agusto

My baseless speculation on the MG module that is actually not basless but based on my experience with CMFI and CMBN: I am gonna spent hours and hours and hours playing it. Besides that, here is my truely baseles speculation: I hope that there will be some new, different types of terrain. You know, i CMBN we had hedgerows, in CMFI we had large hills and such so now in in MG, i hope we are gonna have some more central european terrain to fight on. I think that having different types of terrain is the thing that makes for the most diversified gaming experience because the terrain is the most important factor besides your enemys weapons and your own that affects the tactics you have to apply in order to succeed.

You can stop any on map artillery (mortars, howitzrs and such) from indirect/ direct firing by issueng them a "cancel target" command. They will comply instantaniously and will be ready for a new fire mission. I think this should work even after the spotter got killed. Btw, couldnt this be a bug too? I think it is possible to cancel a fire mission and issue a new one within the same turn if you click the on map arty piece istelf and use the "cancel target command" instead of "cease fire" via the spotter. Gotta test this, will post results here. EDIT: I just tested that. If you issue the "cancel target" to any indirect fire weapon that is currently on a fire mission, its status on the spotters menue will be correctly displayed as "cease fire". So that s not a bug, just a possibility to end a fire mission after the spotter got killed. JonS, I dont think this is true either. Any theory is always based on a limited number of factors that did appear relevant to the one who created the theory. In practice however, there may be factors involved that were not previously known to the one who made the theory or that were not considered to be relevant. Besides that, there may be factors involved that are impossible to be known exactely. Thus any theory can never be persumed to be correct without beeing proven by practice while practice itself must always be considered as correct because practice in fact equals reality. Thus in theory, theory and practice are not the same . Take physics, for example. You have a theory and conduct an experiment and the outcome tells you that the predictions made by your theory do not match the result of your experiment. This now leaves us with 3 relevant possibilities if we dont consider the possibilty of the experiment failing due to incompetence: 1) The theory is correct and you did the correct experiment to prove the theory. Thus reality must be wrong. 2) The theory may be correct but the experiment was not the right one to actually prove the theory. This leaves the possibilty of reality and theory beeing correct even if the experiment did not give you the results predicted by the theory. 3) The theory is wrong: You did have the right experimental setup to prove or unprove your theory and reailty is true. Now since reality can never be "wrong", only 2) and 3) can be true statements.

This works also for onboard mortars, btw. When i first read this i though this would only concern small arms ammo.

According to the sources provided by *1, the leIG 18 7,5cm was used in direct and indirect fire: " Aus der Soldatenfibel des Jahres 1940: „(1) Schießt man Flachfeuer? Vorteil: Kürzere Flugzeit, geringere Streuung. Abpraller! Nachteil: Infolge kleinen Auftreffwinkels wird ein Teil der Splitter im Boden verschluckt, ein Teil nach oben geschleudert. Bei Steilfeuer verteilen sich Splitter besser dicht über den Boden. Gegen Ziele in Bewegung nur im Flachfeuer schießen. Flachfeuer ist auch bei geringen Schussweiten aus allen Stellungen möglich." freely translated: " Taken from the soldiers handbook of the year 1940: (1) Engaging in direct fire? Advantage: shorter flight time, less spread. Riccochets (from the ground)! Disadvantage: Less fragmentation. When used as indirect fire weapon, fragmentation covers a larger area. Moving targets are only to be engaged in direct fire." The v0 of a 75mm grenade fired from a leIG 18 was at about 210 m/s (690 ft/s), according to 2*. According to 3* this is the same muzzle velocity as of the M1 81mm mortar the US army used during ww2. So i think that physics would allow the leIG18 to be used as indirect fire weapon, similar to a mortar. Here we have a photograph from showing the leIG18 beeing used as hgh angle indirect fire weapon: 1 http://www.lexikon-der-wehrmacht.de/Waffen/Infanteriegeschutze.htm 2 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7.5_cm_leichtes_Infanteriegesch%C3%BCtz_18 3 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1_Mortar EDIT: i tried to correct typos and grammar errors. But it s 4 in the morning over here, so i may not have suceeded in finding all of them.

+1 If that could be done without too much effort, why not?

The reason the rilflemen are firing in the direction of the bunker is that i gave a bunch of them an area fire order on the action spot in front of it in order to try to maybe surpress the crew while the others move past the bunker and occupy the objective behind it. Anyways, thanks for the tip. I killed the bunker crew during the next turn using hand grenades . I didnt think that would work after the bunker and its crew survived that many 155mm shells. What did annoy me that much to post here was that when i tried to kill the pillbox with my halftrack mounted 75mm howitzers, they were unable to target it although they should have had line of sight and also could be fired upon by the bunker. But nevermind, problem solved.

