WriterJWA

Here is thread you seek: http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=104992

The only thing I can figure here is that the crew used the AP round to drill a hole in the masonry of the building, but I don't want to assume, guess, or speculate on anything here. I think you should be able to manually select the shell type .... but perhaps that's just me. or better yet — SOP's!!

I got as far as the "decision scenario" bug. The third scenario started out really well, but got a little rough after tanking the first objective. It seems these scenarios really emphasize the need for recon and pinpoint artillery fire on fixed AT positions in lieu of advancing.

That worked out perfectly, thanks!

So my company has reached the top of Hill 1209 on the way to Troina. All I need to do now is mop up one slope. I have a .50 cal halftrack and a 75mm halftrack available to me along with the rattled remains of three rifle platoons. Each squad still exists, along with their platoon leaders, but it's been a rough fight. Just below the crest of the hill, on the German-held slope, I see a German AT gun crew physically moving the AT gun to face my 75mm, which is essentially behind them. Seeing the opportunity to knock out the gun while it's limbered, I rush a squad and the .50 cal halftrack forward. Next turn: The .50 cal goes to work on the gun and pins them at around 40-50 meters. I call forward my nearby 75mm halftrack to put a shot into the gun at less than 100 meters. While pinned, however, the crew managed to unlimber the gun. Once unlimbered, the driver of the .50 cal halftrack decides, "hell, I better back up, that gun might get me." He backs the truck up, taking the .50 cal gunner out of line of site. The AT gun crew unpins. They turn the barrel. They put two rounds into the 75mm halftrack before it gets one shot off. 1. How could the gun have been unlimbered if pinned by a FIFTY CAL at that range without the gun being de-crewed by death? 2. Why would it STOP SHOOTING the suppression fire if the .50 cal track knows it's pinning down the gun crew for a supporting arm? 3. WTF?

Is there any way to mod off the blinking of the overhead icons whenever casualties are taken, or perhaps make it more subtle? It's completely a personal preference thing, but that yellow drives me nuts.

Here's one: Sharpshooter teams where the one with the scoped rifle is the only soldier that fires.

Yeah .... there is enough on there to last you for MONTHS! And if I remember right ... a lot of this stuff is available over at the DINFOS library on Meade.

Here ya' go! Check out the U.S. Army in World War II official history. Lots of maps and data, operational accounts on almost all the theaters. http://www.history.army.mil/html/bookshelves/collect/usaww2.html

Weapon-for-weapon, this is an entirely "apples and oranges" comparison. In a rifle squad the MG34 is akin to the M-60 of later years in terms of its employment (most notably in Vietnam). It's a platoon/company level medium machinegun used at the squad level to pick up the slack in fire left by the K98s in the base-of-fire element, and in some cases supplant platoon/company machineguns when used on a tripod (the most preferred method of fire for an MG). As the video describes, the BAR wasn't designed for that purpose, but rather as supplement to the already higher rate of fire of the Garands. I'm not sure I would ever use a MG-34 on a bipod to suppress targets as far out as 680 meters. It's not that it's not capable of doing it, but it has to be mounted on a tripod with a T&E mount to be effect at that range. I suspect I would never use a rifle squad with BAR to suppress targets that far away. It's a waste of ammunition.

I think so, perhaps. I think the game should count those wounded. "Walking wounded" is still wounded and counted when commanders submit after action reports.

Here is the book method on making a correction in the process of giving a call-for-fire request: -------------- 4-8. CORRECTIONS OF ERRORS a. Errors are sometimes made in transmitting data or by the FDC personnel in reading back the data. If the observer realizes that he has made an error in his transmission or that the FDC has made an error in the read back, he announces CORRECTION and transmits the correct data. EXAMPLE The observer transmitted SHIFT KNOWN POINT 2, OVER, DIRECTION 4680 . . .. He immediately realizes that he should have sent DIRECTION 5680. He announces CORRECTION, DIRECTION 5680, After receiving the correct read back, he may continue to send the rest of the call for fire. b. When an error has been made in a subelement and the correction of that subelement will affect other transmitted data, CORRECTION is announced. Then the correct subelement and all affected data are transmitted in the proper sequence. EXAMPLE The observer transmitted LEFT 200, ADD 400, UP 40, OVER. He then realizes that he should have sent DROP 400, To correct this element, he sends CORRECTION LEFT 200, DROP 400, UP 40, OVER. The observer must read back the entire subelement, because the LEFT 200 and UP 40 will be canceled if they are not included in the corrected transmission. -------------- This involves adjusting the mission during the process of calling in the supporting arm. Just a little extra info!

+1. Indeed, sir!

This looks GREAT! All the more reason why we need a real CM:Pacific!!

Aren't they supposed to represent real-world, World War II, battlefields? Who doesn't play a scenario where they try to gain leverage to save the lives of his men? Wow ... I really hope I'm not alone here....

Good point! If I'm stopped, I let buddy aid do it's thing. If I drop a man on the run out in the open, he's stuck there. Ehhh.... Most real world platoon/company level statistics that I've seen reflect higher wounded than dead.

There is NOT a multi-player campaign where casualties and stats carry over. Again ... NOT.

In the scenario I just finished in the German campaign (third scenario), I suffered nine dead, seven wounded. In past scenarios the numbers of dead have have always proportionately outnumbered the wounded, same for the AI or occasional human player. I've seen this in both WeGo and RT. I've also noticed this trend in CMBN. Here is an in-game example from another player: Historical battle statistics show wounded outnumbering dead, in almost every case. Example: V Corps losses at Omaha Beach were reported as 694 dead, 331 missing and 1,349 wounded. Are CM weapons too lethal, or does the die roll favor death over wounding? Why?:confused:

Well said on all fronts! It would be great if the game maintained on-call target data on barrage targets previous called for. Example: if I shell a bunker with 75mm's and it doesn't take it out, and I want to call in another barrage on the same target with the same spotter, the observer shouldn't have to go through the same adjustment processes, provided no other mission was called for that directed the attention of the battery elsewhere. IRL, there is a "repeat" order that an observer can give to have the battery simply repeat the same FFE mission. Something else I've noticed regarding artillery: In WeGo, if I finish planning a fire mission and then decide to cancel it, why does the asset have "cease fire" across it since I technically haven't called in the target data to the battery? That wouldn't happen until I run the turn, right? Why do I need to wait until the next turn to plan again?

I'm with ya! Two-player campaigns would be great, or at least single-player campaigns that easily translate into H2H. I've had a lingering suspicion user "JonS" is actually a bot built by Battlefront to troll and stomp on ideas. ;)

.... and this isn't ASL v9.0?

I got my disc in the mail today. First off... the spiral-bound manual is a nice touch. That said, though, I wasn't entirely enamored with the packaging. It's ultimately not a big deal, but why the switch from the larger CMBN steelbook case and the disregard for product-line consistency?

Thanks for all the info! Lot's of knowledge here. It seems to me the game has it largely right ... that overall it is a coin toss fight between a Sherman and a Mark IV. Each tank is just as vulnerable as it is deadly.

Is there any anecdotal information that shows the Sherman edge over the Mark IV? The claim has been made that the Mark IV should be even if not better than the Sherman.

Can someone provide me some good source material on German and American tanks of the time period? A friend and I (both CMx2 players) are in a quandary about an in-game match-up between baseline M4 Sherman's and PzKpfwIV's. In a loose test we ran, a company of Sherman tanks narrowly bested a company of IV's at around 750m. Overall, we just let the tanks shoot at each other, and let the AI do it's thing. Naturally this isn't the best way to determine which tank is better in-game... BUT, we did expect the Mark IV's to edge out the Sherman.