Bulletpoint

I've played this game for years now, and I still make mistakes. They're just different mistakes than I made when I started out

Nope.. they will try their damndest to reach the waypoint with those two movement types. Only Hunt will have them hit the ground and stop moving when under fire. Always thought the FAST command made them prioritise getting to their destination even more than using QUICK?

If so, your opponent is making a mistake. Because that will let you get very close to the houses and set up overwatch. Then once the firing starts, his cover in the houses won't help him much - protection heavily depends on the distance. Especially with your MG42s that can punch straight through the walls at these ranges and fire extremely rapidly when close. Of course, you will also be exposed in the open, but you're taking away much of the advantage he has of being in cover.

This is all a red herring, because all the evade button does is to automatically place a fast move order. It's only useful in real-time play - in turn-based you get the same result by manually making a "fast" move order backwards, with a facing command at the end. Also, when troops are in panic, they don't accept any orders, not even "evade". Because in effect, they are already making their own evade command. Panic is basically the unit pressing evade and you can't change or cancel the order.

I don't think you need to upload any videos, it's a pretty well known problem. And it's not just in SF2 - all the games share the same code base, so it's intrinsic to the series. I've just seen it happen in one of the PBEM games I'm currently playing. I'm patiently waiting for the 4.0 patch that will hopefully address this issue.... Very simple: By making the game check that it makes the flee move order towards the friendly map edge. Or, a bit more advanced: By making the troops flee in the direction with least known enemy contacts (maybe even weighted by distance, type, and how recent they are). And while they're at it: By making the game check that there's good or at least decent cover at the destination. I've just witnessed my assault troops run out of a church, towards enemy lines, and into a graveyard completely devoid of cover. In effect digging their own graves.

True. In an ideal world, they'd use cover intelligently. However, it's basically the same behaviour we have now, with units auto-retreating blindly backwards when taking fire. And teams would rarely need to fall back very much, as in most cases they'd quickly spot a friendly unit (and the player would actively move up a unit to re-establish the line). I think it could be a fun thing to add to the optional iron difficulty level. then players could test it out and maybe come to like it. A bit like WeGo was introduced as an optional thing, but now most players only play that mode.

I know it's hard to believe, but I also do other things in life than play this game and test out stuff Sorry for derailing this thread, please carry on with the AAR.

I believe it doesn't change. The rain affects visibility, but ground conditions stay as you set them.

While you have been advancing in a tactical sensible manner fit for real life, your opponent, playing this as a game, has just been running full tilt towards the objective zone. Especially on a symmetrical map like this, he knows he won't get any trouble before he crests the ridge.

Did you change opinion on this? On your blog, you wrote: Or maybe it's more that when you play the US side, you split off the small scout teams (because they can divide in three teams), and with the Germans you more often split half and half (because they can usually only divide in two teams)?

I agree with this, and I'd love to see some system in place where units will automatially pull back towards friendly lines if they are a) out of C2 b) isolated - not spotting any friendlies c) low leadership value. So if you want to split off 2-man scout teams and probe ahead, you need them to stay in C2. And if you want to have a Panzerjäger team wait in ambush by the bridge all alone, they will need a +1 leader. I imagine it could work like this: Unit is in C2: Stays in place unless under heavy fire (just like the game works now) Unit is out of C2 but spots friendlies nearby: Needs +0 leader or better to stay in place. Units with negative leadership will start to fall back. Unit is out of C2 but doesn't spot friendlies: Needs +1 leader or better to stay in place (In this basic idea, motivation is not taken into account. Motivated units are thought of as having motivation to fight the enemy, not to sit out in a forest somewhere with no idea why, and no leader telling them how it fits into the big scheme of things. They'd be motivated to link up with their company and be reassigned)

Let's stop holding the game back because of the AI, because it doesn't exist. It's all the human designer pulling the strings. You won't see the non-existent AI player sending out scouts ahead of its main force. If you see the enemy move, it's because the human designer told them to move from A to B at time xx:xx, or because they are fleeing from incoming fire. When playing the game in singleplayer, it basically only works when the enemy units stay in human-designed defensive positions where they open fire on the player's units once they are spotted. Those missions are often really fun nuts to crack, but not because of AI.

