Black Jack Pershing III

You wins the internets on that one

I have found that vehicles are much more "literal" than foot units in following movement orders. Specifically, if the movement path touches the obstacle, the Tac AI does not correct it, and your vehicle drives straight up to the obstacle and gets confused. I have also found that multiple, closely-spaced waypoints going through a breach also tend to confuse the vehicles. I find the best approach to be a long straight path (both in front of and behind the breach) that goes directly through the center of the opening.

I think your logic is faulty. I have now learned that: 1) everything the US produced (from rifles, to LMGs to Tanks) sucked a** 2) US military doctrine sucked a**; however 3) the US and Brits did somehow defeat the Germans in NW Europe therefore, the only possible explanation is that the average US soldier was totally uber! QED

Herr Picky must point out that one of the Generals in question was "von Rundstedt", und nicht "von Rundstadt". I keep having visions of "van Patten" driving his forces through France.

Another odd one is that you cannot order a unit to dismount or otherwise exit a vehicle and deploy its mg/mortar in the same turn, at least not AFAICT.

I was kidding with the confusing part It makes perfect sense once explained -- it is just different mechanically from what I remembered from CMx1. Also, I did try clicking on a waypoint once, but it must have been too close to another unit icon, and I ended up just selecting the other unit, and so wrongly concluded that waypoints were unselectable.

Well that is certainly confusing

Is there a way to integrate Pauses and Face into a sequence of commands in WEGO, e.g. move-pause 5 sec-move-pause 5 sec-move-face? Whenever I try to issue pause commands, they are executed at the beginning of the movement sequence, and multiple pauses are simply added on top of one another. Face has no effect unless it is issued all by itself. So, if I were to enter the above commands in that order, i would get a 10 sec pause, followed by the moves, and the unit would then maintain the same facing it had at the end of the move. Is this WAD?, because I see other comments that indicate it should be otherwise.

Another problem with this sort of analysis is that it proves way too much. For example, it would lead one to the conclusion that the Hetzer is superior to the Sherman, because in a H-2-H confrontation with a Sherman with no other variables, it will win more often than not. Heck, a PaK 75 is "better" than a Sherman when viewed this way.

W00T! Did you see the part where they tased that dude's nads? That was cool.

I did not think much of Beevor's book. He did not seem to have much new information or insight, and his "angle" seemed to be to show that both sides committed a bunch of atrocities (not just the better-known ones involving the 12th SS and the Canadians), and that the French civilians suffered a lot. Regarding the atrocities, he seemed to be taking a lot of second- and third-hand accounts at face value. It reminded me of Band of Brothers and the stories that grew up in about the Lieutenant executing a bunch of prisoners. Regarding civliian suffering, my first thought was, "Duh." That was my second thought as well. I did think the last parts of the book (about the breakout into Britanny, Mortain and Falaise) were probably the most interesting, but that may be because they tend to be glossed over in other books.

Wouldn't the tripod make it more difficult to fire from the hip?

I thought Gaylord was also known as Cubbies Phan, Maximus and, for some reason clear only in his twisted mind, Iron Chef Sakai.