Ultradave

Sure, and like I mentioned, he could be impeached - even a Republican House would, I imagine, if they did in fact declare war. Would he be convicted and removed from office? I don't think there's any guarantee of that, even in that situation. But assuming the Senate convicts him and he's out, then what? His hand-picked VP, whichever MAGA sycophant that is, takes over. Does anything change? Or does everyone suddenly throw off the yoke and act "normal" because he has no power anymore?  50/50 - there's still the 8-10-12 however many die-hards in the Republican Party who want to stop everything. On the other hand, if Democrats take over the House, then that crew loses ALL power they have. 
Sorry for being pessimistic, but if Trump gets elected, it will be messier than last time. He (or more really his closest advisors) won't make the mistake of putting anyone with any integrity in any position of power. 
I'm also pessimistic about the election in general. If Trump wins, well, we've covered that. If Biden wins, does anyone think that Trump will just say "Congrats" and go home? Nope. We could easily see worse than Jan 6. 
I'll stop now and get back to play testing and reading everyone elses' commentary, which is always interesting, no matter the viewpoints.
Dave

Changes? Well, Democrats used to have a majority in the House, and Nancy Pelosi, whatever you may think of her politically, was a masterful Speaker of the House. So things like aide for Ukraine could make it through the House. The Senate, being (supposedly and usually) the more rational of the two houses, had broad support for Ukraine.
Now, Republicans control the House, with a weak and vulnerable Speaker, who has to do a lot of the bidding of the 8 or 12 or whatever the number is based on subject, rebellious Republicans - rebellious to their own party - or lose his job just like the last one did. The Senate remains more or less the same, at least on issues like Ukraine and NATO. Still supportive, but as we've seen just recently with the border security bill, scared witless of Trump, and ready to drop support at his bidding. Maybe that would change after election, should he win. Maybe not.
And the biggest danger that I see is that because of legislation Congress passed, a president cannot remove the US from NATO without the 2/3 consent of the Senate (an impossible hurdle to overcome, IMO), he could effectively render US participation in NATO non-existent. He could, by himself, remove all troops from Europe, or anywhere else. He could refuse to support with arms or troops a NATO ally under attack. He could, as he signaled just recently, invite Russia to do "whatever they Hell they want". He could send home our representatives to NATO's organizational structure and not replace them. He could gut the State Department. ALL of these things are functions of the Executive Branch, under the President's control. All he has to do is give orders for any of that, without Congress being involved.
So while I'm pretty sure their is very broad support for NATO in the Senate, and probably in the House, even with the Republican fringe trying to throw wrenches in the works, they themselves can't order troop movements, or provide aid even if it was voted for successfully and a president signed it. Again, the implementation of any of that falls under the Executive Branch.
Congress only other recourse should a president not honor NATO obligations would be a formal declaration of war against the aggressor. That is in Congress's control. But then, what would a president do, if he didn't agree with the declaration? I think, theoretically, he could just ignore it. If Congress passed bills and a president ignored them, the president could be impeached. But we see how that went, with a closely divided Congress.
This is how I currently see it, anyway. 
Dave

Changes? Well, Democrats used to have a majority in the House, and Nancy Pelosi, whatever you may think of her politically, was a masterful Speaker of the House. So things like aide for Ukraine could make it through the House. The Senate, being (supposedly and usually) the more rational of the two houses, had broad support for Ukraine.
Now, Republicans control the House, with a weak and vulnerable Speaker, who has to do a lot of the bidding of the 8 or 12 or whatever the number is based on subject, rebellious Republicans - rebellious to their own party - or lose his job just like the last one did. The Senate remains more or less the same, at least on issues like Ukraine and NATO. Still supportive, but as we've seen just recently with the border security bill, scared witless of Trump, and ready to drop support at his bidding. Maybe that would change after election, should he win. Maybe not.
And the biggest danger that I see is that because of legislation Congress passed, a president cannot remove the US from NATO without the 2/3 consent of the Senate (an impossible hurdle to overcome, IMO), he could effectively render US participation in NATO non-existent. He could, by himself, remove all troops from Europe, or anywhere else. He could refuse to support with arms or troops a NATO ally under attack. He could, as he signaled just recently, invite Russia to do "whatever they Hell they want". He could send home our representatives to NATO's organizational structure and not replace them. He could gut the State Department. ALL of these things are functions of the Executive Branch, under the President's control. All he has to do is give orders for any of that, without Congress being involved.
So while I'm pretty sure their is very broad support for NATO in the Senate, and probably in the House, even with the Republican fringe trying to throw wrenches in the works, they themselves can't order troop movements, or provide aid even if it was voted for successfully and a president signed it. Again, the implementation of any of that falls under the Executive Branch.
Congress only other recourse should a president not honor NATO obligations would be a formal declaration of war against the aggressor. That is in Congress's control. But then, what would a president do, if he didn't agree with the declaration? I think, theoretically, he could just ignore it. If Congress passed bills and a president ignored them, the president could be impeached. But we see how that went, with a closely divided Congress.
This is how I currently see it, anyway. 
Dave

Actually, I do think there's been some change. For the most part now we can conceive of an international order where competition is not always war. That was unthinkable in the ancient world. For example, in the Second Punic War the Romans suffered something like 10% combat casualties as a percentage of their total population. That would be like the United States losing 13 million soldiers in World War 2, excluding civilian casualties. Having successfully concluded their absolutely devastating war with Carthage, the Romans took a break of... zero years, immediately entering into wars in Cisalpine Gaul and Macedonia. For them, war was the default, and peace an aberration. We don't think that way anymore.