This thing is seriously driving me nuts. In the 2nd Mission of the american campaign (Triona, Hill 1209) the funny soul of scenario designer placed the german pillboxes into some ground depreivations. Now it is impossible to destroy them with direct fire because the way they are placed does not allow any troops to get LOS on them from the front or side, while the bunkers themselves however can easily mow down anyone whos there. The point is that i, as a player or floating camera, can easily see that my units should have LOS & LOF, but they dont get it no matter how close or how long they observe. You also cant surpress the crew with area fire because the action spot the bunker sits on is depreivated. I was also unsecsessfull in destroyng the wooden bunker (wich looks more like a wooden pillbox actually than a bunker) with several 155mm hits from an artillery piece. After i hit cease fire, i took those screens: As you see in the 2nd screen the bunker should be clearly visible from my troops point of view but it isnt. The bunker itself, however, can fire upon those guys in the picture. They only got that far because i kept the bunker busy by providing my half tracks as targets (wich also cannot fire at the bunker although it is clearly visible they should have LOS). It is not impossible to win the mission, though. It just really sucks that you cant target those bunkers although your units should be able to clearly see them and that feels INCREDIBLEY gamey and anoying.

Well in CMBN, a unit can alway see over a wall if the line between its eyes or optics and the target it is looking at is not blocked by the wall, independet of the distance between the two. Think of the large bocage as small walls with foliage on them. The foligae blocks LOS as long as you dont get close enough to look through the tiny little gaps, like when you look through a keyhole in a door. If you see a tank firing and then the unit the tank fired upon loses LOS, this can be due to the smoke the explosion caused.

It may be true that setting up and HMG in a house takes much longer than it would take in a field - however if the gui tells me it only does take 20 secs, i expect it to take 20 secs if the crew is not surpressed and at full strengh and probably stop the process and try to find a new spot if my HMG didnt set up after 4 minutes passed, thinking that is a bug.

AT teams fire HEAT ammunitions and that is not able to got through the bocage (such ammunition would be triggered prematurely by the large hedgerows and also trees). Thus it was an AT gun that hit your AFV. Boacage blocks LOS for all units except if they are in closest possible proximity - an anti tank gun sticking its barrel though the bocage, for example. They are less dense then they are represented in the game. They also dont completly block gunfire, although they provide some cover against small arms fire. http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_k07pirzBU34/SivGOtbVRAI/AAAAAAAABVA/T6phikSMEWU/s400/15_WWF_22_d_82AB__14hedgerow.jpg http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USA/USA-E-Breakout/img/USA-E-Breakout-p13.jpg http://www.ww2incolor.com/d/401812-4/DUdHR_137_2%23

I encounter this problem too on a regular basis. German HMGs are also affected, they keep deploying for an apparently infinite amount of time. I will provide a savegame the next time this happens to me.

That remindes me of something. When i was in the army in 2008/2009, i was stationed at an arsenal. Next to that arsenal was a military museum and one time we got a real, operable Jagdpanzer IV for service. Was an impressive sight, seeing it driving around in the base.

I have to agree with that. It looks very natural. Will it be uploaded it to the repository?

That is true, i know that. However in my last post i said that doing what seems intuitively logical IRL will be likely to produce a satisfying outcome ingame and having a C2 setup as i described it does in general match that previous statement of mine. It did in fact raise a little questionmark above my head when i noticed that HQs that are apartently have no radios are capable of calling in off-map arty strikes, only when i figured out that runners and similar means of communication may be abstracted that started to make some sense. Besides that, all HQ units that have radios also do have arty priviledges if leader is alive, so my statement in the previous post was true, even if it did not mention some special cases where arty can be called although the spotting unit does not have a radio.

I agree with you on that matter. Many people probably try to hard to understand exactly how the game works instead of just doing what seems intuitively logical. Would a certain action make sense in real life? If not, than it s likely to be not a good idea in the game too. Thats a good rule of the thumb, IMO. Of the stock german campaigns that come with the CW module i found KG Engel to be pretty hard to beat. I never managed it to win first battle of the geoffrey forest (the one where you get the Tiger 2 and then must to delay that huge allied assault till dusk.) althoough i tried it 2 times before i moved on to the next battle. I inflicted horrible casualties upon the allies, though, and i learned something about setting up a defense in depth. timmyc69, Place the HQ of your mortars next to them (all HQs in CMBN have radios and all mortars have HQs) and then you can use any other unit that has a radio (ie all other HQs, FOs and XO teams) for calling in a fire mission.

[img*]http://www.exampleimage.com/example.jpg[*/IMG] without the *. use http://imageshack.us/ in order to upload images for free.

