Bozowans

I love those videos.
The new patch is really good so far too. The only complaint I have is that they still haven't fixed the trench bug, where unspotted enemy trenches are still clearly visible to the player. That's annoying, but I am really loving the way the AI works now so far.
I just finished one scenario where you get a company of British light infantry attacking a small town held by a full battalion of poor quality green Syrian Army troops. Aside from some air support, I didn't get a lot of heavy weapons to blast them out of their buildings, so it mostly came down to classic fire and maneuver tactics and assaulting the enemy up close. With the AI now being more reluctant to just run away only to get mowed down in the open, the Syrians defenses were mostly just static, with the men cowering in place and putting out sporadic fire until I got close enough for them to surrender. I took a LOT of prisoners, more than 100 altogether, which I'm pretty sure is more prisoners than I've ever taken in any CM scenario I've ever played. I probably could have taken more but the extreme heat slowed down my advance considerably.
It did feel more realistic than the way the game played before, with my troops slowly advancing from house to house, engaging in brief firefights before dragging out another big group of prisoners, sometimes full squads at a time. Then on to the next house. Some of the fighting in the town was very bloody and difficult though, with stubborn pockets of resistance here and there. The enemy was just so numerous that I had a lot of difficulty at times. It seemed like nearly every building had guys in it. I lost about a quarter of my men, with 12 dead and 30 wounded compared to 200 Syrian dead and wounded alongside the 100+ prisoners. I've never seen an entire 1/3rd of an enemy force surrender before.
And because this is the screenshot thread:

This was one of the more deadly streets. There were multiple Syrian squads down at the end of the street, some with good keyhole positions putting out deadly fire for quite a long time, including RPG fire that caused a lot of casualties among my men. I couldn't get close enough to deal with them. At one point I brought up a sniper team to take shots at them, but my crack sniper lost a duel with some guy with an AK. 
 
 

The scenario ended with a bang. On the final turn of the scenario, I dropped a 2000lb bomb directly onto the roof of a small one-story building at the end of that street with an RPG team inside. Miraculously, one of the guys survived. After the boom, I saw him pop up out of the rubble and take off running toward the rear. He didn't make it far before he was shot. Then the enemy force surrendered. In the end, I only got a minor victory because of all the casualties I took. I was supposed to be below 25% casualties, but I ended up taking 26%. 

I love those videos.
The new patch is really good so far too. The only complaint I have is that they still haven't fixed the trench bug, where unspotted enemy trenches are still clearly visible to the player. That's annoying, but I am really loving the way the AI works now so far.
I just finished one scenario where you get a company of British light infantry attacking a small town held by a full battalion of poor quality green Syrian Army troops. Aside from some air support, I didn't get a lot of heavy weapons to blast them out of their buildings, so it mostly came down to classic fire and maneuver tactics and assaulting the enemy up close. With the AI now being more reluctant to just run away only to get mowed down in the open, the Syrians defenses were mostly just static, with the men cowering in place and putting out sporadic fire until I got close enough for them to surrender. I took a LOT of prisoners, more than 100 altogether, which I'm pretty sure is more prisoners than I've ever taken in any CM scenario I've ever played. I probably could have taken more but the extreme heat slowed down my advance considerably.
It did feel more realistic than the way the game played before, with my troops slowly advancing from house to house, engaging in brief firefights before dragging out another big group of prisoners, sometimes full squads at a time. Then on to the next house. Some of the fighting in the town was very bloody and difficult though, with stubborn pockets of resistance here and there. The enemy was just so numerous that I had a lot of difficulty at times. It seemed like nearly every building had guys in it. I lost about a quarter of my men, with 12 dead and 30 wounded compared to 200 Syrian dead and wounded alongside the 100+ prisoners. I've never seen an entire 1/3rd of an enemy force surrender before.
And because this is the screenshot thread:

This was one of the more deadly streets. There were multiple Syrian squads down at the end of the street, some with good keyhole positions putting out deadly fire for quite a long time, including RPG fire that caused a lot of casualties among my men. I couldn't get close enough to deal with them. At one point I brought up a sniper team to take shots at them, but my crack sniper lost a duel with some guy with an AK. 
 