"is possible"   How, exactly is winning accomplished that way?
Spoiler alert:  No winners, 2 losers.

"is possible"   How, exactly is winning accomplished that way?
Spoiler alert:  No winners, 2 losers.

"is possible"   How, exactly is winning accomplished that way?
Spoiler alert:  No winners, 2 losers.

OOh, then you could combine it with the new CMO Showcase:Icebreakers. 😀

OOh, then you could combine it with the new CMO Showcase:Icebreakers. 😀

Sometimes it's just someone's lucky day, I think. A near miss, a glancing blow. Maybe the TC saw the shot being fired, and had just enough time to duck and pull down the hatch enough to avoid the flying tree splinters. Mantle hit - glancing blow (looked pretty direct though), happened to hit the heaviest armor on a lightly armored tank?
Like board games, while each bullet/shell is intricately tracked, when it hits, there is some element of chance as to what happens, as there is in real life as well. Think of a real person being shot - a half-inch either way might have been fatal, but "tis but a scratch" 🤣  And since in a different thread someone said I can't say such things without the meme, I bring you, the Black Knight.
 

Sometimes it's just someone's lucky day, I think. A near miss, a glancing blow. Maybe the TC saw the shot being fired, and had just enough time to duck and pull down the hatch enough to avoid the flying tree splinters. Mantle hit - glancing blow (looked pretty direct though), happened to hit the heaviest armor on a lightly armored tank?
Like board games, while each bullet/shell is intricately tracked, when it hits, there is some element of chance as to what happens, as there is in real life as well. Think of a real person being shot - a half-inch either way might have been fatal, but "tis but a scratch" 🤣  And since in a different thread someone said I can't say such things without the meme, I bring you, the Black Knight.
 

Sometimes it's just someone's lucky day, I think. A near miss, a glancing blow. Maybe the TC saw the shot being fired, and had just enough time to duck and pull down the hatch enough to avoid the flying tree splinters. Mantle hit - glancing blow (looked pretty direct though), happened to hit the heaviest armor on a lightly armored tank?
Like board games, while each bullet/shell is intricately tracked, when it hits, there is some element of chance as to what happens, as there is in real life as well. Think of a real person being shot - a half-inch either way might have been fatal, but "tis but a scratch" 🤣  And since in a different thread someone said I can't say such things without the meme, I bring you, the Black Knight.
 

Get the whole FI package when you do. There's a LOT of variety in forces and equipment in, especially in the DLCs, and some great scenarios all around. It's a very different experience from the hedgerows and the steppes!
Dave

What's not shown is that because of the shear mass of the Tiger, it sheered the tree off at ground level and it's just about to topple over. The TC got a little squeezed in the process though. 🤣
Dave

Get the whole FI package when you do. There's a LOT of variety in forces and equipment in, especially in the DLCs, and some great scenarios all around. It's a very different experience from the hedgerows and the steppes!
Dave

I honestly think the Locust did OK in the most recent battle I used them, slightly better than a M8 greyhound maybe and you can use it a bit closer, for there is no open top. Periscope for all 3 crew members in the tank and gyro for on the move accurate firing. I think spotting should be a little bit better in game. The locust gun isn't all that good but it does what you want to with half tracks and armored cars. Canister for clearing tough areas. Armor is terrible out of cover, but moving fast around edges of forests and hedges works good. Low profile made it hard to hit by soldier launched AT weapons my losses were all by AA/AT guns. Use to support troops or to soften up buildings and dense fortifications.

I give orders to groups (generally by Platoon) by first arranging them in the Setup Zone before the game is started. Once the game starts, this can be done by reforming Platoons/Companies in a "quiet" area, and resetting the formation for movement. Spacing can be controlled with this method by placing the squads whatever distance between is desired.
I will set Platoons in formations like a wedge, line, etc.. I'll also use two squads up, one back with support weapons and command units behind (in a diamond formation, generally).
Once this is done, I'll issue orders for movement, with all squads in the Platoon. I generally experiment with which squad the order is issued from - Most often this is the forward-most unit, but sometimes the rear-most unit works best. This is generally towards some terrain that offers cover, over-watch, or some other tactical concern for that pathing.
I will then adjust whatever squad/team ends up in an odd location. This is generally not too much of a task, as the formation is moving together and the setting of the end-point of the order is close to where it should be.
The main thing is spending some time at Setup to get everyone in the formations they need to be in for the tasks assigned.
(Ian answered as I was typing - generally the same idea!)

