Rokko

Also, it is of no use to put any crop, gravel, dirt lot, xt grass, etc tiles over brush tiles. The brush won't show up. Also, it looks kinda weird to place crops right next to buildings.

Looks nice, is it more of a fantasy version of Moghilev? Because on the map it looks as if there were only one bridge across the Dnepr.

Ah ok, I reread the manual and found out that the issue was that I hadn't pushed the exit after time way back. It works now, thanks.

Can anyone explain this to me? I paint a terrain objective trigger (allied) and set it to AI Trigger (friendly), expecting any allied unit entering the specified area to trigger it, but the AI group that has their "wait for" field set to this trigger doesn't wait for anything and just starts off right away.

Note that ditchlock doesn't work on or near soft ground tiles (like marsh or mud) or on certain field tiles.

I have discovered a neat way how to get more protective and better looking trenches for scenario designers. This is a German HMG team in a two-piece slit trench. The trench pieces sit on terrain that has been lowered by 1m compared to the surrounding ground using the ditchlook (blue) elevation fix mode. The troops have full LOS and LOF and are actually below groundlevel when set to hide. It looks pretty nice I think and also offers more protection. While these are neither player placable nor hidden in FOW, I do believe this could be pretty useful for fixed position where the other side already knows the whereabouts of the enemy trench line. Here is how it looks without any spotting done: So it's not even completely obvious unless you take a closer look.

I've noticed all of these as well, but I find the issue of troops not using foxholes on a plain more worrying

All my observations refer to teams in foxholes, not to whole squads. I tend to split all my squads when they're in danger of getting shot at. And the face command does not help with this issue, at least not reliably or consistently, at least I have not yet observed it correcting this issue.

Hi folks, I've played a number of CMRT scenarios by now and I have seen very often that troops in tiles with foxholes very rarely actually position themselves in the actual foxholes, but rather in the open ground around them. That seems to be especially the case if troops are not in foxhole tiles at the beginning of the game, so if troops move into foxholes later (be they dug by enemy or friend), they won't go into them. I believe that was true as well for CMBN and CMFI, but not to that extent. Has anyone else noticed that?

There have been a lot of links to great sites with historical maps or aerial photographs in these forums, but there has been no single thread to actually collect all of these in one place, so I thought I'd start one. http://igrek.amzp.pl/ Great page with a lot of maps from different sources (Polish, German and Soviet) for Germany, Poland and Byelorussia.

You're so deep in the bubble man, it's not even funny anymore.

Regiment is really the smallest unit you can move around in WITE. Hex sizes are 10km across or along each face I can't really remember.

Well what we know is that they will expand the timeline to a full year so the fully upgraded Red Thunder would have a span from June 44 to May 45. In general each title will probably have the same timespan, from June to June, which usually was the end of the mud period. This means there would be a total of 4 new Ostfront titles, each with 2-3 modules I guess, with the ones I'd find most interesting probably coming last. Also the 42-43 game would necessarily have a pretty huge scope (2nd Kharkov, initial Blau, Caucasus, Stalingrad, 3rd Kharkov, Demyansk, Rhzev meatgrinder, etc) so maybe they'd split this up into two titles.

I have split the image in two and resized both to A4 format, in case someone wants to print these out. As far as I can still it is still up to date.

I took a look at the first scenario very shortly only and I think I won't be playing this campaign at all, I simply cannot comfortably play on maps with these extreme zigzag roads and fences, just can't get my head around it. which is very unfortunate, of course.

There were definately instance when soldiers rode on tanks in Normandy as well, for instance in the attack on Les-Mesnil-Patry on 11 June (in this case it was Canadian or British soldiers riding on Sherman tanks).

Thanks George, that's exactly what I was looking for.

There used to be a sheet in the game manuals of the previous releases with little pictures of all the different flavor objects. Is there any chance for something the like getting published for Red Thunder?

If another pilot confirms it or not does not matter, you cannot reliably confirm an air-to-ground kill from the air exclusively, unless you see something blowing up in a huge explosion I guess. And just because something is regulation does not mean it is actually followed in reality. There were rules in the German army against rape, yet only a complete moron (or neo-nazi ignoramus) would use that as evidence that no rapes were commited by the German army, and in fact thousands rapes were commited by members of the German armed forces, especially in the East and even if they went noticed there rarely was any punishment.

How the hell would you independendly confirm air-to-ground kills anyway? What I am seeing here is just Steiner trying desperately to justify his Wehrmacht stiffie.

I do believe there is some problem with where the AI aims at. For targeting IS-2s I have noted for instance, that when shooting from an 90° angle it aims at the very rear end of the turret, which is a very bad spot to aim at, of course. Same probably for IS-1s, generally the TacAI aims pretty high on these two. With ISU-122 I have noticed, that the AI aims pretty low, I've seen two consecutive shots go through UNDER the vehicle and hitting the ground behind it.

Also, it seems to me the Germans would not have had anything in their sleeve to counter these new Soviet heavies, had the war gone on and their cities not been laid to waste. Did they not consider these new designs a great enough threat or was there simply not enough time and resources to develop a sensible answer? I am not sure the E-50 design would have been a sufficient solution.

Still, it's quite amazing they developed a tank that could take on any of the German heavies and still have it 30t lighter than their heaviest solution. And it had a 100+ mm gun. It is my understanding that the IS-2 was the first turreted AFV with a main gun of such calibre. The best the Germans could come up with weighed 77t, had no turret and was pretty much a complete failure. I'd really like to know what would have happened had the Western Allies encountered IS-2s in 1945 or later. Were there any in the Korean wars? Besides, from a game standpoint I believe there is some sort of problem with them. Their centermass appears to be very high up, appearently it is right at the rear of turret where the rear machinegun is located. And that's exactly the spot the opposite TacAI aims at, which is very illogical, since this is a terrible spot to aim at and in fact, even with Crack crews, many shots will miss (I am speaking about shooting from a 90° angle at 750m here). 75mm/L48 won't penetrate there, ever. Only hope is of a round going short and hitting the upper hull, in which case it is often an instant kill. Not much difference for 75mm/L70, except these sometimes get partial penetrations on that spot.

Well not reliably and consistently at least. I've had one Panther literally fire almost its entire ammo loadout (37 shots) at one IS-2 at 1200m. As soon as an IS-2 is only slightly angled, its turret just shrugs off everything that comes flying at it. In fact I have noticed Panthers to refuse to shoot at angled IS-2, presumable estimating their chances of destroying it rather realistically.

Awesome, thanks! It's not perfect but it will do. I've uploaded the "mod" to the Repository, don't know if there is actual demand for this, but I think map makers will deem it useful.