 

The scenario ended with a bang. On the final turn of the scenario, I dropped a 2000lb bomb directly onto the roof of a small one-story building at the end of that street with an RPG team inside. Miraculously, one of the guys survived. After the boom, I saw him pop up out of the rubble and take off running toward the rear. He didn't make it far before he was shot. Then the enemy force surrendered. In the end, I only got a minor victory because of all the casualties I took. I was supposed to be below 25% casualties, but I ended up taking 26%. 

How far away were you when you first started shooting? Firing at heavy buildings at very long range doesn't do much sometimes. It might not even suppress them that much. Like RockinHarry posted, the closer you get, the more likely shots are to penetrate. And how far away was the enemy when they shot up your own guys inside the same building? My guess is that might have been why you had so much trouble approaching the buildings, and then your own guys got wasted instantly the moment you got inside. 
You might have been trying to shoot at them from long range ineffectively, and then once your squad finally made it inside the building, they got hit by counter-fire at very close range. I haven't played that scenario though so I don't know. Maybe I'll have to try it.
In my own experience, the best way to deal with buildings if you don't have heavy weapons or tanks is to just get in close as quickly as you can and shoot them up as much possible with as many men as possible. Use smoke, suppress them as much as you can during the approach or whatever, but you don't really have to storm the building itself. You can even halt in open ground in front of the building as long as you outnumber them heavily and have fire superiority. The idea is that the moment an enemy soldier pops up at the window to take a shot, you have 30 guys or whatever right outside the building that will all instantly return fire. If your guys are all just 50 meters outside the building, the enemy will probably be dead within seconds. The enemy might open up on one of your squads and cause a casualty or two, but you should have two more squads right there next to them that should take them down. Sometimes that alone will be enough to clear a building.

I've only played one scenario with the new patch but I'm agreeing with this so far. I just played the "De Hinderlaag" scenario and I was surprised at how tough it was. I got a minor defeat, unable to dislodge the Syrians from the objectives completely. Even though most of the Syrians were green or conscripts, I found that I couldn't just blindly shoot at enemy-occupied buildings until they ran away anymore. I got some enemies out in an open field to run away, but most of the guys in the buildings were stubborn and didn't wanna leave their good cover. I could suppress them easily, but there were such large numbers of them that I couldn't deal with them all in the time allotted.
They had about 200 men against my 60. I found that I usually had to either blow up the buildings or assault them up close with infantry, either killing them or making them surrender. I got a couple Syrian squads to surrender, but it just wasn't enough. I waited too long early in the game for fire support to arrive, and then didn't have enough time to clear the objectives. I ordered a last-ditch rush toward the objectives at the end of the game, but I was only able to partially clear them and I took too many casualties. The Syrians didn't even take 50% casualties.
It was a really fun scenario honestly. I'm gonna have to change my tactics and try it again.

7. "Fulda Gap": 1970-90
Europe WWIII

Couple of images from testing ('Winter of Discontent') that pleased me:


 

That's interesting if you were unloading on them at very close range and still had that much trouble. I usually have pretty decent luck firing MG34s/42s at buildings. It's like the high rate of fire and sheer number of bullets hitting the building makes it more likely that at least some of them will penetrate. Maybe I had forgotten just how tough they made some of the buildings in CMBN though lol
It's been a while since I've played CMBN. Would be fun to try that scenario myself and see if I can pull it off. That's the one campaign in that game that I haven't tried yet.

How far away were you when you first started shooting? Firing at heavy buildings at very long range doesn't do much sometimes. It might not even suppress them that much. Like RockinHarry posted, the closer you get, the more likely shots are to penetrate. And how far away was the enemy when they shot up your own guys inside the same building? My guess is that might have been why you had so much trouble approaching the buildings, and then your own guys got wasted instantly the moment you got inside. 
You might have been trying to shoot at them from long range ineffectively, and then once your squad finally made it inside the building, they got hit by counter-fire at very close range. I haven't played that scenario though so I don't know. Maybe I'll have to try it.
In my own experience, the best way to deal with buildings if you don't have heavy weapons or tanks is to just get in close as quickly as you can and shoot them up as much possible with as many men as possible. Use smoke, suppress them as much as you can during the approach or whatever, but you don't really have to storm the building itself. You can even halt in open ground in front of the building as long as you outnumber them heavily and have fire superiority. The idea is that the moment an enemy soldier pops up at the window to take a shot, you have 30 guys or whatever right outside the building that will all instantly return fire. If your guys are all just 50 meters outside the building, the enemy will probably be dead within seconds. The enemy might open up on one of your squads and cause a casualty or two, but you should have two more squads right there next to them that should take them down. Sometimes that alone will be enough to clear a building.