I believe they are working on a Combat Mission that covers the end of the war, so it's likely that game would have that battle right out of the box...

Not saying you're wrong, but just to voice the opposite opinion: I actually appreciate that they stick very close to reality.

Thanks for sharing. I'm interested in finding out more about how small French and German villages were actually laid out in WW2. I feel many maps are too modern, with houses spread out and surrounded by lawns and gardens. I think back in the day, most hamlets actually had houses very close to each other, often without any space between them. There might be gardens, but not like modern day suburbia. On these maps, it seems there is often space between individual buildings, but maybe that's just because the map needs to show how many individual buildings there are?

True. It wouldn't be a perfect solution. That's why I also suggested an idea that it could be based on whether the target unit was in visual C2.The idea being that somebody would keep an eye on you and know what happened to you. It would mean players would have to bring the HQ unit forward before making the next "leap" with the scouts - arguably more realistic than just having them charge ahead blindly for hundreds of metres, then somehow picking up lots of intel when they go down. I would vote yes to both ideas. I often manage to spot distant stationary tanks in woods etc. while my scouts are running at top speed through a forest. There seems to be the same spotting ability whether or not the unit is stationary or running.. or at least that's how it seems like to me.

I'm having a similar problem in one of my current PBEMs too. No bocage or hedges of any kind, open field, but when I split a section of engineers into two teams, then ordered one team forward, then only half the guys moved, the other half stayed. Then I moved the destination waypoint, and one more guy started moving. I repeated this and eventually they all moved, but it took several turns.

I like that they fixed the conga lines, and also that the tank commanders duck down much faster now under enemy fire. Took them a long time, but they did it.

Why would they bother with special thermite grenades if regular hand grenades would shatter the barrel?

Thanks for clearing that up. I always thought the target height was determined by the spotter's height.

Is the message Reverse Slope always based on the tallest possible vehicle being the potential target? When I set up an infantry ambush, I am interested in knowing if they will be able to spot enemy infantry running across a field. I'm not interested in knowing if they might spot the tallest possible tank at that location. However, when setting up a tank ambush, I'm interested in knowing if the tank will spot another tank. In your graphical examples, you have both a man and a tank being the height to measure against.

Maybe I wasn't clear enough. What I basically want to know is if a low vehicle gets the same reverse slope readings for the same area target as a tall vehicle.

So did we reach a conclusion here? Is morale state based on individual soldiers, or on teams? It seems to me that if it's the first case, then splitting/combining squads has no effect on the performance of each soldier. Splitting teams is always the way to go. But in the second case, it makes sense to combine rattled teams into squads to even out morale values and regain some staying power.

What I would like to know is if these heights are the same for all units, or relative to the unit's own height? For example, if I select standing infantry and do a target line, getting "no aim point", does that mean they can't aim at the ground but will be able to spot and fire at targets that are the same height or taller than other standing infantry? And if I do the same with a Panther, does that mean it can't hit the ground, but it will be able to spot anything the same height as a Panther (but won't spot a jeep for example)? The difference is important, because let's say I'm setting up an infantry ambush and I want to know if they will be able to spot and engage any enemy troops moving across a feield of crops. When I see "no aim point", could that in effect mean they will spot infantry or only very tall vehicles moving through that area?

Yep, you're right. I just checked and it does come with an HQ unit. No jeep though. @Michael Emrys Yes, the Cannon Company is much faster to call in (9 mins) than the regular 105s (13 mins). However, the call times are the same for every HQ unit; the Cannon Company guy doesn't get through any faster. So he's pretty superfluous. Here's a balancing problem: There is no reason to EVER buy the regular Medium howitzers. In both cases, you get 105s, and they cost the same amount of points per shell. However, the Cannon Company divides into three separate units, so can target three different positions. And it gets called in much faster. Ok, you then have to spend 17 points on the HQ unit, but that's peanuts, and that unit can be used for a scout or observation post. I guess for scenario purposes, it's still nice to have both options though.