The situational awareness and reaction time of a tank largely depend on the competence of its crew and the model. A Panzer V, for example, has a commander cupola with 8 (?) periscopes that offer the commander a 360 field of view when buttoned up. Besides that, it has a crew of five. IRL it would be like that every crewmember would observe a distinct area on the battlefield and call out contacts in order to maximaize situational awareness. For example the hull gunner would observe the area from 12 to 2 o clock, the driver (who has 2 periscopes if i recall correctly) the area from 10 to 12, the gunner would observe an area issued by the commander and the commander would observe any area he would find important. In some Panzer IV models even the loader has his own viewports on the side of the turret, if i recall correctly. The disadvantage of beeing buttoned up would only be that the commander has a bit smaller field of view and cant use his binoculars. The competence of the crew determines how fast info is passed up to the TC, so in a Panzer V an experienced crew would have a good situational awareness. Now lets compare this to the 2-man-crewed french R-35 tank. There are only 3 viewports to the front, left and right the tank commander has acsess to when driving buttoned up. Also he has not just to observe the battlefield and command the tank , but also act as radio operator (if any radios are present), loader and gunner. The driver has ojnly a single viewport to the front. Thus the amount of eyes that are available to the tank for observing the battlefield are much fewer than in the Panzer V, so the situaltional awareness of the R35 is much worse, independent of the crews traning and experience. The fact the the shreck guy always gets killed first if the team is spotted by a tank is obviously a result of the tanks crew deliberately aiming for him. After all, he is the threat in the 2 man AT team, not the loader/ammo carrier.

It is a good idea to delay an initial bombardment for a bit, so you can scout the target area before the rounds start hitting and, if there is really absolutely no valueable target there, call off the attack and save the ammunation. 17 minutes isnt that bad, in the lemon hill scenario you have got a full hour if i recall correctly.

Oh, actually he was specific about his problems. First of all, he cant figure out how to get his on map indirect fire weapons to fire because he does not understand how the C2 in CMBN works. Secondly, he expressed his discomfort with the camera handling. Maybe this helps: taken from this thread: http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=97744&highlight=C2-Basics Concerning OPs problems with teh camera: http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=96850

I use mouse and keyboard to navigate across the map as if i was playing a first person shooter . The WASD for right/left/fwd/backwards and the mouse for rotating the camera. Actually i like the camera the way it is, although i can understand people who prefer other camera movement styles as they are found in other strategy/tactic games.

+1. I wouldnt want my Panzerfausts in the assault team as well. After all, if the assault fails, you would need to recover them wich might lead to more casualties and make that important weapon at least temporarly unavailable. If i want to use the panzerfaust as close range anti concrete weapon like against a building with opponents within, i would perfer using the antitank team to get that job done. Besides handing the Panzerfausts to the assault team could lead to them wasting it on infantry targets without beeing explicitly ordered by the player to do so because the assault team is likelier than the support team to get within panzerfaust range to an infantry target. Recently I have seen AI controlled brits wasting their PIATS on my infantry and getting whiped off the map by my tanks 5 minutes later. IMO it is good the way it is.

I think the fact that so many people prefer Wego over RT is just a psychlogical thing. You could, in theory, pause the game every 60 seconds and issue cmmands and then watch as they are carried out. But who does that? When i played RT i always ended up rapeing the hell out of the pause button.

use [img*]http://www.exampleimage.jpg[*/IMG] without the *s. you can upload images for free at imageshack.com. i think if you you upload the screenshot elsewhere, it is irrelevant to the forum what size the file has. edit: correction: it is http://imageshack.us/ not .com.

i havent played that misssion myself, however in general it is like that (or at least i believe it is like that. i am pretty sure, though.) your troops will spot more if they observe a certain area for longer time. probably your scouts will be able to confirm the generic contact if you let them observe for 2-3 turns.

@smeel: In theory, weapons of war are only thought to incapacitate the target, not necessarly to kill it. If it dies, that is collateral damage. Hollowpoint bullets would incapacitate the victim on battlefield as good as regular ammunation but, however, the wounds they inflict would be much more severe and thus increase the probability the victim dies in the hospital. The same is also true for flechette ammunation, like it was fired by the steyr ACR for example. Another reason why you dont want enemy soldiers to die on the battlefield but to survive gravely wounded is that the enemy will have to spend significant time & resources on caring for his casualties. The reason why police forces use hollowpoint bullets is probably the one you have mentioned: they stay inside the target and wont fly around riccochetting, endangering inocent bystanders. A normal, non-hollow-point 9mm round could easily penetrate a human body and continue travilling at lethal speeds for several hundered meters.