How far away were you when you first started shooting? Firing at heavy buildings at very long range doesn't do much sometimes. It might not even suppress them that much. Like RockinHarry posted, the closer you get, the more likely shots are to penetrate. And how far away was the enemy when they shot up your own guys inside the same building? My guess is that might have been why you had so much trouble approaching the buildings, and then your own guys got wasted instantly the moment you got inside. 
You might have been trying to shoot at them from long range ineffectively, and then once your squad finally made it inside the building, they got hit by counter-fire at very close range. I haven't played that scenario though so I don't know. Maybe I'll have to try it.
In my own experience, the best way to deal with buildings if you don't have heavy weapons or tanks is to just get in close as quickly as you can and shoot them up as much possible with as many men as possible. Use smoke, suppress them as much as you can during the approach or whatever, but you don't really have to storm the building itself. You can even halt in open ground in front of the building as long as you outnumber them heavily and have fire superiority. The idea is that the moment an enemy soldier pops up at the window to take a shot, you have 30 guys or whatever right outside the building that will all instantly return fire. If your guys are all just 50 meters outside the building, the enemy will probably be dead within seconds. The enemy might open up on one of your squads and cause a casualty or two, but you should have two more squads right there next to them that should take them down. Sometimes that alone will be enough to clear a building.

It does make sense that a PPSh could be called a burp gun because of the high rate of fire. It can shoot 900-1000 rounds per minute. The old PPSh sound effects from CMBB even sounds like a 'brrrrrp brrrrrrp'. That article mentions soldiers in Korea calling them burp guns.
The term certainly does go back to WW2 though. Looking into it a little bit further, it seems there was even a firefight called the "Battle of Burp Gun Corner" during Operation Varsity in WW2, where a bunch of glider pilots fended off a German attack. It's kinda hard to find detailed information about it, but I found an article (https://warfarehistorynetwork.com/2019/01/21/the-birdmen-of-varsity/) that again repeats the claim that burp guns were MP-40s. It said, "In nearby farmhouses, enemy soldiers relentlessly fired their MP-40 submachine guns—nicknamed 'burp guns' for their rapid rate of fire." It went on to say that the battle was named the "Battle of Burp Gun Corner" by a journalist from Stars and Stripes.
This still makes no sense though. Could MP-40s really have been such a dominant part of that fight that the battle would be named after them? Why not MG-42s? Something seems fishy. The MG-42 can vary from 900-1500 rounds per minute, so it's not that much different from the PPSh. The MG-34 gets 800-900 per minute, so also not that different. It should have a brrrrrrrrrp sound. The MP-40 only fires 500 rounds per minute, so it should be more like a pop-pop-pop-pop sound. Also, the officers carrying MP-40s would likely not have been firing them very much. They would be busy communicating, directing their men and observing the fight. It doesn't make sense that there would be all these relentless volleys of MP-40 fire that drowns out everything else.
When I Googled MP-40s, the first video result was this:
 
There is a guy halfway through the video who praises the MP-40 for its SLOW rate of fire. He said it was a good SMG because it's simple and fires slow enough that it's easily controllable and doesn't need a mechanism to toggle between semi-automatic and fully-automatic. It only fires fully-automatic, yet slow enough that you can still squeeze off aimed single shots if you want. That doesn't really sound like a rapid-firing burp gun to me.
I'm gonna go ahead and make the bold assumption that every one of these sources about WW2 burp guns are wrong. Burp guns were really MG-42s (and 34s), but when Korea came along, the slang shifted to mean the PPSh, because it made a similar sound. Perhaps this meaning continued into Vietnam, and the term must have been used to refer to other SMGs that looked similar to the PPSh as well. The Vietnamese were known to use MP-40s mixed with PPSh-41s and whatever other SMGs they could get their hands on. If you look at the Wikipedia article for the PPSh-41, there is a photo of a captured NVA MP-40 alongside a PPS-43 and a K-50M, the Vietnamese variant of the Chinese variant of the PPSh-41. So all of these weapons would have been lumped together by the Americans until "burp gun" just meant "generic SMG that isn't ours". Then the WW2 burp gun somehow got retconned into meaning the MP-40.
Maybe decades after WW2, someone was reading accounts from WW2 soldiers talking about burp guns, and they thought, "Burp gun? That's like one of those SMGs right? Must have been an MP-40 then." And then that got repeated over and over and over again ever since. Then once people started thinking burp guns meant MP-40s, they would read the original accounts from the war and think that MP-40s were much more important than they really were, since why else would the soldiers talk about these "burp guns" all the time right?