I used the hull down command for some time once but I turned back to "eyeballing".
With the target method it worked quite good actually, and If you dont want to micromanage that sort it could be an option especially with many units.
 However I have 2 problems with it:
1.) You cannot always draw a target line on a desired position.
In Syria with sparse vegetation there is not much obscurance but in France with high hedges, wheatfields, high grass and bushes it can become a problem.
 
2.) The hull down command can't be used within a command chain. 
As soon as the requirements of that order is in place (reaching a hull down position) it cancels everything else out.
So you can't use it in a shoot & scoot kind of way. Yes you could try it so that the tank reaches his position at the end of a turn so you could plot the scoot part at the start of the next one.
That would be to much guesswork for me so I better stay on manual.
And as started: Once you get the hang of it it doesnt require that much more time to do so.
 
 

Barring access to VT I'd take ICM. ICM works for a lot of the same applications I'd pick VT for, plus I might get lucky and actually hit an IFV with one. 
H

VT fuses of the CW worked great, but we didn't have a large amount of them. I don't know if we had a WW3 in Europe if we would have been provided a lot more or not). You can't fire them over water because they'd get a very strong return off the water and explode too early. And by firing over water, you're probably ok if the body of water is at the apex of the trajectory. If it's closer to the target you may get premature firing. A small stream isn't going to do it. A wide river, small lake definitely would. The same can be true over forested areas if the tree cover is very dense. Strong return off the forest canopy means the fuse can fire too soon - above the canopy. A snow covered canopy would be even more likely to prematurely trigger the fuse. Firing at personnel in heavy woods we would have used Time fuses so that the fuse explodes at a preset time of flight. That flight trajectory is adjusted when computing data so that the shell explodes in the air about 7m above the target rather than impacting the target (basically lifting the trajectory so the point of impact would be behind the target). With time (Mechanical Time) fuses, there's no "radar" component, just a clock, so no chance of that VT premature triggering. You can also use "Quick" fuse (point detonating/impact) and get good results because some of them are going to go off when hitting a tree, creating an airburst in the middle of the woods. (think of the Bastogne perimeter episode of Band of Brothers where they are in their foxholes and trees are "exploding" around them.)
So that tracks pretty well with the in game results above with VT fuses into woods. The game doesn't model mechanical time fuses at all. It's either HE Quick or VT, or later, some time of precision munitions. 
Pretty good but very short article on US designed fuses. The mechanical time fuses I saw were the MTSQ-564 - first pic, left hand fuse. Rotate the top to select the time. They'll still go off on impact if for some reason the time doesn't work - either failure or hitting something before time expires. 
http://www.inert-ord.net/usa03a/usa6/fuzes/index.html
Dave

VT fuses of the CW worked great, but we didn't have a large amount of them. I don't know if we had a WW3 in Europe if we would have been provided a lot more or not). You can't fire them over water because they'd get a very strong return off the water and explode too early. And by firing over water, you're probably ok if the body of water is at the apex of the trajectory. If it's closer to the target you may get premature firing. A small stream isn't going to do it. A wide river, small lake definitely would. The same can be true over forested areas if the tree cover is very dense. Strong return off the forest canopy means the fuse can fire too soon - above the canopy. A snow covered canopy would be even more likely to prematurely trigger the fuse. Firing at personnel in heavy woods we would have used Time fuses so that the fuse explodes at a preset time of flight. That flight trajectory is adjusted when computing data so that the shell explodes in the air about 7m above the target rather than impacting the target (basically lifting the trajectory so the point of impact would be behind the target). With time (Mechanical Time) fuses, there's no "radar" component, just a clock, so no chance of that VT premature triggering. You can also use "Quick" fuse (point detonating/impact) and get good results because some of them are going to go off when hitting a tree, creating an airburst in the middle of the woods. (think of the Bastogne perimeter episode of Band of Brothers where they are in their foxholes and trees are "exploding" around them.)
So that tracks pretty well with the in game results above with VT fuses into woods. The game doesn't model mechanical time fuses at all. It's either HE Quick or VT, or later, some time of precision munitions. 
Pretty good but very short article on US designed fuses. The mechanical time fuses I saw were the MTSQ-564 - first pic, left hand fuse. Rotate the top to select the time. They'll still go off on impact if for some reason the time doesn't work - either failure or hitting something before time expires. 
http://www.inert-ord.net/usa03a/usa6/fuzes/index.html
Dave

🤣 Yeah, imagine being there for real, eh? Nightmare.

The two variants of Metal on metal are of course 'ahistorical' meeting engagements with fairly balanced forces even though they don't specifically mention H2H.

Oh and The Road, noted @Ultradave, man that film is bleak but good God the book is even more awful. Amazing work. 

Ha! Never heard that before. No, I meant the book/movie "The Road"  - post apocalyptic wasteland wandering.