing 5 vehicles including 3 Shermans I changed gears and attacked on two flanks (my force was split) my initial scout forces played havoc with my opponent's stugs as they moved up (I put all my recon deep in his rear area). That coupled with a hero green crew that took out a bunch of stugs. Allowed me to get through on my left and roll across the map. Awesome scenario. Nice job only loosing one Sherman!

I agree that nosing into the bocage is a good thing to do. I am not so sure that it has the effect of preventing the enemy from seeing your tank - at least not all the time. I used it to good advantage recently in Huzzar! I had a 76 Sherman at a higher elevation nosed into the bocage and it dueled with a Panther. I checked with my opponent and his Panther could certainly see my Sherman - when it was there. What I did was nose in take a few shots and back off. I repeated that two or three times. Then I had the HQ crew dismount and crawl up to call in some artillery. While the artillery was falling they remounted and nosed in again. Once the dust settled the two tanks took more shots at each other. The hits on the Panther deflected over and over. The "hits" on the Sherman were mostly absorbed by the bocage and a few managed to get to the Sherman but did not damage it. Finally the Sherman connected and KO'ed the Panther. My opponent says that when the Sherman was firing (which was when it was nosed into the bocage) his Panther could see it - and target it. Using this tactic certainly allowed my Sherman to come out on top. Several other (burning) Shermans that were not behind the bocage were a testament to that.

I remember reading that Shreks and Bazookas cannot be fired from a totally destroyed building either. I searched but could not find the thread. Can any one confirm my memory?

I did not think I was in jail;)

I was speaking about the shooting out of sync with the turret. I am pretty sure I read a post from someone from BF saying that it was a quirk of the animation. Clearly you see it lots I guess what I should have said was that only a few people seem to be effected by it. The lucky few of course I was not making any comment on the speed of firing or target acquisition.

Interesting - I think I went out of my way to point out that I do understand (and accept) that compromises need to be made. I'll add that the current vehicle speeds have never actually bothered me. I simply think that, in the spirit of an accurate as possible game, it is a reasonable request that the speed that vehicles travel on different terrain be modeled. I further think that BF will do a good job of placing request on its prioritized backlog.

Yeah its a limitation - that has been discussed many times and flared up again recently complete with nastiness in the forum discussion.

No. But you might see a shot get fired before the turret finishes its moment. That is just an animation synchronization issue. It has been reported but most people have never seen it - it happens rarely.

Aaaaaah yes trying to get to that is a reasonable request. I think it is reasonable to model armor thickness, armor angle, vehicle orientation and track individual shells too. We get that its hard and that some compromises need to be made. BF clearly has done some work on vehicle speeds because they do vary based on terrain type. He was pointing out that reverse speeds don't very from vehicle to vehicle. Pointing this out seems reasonable to me. And just so I don't get jumped on - I also agree that not everything can be modeled perfectly out of the gate. I would like to be able to point out areas that can be made better. That is the whole point of this forum. I trust that BF will make good decisions about priorities. They have clearly demonstrated that they can do that.

There you go I stand corrected. Shows little time I play games on my phone / tablet. My main point still stands - my assumption would be that a game BF created would be good, not bad.

@Erwin, @Vanir Ausf B Have you guys played the game yet? I have not - I don't own an iPad and my friend does not want to get it because he has to save his time to play my PBEM turns:) Thing is are you sure its bad? Really, I would first assume that they have brought a good game to the iPad and perhaps its first serious game (i.e. first non twitchy game for the iPad). If they venture to bring out an Android version I would pick it up just to see... @Vanif Ausf B - yes I suspect that you might have had your sarcasm bit flipped on. I have your shoes right here:D

Correct it does change when you hover over impassible terrain. But it does not change when you hover over impassible obstacles. For example take a tank or other vehicle and notice that you can never get the no go cursor as you select from grass to grass through a bocage line. Your vehicle will never follow that path but the tool does not tell you it cannot make the trip.

True. However the more experienced and the more motivated they are the more likely they will stick to the covered arc you gave them. That means that better troops are more likely to fall pray to getting killed from behind if you have a forward facing cover arc. In general even green troops mostly stick to cover arcs. In the original poster's scenario - being attacked from behind while using pie slice covered arcs are a disaster. All this means is that to successfully use pie slice covered arcs you better have the backs of your men. If you have a defense in depth and you know that no one can approach from behind without fighting through a horde of other defenders then go for it. But if you have pie sliced covered arcs on a lone unit or a thin line of units then be prepared to watch them die as they ignore attackers coming up behind them.

Sure, 4m could work and perhaps it would be better. I was thinking the height of the 8 story building because then you could tell what story was visible for any building. Bottom line is that what ever the cut of height is the choice will be arbitrary.

Oh I would so like this to have a solution. I would even be OK with the no go symbol showing up when you hover over impassible walls e.g. bocage. The current problem of units not following the path I expect can be annoying (and dangerous) but the fact that I have no way of testing if the terrain between two points is passable is the broken part. I personally would like to see some version of "replace my way points with those the AI will actually use" feature. However I could live with the ability to check all points along a path manually with the cursor to verify that it is passable. This solution would not be as good as the first suggestion but at least I could validate my path manually instead of being totally in the dark.

Yeah me too but with everyone busy talking about it like it was real I figured I was wrong. So I got a friend with an iPad to check - and there it was. Cool guys.

Hey that's a good idea. In a QB both sides have AI plans - why not just set the initial setup using the AI plan even for the human player. I like it. Chances are I would be rearranging things a bunch anyway but presumably each platoon would be positioned close together which does not happen now.

OK. Highest non ranked - oh you mean private. Well that depends on how you look at it:) I only ever view the ladder by ELO rank. Looking at it that way there are several higher ranked than me. Looking at the ladder by the score I see you are actually one slot above me. That just means that we are the most active new players on the ladder. Most of those guys have a rank based on their play over past years and on different games. Personal opinion follows: I see no point looking at a ladder based on who can play the most games. I would rather play people who are at a similar or higher skill level. Which is what I have done there. So far, I have only played games with players in the top 10 (heck most of the time in the top 5 - again based on ELO rank). Which means I started out getting my ass handed to me time and time again. I have learned to be a better player by doing that. So, later two or three wins against those same top 10 players has catapulted me up. My last win netted me 27 ELO points and sent me up 20 slots on the ladder. Again looking at the ELO ranking not the score. Anyway I am pleased that there are lots of players on that ladder and if they are there because they like to keep track of progress by score then great because that means they will be playing and there will be lots of opportunity for games.

I agree that this idea is much simpler that previous proposals. Nice idea. I think I could use it. Now consider that I draw a LOS from one corner of the map to another though forest, multiple elevation changes such that the light blue line is heading to a point 100m above the map. Or worse my observer team is hiding behind a building and I draw a line to somewhere on the other side of the building. Now the viewable point is an infinite distance above the map. Do you just drop it if the height is over some amount? Any other limitations or edge cases that need to be considered. For the record I would hazard to say that I would just drop the light blue line if the distance above the map was greater than the 8 story tower.