This reminds me of the US Army slang where they would refer to "burp guns" among the Germans, but I was always very confused about what weapon is actually meant by that. One of my old WW2 books (I forget which one, I think about the Normandy campaign) mentioned American soldiers talking about burp guns, but then the footnote said it referred to an MP-40. The footnote said something along the lines of soldiers calling them burp guns because the Germans "relied heavily on automatic fire from MP-40 machine pistols, which had a very high rate of fire and had a distinctive rapid 'brrrrrrrrp' sound."
Yet that sounds more like an MG42 to me. The MP-40 doesn't even fire that fast. As we all know here, machine guns were the primary weapons in German squads and that's probably what soldiers on the ground would have been hearing the most. Yet the book made no mention of MG42s, although the soldiers kept talking about "burp guns" all the time. That made no sense to me so I thought the book might have been wrong about that. Why would MP-40s be so important to talk about all the time but not MG42s?
Upon searching Google for "burp gun" however, I find results that are almost entirely about the Soviet PPSh41. I see headlines like "Firing the Iconic PPSh41 'Burp Gun!'" This made me even more confused.
On the second page of Google results I found a site (https://ww2db.com/weapon.php?q=8) which repeats the MP-40 as burp gun thing.
So which one is it? The whole thing gives me a headache. Some of the Google results suggest "burp gun" just being a generic term for an SMG. It kinda makes me think that during the actual war, none of the soldiers on the ground would have had any idea of what was going on around them, and every enemy automatic weapon was a burp gun regardless of what it was, just as how every tank was a Tiger or whatever.

It does make sense that a PPSh could be called a burp gun because of the high rate of fire. It can shoot 900-1000 rounds per minute. The old PPSh sound effects from CMBB even sounds like a 'brrrrrp brrrrrrp'. That article mentions soldiers in Korea calling them burp guns.
The term certainly does go back to WW2 though. Looking into it a little bit further, it seems there was even a firefight called the "Battle of Burp Gun Corner" during Operation Varsity in WW2, where a bunch of glider pilots fended off a German attack. It's kinda hard to find detailed information about it, but I found an article (https://warfarehistorynetwork.com/2019/01/21/the-birdmen-of-varsity/) that again repeats the claim that burp guns were MP-40s. It said, "In nearby farmhouses, enemy soldiers relentlessly fired their MP-40 submachine guns—nicknamed 'burp guns' for their rapid rate of fire." It went on to say that the battle was named the "Battle of Burp Gun Corner" by a journalist from Stars and Stripes.
This still makes no sense though. Could MP-40s really have been such a dominant part of that fight that the battle would be named after them? Why not MG-42s? Something seems fishy. The MG-42 can vary from 900-1500 rounds per minute, so it's not that much different from the PPSh. The MG-34 gets 800-900 per minute, so also not that different. It should have a brrrrrrrrrp sound. The MP-40 only fires 500 rounds per minute, so it should be more like a pop-pop-pop-pop sound. Also, the officers carrying MP-40s would likely not have been firing them very much. They would be busy communicating, directing their men and observing the fight. It doesn't make sense that there would be all these relentless volleys of MP-40 fire that drowns out everything else.
When I Googled MP-40s, the first video result was this:
 
There is a guy halfway through the video who praises the MP-40 for its SLOW rate of fire. He said it was a good SMG because it's simple and fires slow enough that it's easily controllable and doesn't need a mechanism to toggle between semi-automatic and fully-automatic. It only fires fully-automatic, yet slow enough that you can still squeeze off aimed single shots if you want. That doesn't really sound like a rapid-firing burp gun to me.
I'm gonna go ahead and make the bold assumption that every one of these sources about WW2 burp guns are wrong. Burp guns were really MG-42s (and 34s), but when Korea came along, the slang shifted to mean the PPSh, because it made a similar sound. Perhaps this meaning continued into Vietnam, and the term must have been used to refer to other SMGs that looked similar to the PPSh as well. The Vietnamese were known to use MP-40s mixed with PPSh-41s and whatever other SMGs they could get their hands on. If you look at the Wikipedia article for the PPSh-41, there is a photo of a captured NVA MP-40 alongside a PPS-43 and a K-50M, the Vietnamese variant of the Chinese variant of the PPSh-41. So all of these weapons would have been lumped together by the Americans until "burp gun" just meant "generic SMG that isn't ours". Then the WW2 burp gun somehow got retconned into meaning the MP-40.
Maybe decades after WW2, someone was reading accounts from WW2 soldiers talking about burp guns, and they thought, "Burp gun? That's like one of those SMGs right? Must have been an MP-40 then." And then that got repeated over and over and over again ever since. Then once people started thinking burp guns meant MP-40s, they would read the original accounts from the war and think that MP-40s were much more important than they really were, since why else would the soldiers talk about these "burp guns" all the time right?

My last bit of spamming this thread... I'm planning on doing an AAR in the near future instead.

Russian Razvedka approach a compound sitting on the commanding heights of the town.

The heights were remarkably poorly defended. A brief firefight saw the Ukrainian defenders handily defeated by withering cannon fire. (Anyone else notice that Razvedka are reluctant to use weapons other than the SVD? It seems to make them particularly vulnerable in firefights).  Strong points identified by the BRDM assault company are blasted by supporting artillery coordinated from the heights.

The BRDM company dismounts advance through the village.  Even though my Reconnaissance Battalion is facing an entire Infantry Battalion, heavy supporting fires have been instrumental in dislodging stubborn defenders.  Unfortunately, every single casualty hurts when all of my squads are 4-man teams, while the Ukrainians outnumber me two-to-one.

It does make sense that a PPSh could be called a burp gun because of the high rate of fire. It can shoot 900-1000 rounds per minute. The old PPSh sound effects from CMBB even sounds like a 'brrrrrp brrrrrrp'. That article mentions soldiers in Korea calling them burp guns.
The term certainly does go back to WW2 though. Looking into it a little bit further, it seems there was even a firefight called the "Battle of Burp Gun Corner" during Operation Varsity in WW2, where a bunch of glider pilots fended off a German attack. It's kinda hard to find detailed information about it, but I found an article (https://warfarehistorynetwork.com/2019/01/21/the-birdmen-of-varsity/) that again repeats the claim that burp guns were MP-40s. It said, "In nearby farmhouses, enemy soldiers relentlessly fired their MP-40 submachine guns—nicknamed 'burp guns' for their rapid rate of fire." It went on to say that the battle was named the "Battle of Burp Gun Corner" by a journalist from Stars and Stripes.
This still makes no sense though. Could MP-40s really have been such a dominant part of that fight that the battle would be named after them? Why not MG-42s? Something seems fishy. The MG-42 can vary from 900-1500 rounds per minute, so it's not that much different from the PPSh. The MG-34 gets 800-900 per minute, so also not that different. It should have a brrrrrrrrrp sound. The MP-40 only fires 500 rounds per minute, so it should be more like a pop-pop-pop-pop sound. Also, the officers carrying MP-40s would likely not have been firing them very much. They would be busy communicating, directing their men and observing the fight. It doesn't make sense that there would be all these relentless volleys of MP-40 fire that drowns out everything else.
When I Googled MP-40s, the first video result was this:
 
There is a guy halfway through the video who praises the MP-40 for its SLOW rate of fire. He said it was a good SMG because it's simple and fires slow enough that it's easily controllable and doesn't need a mechanism to toggle between semi-automatic and fully-automatic. It only fires fully-automatic, yet slow enough that you can still squeeze off aimed single shots if you want. That doesn't really sound like a rapid-firing burp gun to me.
I'm gonna go ahead and make the bold assumption that every one of these sources about WW2 burp guns are wrong. Burp guns were really MG-42s (and 34s), but when Korea came along, the slang shifted to mean the PPSh, because it made a similar sound. Perhaps this meaning continued into Vietnam, and the term must have been used to refer to other SMGs that looked similar to the PPSh as well. The Vietnamese were known to use MP-40s mixed with PPSh-41s and whatever other SMGs they could get their hands on. If you look at the Wikipedia article for the PPSh-41, there is a photo of a captured NVA MP-40 alongside a PPS-43 and a K-50M, the Vietnamese variant of the Chinese variant of the PPSh-41. So all of these weapons would have been lumped together by the Americans until "burp gun" just meant "generic SMG that isn't ours". Then the WW2 burp gun somehow got retconned into meaning the MP-40.
Maybe decades after WW2, someone was reading accounts from WW2 soldiers talking about burp guns, and they thought, "Burp gun? That's like one of those SMGs right? Must have been an MP-40 then." And then that got repeated over and over and over again ever since. Then once people started thinking burp guns meant MP-40s, they would read the original accounts from the war and think that MP-40s were much more important than they really were, since why else would the soldiers talk about these "burp guns" all the time right?

This reminds me of the US Army slang where they would refer to "burp guns" among the Germans, but I was always very confused about what weapon is actually meant by that. One of my old WW2 books (I forget which one, I think about the Normandy campaign) mentioned American soldiers talking about burp guns, but then the footnote said it referred to an MP-40. The footnote said something along the lines of soldiers calling them burp guns because the Germans "relied heavily on automatic fire from MP-40 machine pistols, which had a very high rate of fire and had a distinctive rapid 'brrrrrrrrp' sound."
Yet that sounds more like an MG42 to me. The MP-40 doesn't even fire that fast. As we all know here, machine guns were the primary weapons in German squads and that's probably what soldiers on the ground would have been hearing the most. Yet the book made no mention of MG42s, although the soldiers kept talking about "burp guns" all the time. That made no sense to me so I thought the book might have been wrong about that. Why would MP-40s be so important to talk about all the time but not MG42s?
Upon searching Google for "burp gun" however, I find results that are almost entirely about the Soviet PPSh41. I see headlines like "Firing the Iconic PPSh41 'Burp Gun!'" This made me even more confused.
On the second page of Google results I found a site (https://ww2db.com/weapon.php?q=8) which repeats the MP-40 as burp gun thing.
So which one is it? The whole thing gives me a headache. Some of the Google results suggest "burp gun" just being a generic term for an SMG. It kinda makes me think that during the actual war, none of the soldiers on the ground would have had any idea of what was going on around them, and every enemy automatic weapon was a burp gun regardless of what it was, just as how every tank was a Tiger or whatever.

This reminds me of the US Army slang where they would refer to "burp guns" among the Germans, but I was always very confused about what weapon is actually meant by that. One of my old WW2 books (I forget which one, I think about the Normandy campaign) mentioned American soldiers talking about burp guns, but then the footnote said it referred to an MP-40. The footnote said something along the lines of soldiers calling them burp guns because the Germans "relied heavily on automatic fire from MP-40 machine pistols, which had a very high rate of fire and had a distinctive rapid 'brrrrrrrrp' sound."
Yet that sounds more like an MG42 to me. The MP-40 doesn't even fire that fast. As we all know here, machine guns were the primary weapons in German squads and that's probably what soldiers on the ground would have been hearing the most. Yet the book made no mention of MG42s, although the soldiers kept talking about "burp guns" all the time. That made no sense to me so I thought the book might have been wrong about that. Why would MP-40s be so important to talk about all the time but not MG42s?
Upon searching Google for "burp gun" however, I find results that are almost entirely about the Soviet PPSh41. I see headlines like "Firing the Iconic PPSh41 'Burp Gun!'" This made me even more confused.
On the second page of Google results I found a site (https://ww2db.com/weapon.php?q=8) which repeats the MP-40 as burp gun thing.
So which one is it? The whole thing gives me a headache. Some of the Google results suggest "burp gun" just being a generic term for an SMG. It kinda makes me think that during the actual war, none of the soldiers on the ground would have had any idea of what was going on around them, and every enemy automatic weapon was a burp gun regardless of what it was, just as how every tank was a Tiger or whatever.

So here is an example of the problem I was talking about on the Stavelot map. 
The problem affects these two white buildings highlighted here, just off the town square:

 
Here is a close-up. As you can see I have men stacked up right in front of the doors. Neither the front nor the rear doors are functional for these buildings, and it seems the only way in is to go through the inside of the adjacent buildings. Also, this is not the only building type affected by this bug. Some of the really narrow buildings on this exact same block are also affected by this, but for now I'll just point out these.

 
Here are the movement orders I have given. I had two separate teams try to enter the buildings side by side at the same time to illustrate the problem.


 
When I hit the big red button, both teams ignored the doors and then started running off to the right:

 
They circled around the corner, made a U-turn, and then entered the adjacent building at the end of the block.

 
Naturally, this meant that they ran right into the bullets of the Americans across the street.

 
So as you can see, it can be a bit of a game-breaking bug when it ends up like that, especially when playing a long campaign where every casualty you take matters. Luckily I save the game at the beginning of every turn anyway just in case something like this happens. I have multiple other examples and screenshots of this happening to other buildings on this same map as well.

Now part two:
As all that gunfire was going on with the two American half-tracks, two more half-tracks were coming up the road behind them, making four in total. Right when the first firefight was ending, the two new half-tracks opened fire down the road. They didn't even see the Stummel right in front of them, but were instead shooting off to the right side of the road where they saw muzzle flashes from the firefight (where my shot-up HQ teams were).

 
Some of my forward troops had already turned around from infiltrating the city and were rushing back to the sound of shooting behind them. They were about to lay a devastating ambush along the road.


 
Now that the Americans were shooting, my troops along the road suddenly realized what was right in front of them and then opened fire.

 
Seemingly every man in this entire squad threw a grenade, and then a panzerfaust was launched:


 
These guys have no idea what's coming:

 
See if you can count how many grenades are in this picture!

 
The half-tracks go boom. Both remaining half-tracks are completely destroyed with all hands lost inside.


 
After such a shocking few minutes, everything fell quiet for a while. My troops went on without their commander back to their original mission of infiltrating the city, and were eventually victorious. 

Now part two:
As all that gunfire was going on with the two American half-tracks, two more half-tracks were coming up the road behind them, making four in total. Right when the first firefight was ending, the two new half-tracks opened fire down the road. They didn't even see the Stummel right in front of them, but were instead shooting off to the right side of the road where they saw muzzle flashes from the firefight (where my shot-up HQ teams were).

 
Some of my forward troops had already turned around from infiltrating the city and were rushing back to the sound of shooting behind them. They were about to lay a devastating ambush along the road.


 
Now that the Americans were shooting, my troops along the road suddenly realized what was right in front of them and then opened fire.

 
Seemingly every man in this entire squad threw a grenade, and then a panzerfaust was launched:


 
These guys have no idea what's coming:

 
See if you can count how many grenades are in this picture!

 
The half-tracks go boom. Both remaining half-tracks are completely destroyed with all hands lost inside.


 
After such a shocking few minutes, everything fell quiet for a while. My troops went on without their commander back to their original mission of infiltrating the city, and were eventually victorious. 

Here's one of the more crazy close-range firefights I've ever seen in these games. This post might have spoilers for the Kampfgruppe Peiper campaign for anyone that cares.
I was the Waffen SS attacking into Stavelot in the early morning hours, with the skies overcast and visibility almost at zero. You could walk right up to enemies and not see them even at point blank range. As the battle began and my forward platoons were fanning out toward the city, my company HQ and most of the company's half-tracks were kept back a bit. I thought they were all safe back there, silly me!
Before long, I could hear American vehicles moving down the road out of the city and directly at my positions. I wasn't expecting them to counterattack or just brazenly drive straight out at me so I didn't know what to do at first. The vehicles drove right past my forward troops and none of them saw anything, although I could see the sound contacts coming closer and closer. 
An American half-track packed full of troops suddenly veered off the road, turned right, crossed right in front of a Stummel just meters away, then drove straight at my two HQ teams hidden behind a line of bushes, one of them being the company HQ:

 
The half-track smashed down the fence between the two HQ teams and then kept going, and the GIs in the back got up and opened fire into the backs of my HQ teams, causing two casualties straight away:

 
One of the HQ teams spun around and returned fire:

 
Seconds later, another American half-track appeared out of nowhere, following behind the first:

 
Like a firing squad, the men in the half-track all turned in unison and mercilessly gunned down the entire HQ team. A rifle grenade exploded in the middle of them. My company commander was killed instantly, and at this point my jaw had pretty much hit the floor. One of the first casualties in the battle was my company commander, and he was calling in a bunch of artillery at the time so I had no way to cancel. This was probably the least likely thing I had ever expected to happen - my company commander gunned down in a drive-by shooting at point blank range right at the beginning of the battle. 

 
I would soon get my revenge however. The American half-tracks had drove right into the midst of a column of German half-tracks strung out along the road. They turned and started shooting:

 
The US half-tracks both halted and the men started bailing out under heavy fire:


 
A short but intense firefight ensued, with the Americans shooting and tossing grenades in every direction while under a murderous crossfire.


 
The American dismounts were cut down to the last man, although both of their half-tracks managed to escape and drive off into the darkness. Only the drivers survived. I lost a half-track gunner or two but nothing else.

Stay tuned for part two!
 

Now part two:
As all that gunfire was going on with the two American half-tracks, two more half-tracks were coming up the road behind them, making four in total. Right when the first firefight was ending, the two new half-tracks opened fire down the road. They didn't even see the Stummel right in front of them, but were instead shooting off to the right side of the road where they saw muzzle flashes from the firefight (where my shot-up HQ teams were).

 
Some of my forward troops had already turned around from infiltrating the city and were rushing back to the sound of shooting behind them. They were about to lay a devastating ambush along the road.


 
Now that the Americans were shooting, my troops along the road suddenly realized what was right in front of them and then opened fire.

 
Seemingly every man in this entire squad threw a grenade, and then a panzerfaust was launched:


 
These guys have no idea what's coming:

 
See if you can count how many grenades are in this picture!

 
The half-tracks go boom. Both remaining half-tracks are completely destroyed with all hands lost inside.


 
After such a shocking few minutes, everything fell quiet for a while. My troops went on without their commander back to their original mission of infiltrating the city, and were eventually victorious. 

So here is an example of the problem I was talking about on the Stavelot map. 
The problem affects these two white buildings highlighted here, just off the town square:

 
Here is a close-up. As you can see I have men stacked up right in front of the doors. Neither the front nor the rear doors are functional for these buildings, and it seems the only way in is to go through the inside of the adjacent buildings. Also, this is not the only building type affected by this bug. Some of the really narrow buildings on this exact same block are also affected by this, but for now I'll just point out these.

 
Here are the movement orders I have given. I had two separate teams try to enter the buildings side by side at the same time to illustrate the problem.


 
When I hit the big red button, both teams ignored the doors and then started running off to the right:

 
They circled around the corner, made a U-turn, and then entered the adjacent building at the end of the block.

 
Naturally, this meant that they ran right into the bullets of the Americans across the street.

 
So as you can see, it can be a bit of a game-breaking bug when it ends up like that, especially when playing a long campaign where every casualty you take matters. Luckily I save the game at the beginning of every turn anyway just in case something like this happens. I have multiple other examples and screenshots of this happening to other buildings on this same map as well.

So here is an example of the problem I was talking about on the Stavelot map. 
The problem affects these two white buildings highlighted here, just off the town square:

 
Here is a close-up. As you can see I have men stacked up right in front of the doors. Neither the front nor the rear doors are functional for these buildings, and it seems the only way in is to go through the inside of the adjacent buildings. Also, this is not the only building type affected by this bug. Some of the really narrow buildings on this exact same block are also affected by this, but for now I'll just point out these.

 
Here are the movement orders I have given. I had two separate teams try to enter the buildings side by side at the same time to illustrate the problem.


 
When I hit the big red button, both teams ignored the doors and then started running off to the right:

 
They circled around the corner, made a U-turn, and then entered the adjacent building at the end of the block.

 
Naturally, this meant that they ran right into the bullets of the Americans across the street.

 
So as you can see, it can be a bit of a game-breaking bug when it ends up like that, especially when playing a long campaign where every casualty you take matters. Luckily I save the game at the beginning of every turn anyway just in case something like this happens. I have multiple other examples and screenshots of this happening to other buildings on this same map as well.

So here is an example of the problem I was talking about on the Stavelot map. 
The problem affects these two white buildings highlighted here, just off the town square:

 
Here is a close-up. As you can see I have men stacked up right in front of the doors. Neither the front nor the rear doors are functional for these buildings, and it seems the only way in is to go through the inside of the adjacent buildings. Also, this is not the only building type affected by this bug. Some of the really narrow buildings on this exact same block are also affected by this, but for now I'll just point out these.

 
Here are the movement orders I have given. I had two separate teams try to enter the buildings side by side at the same time to illustrate the problem.


 
When I hit the big red button, both teams ignored the doors and then started running off to the right:

 
They circled around the corner, made a U-turn, and then entered the adjacent building at the end of the block.

 
Naturally, this meant that they ran right into the bullets of the Americans across the street.

 
So as you can see, it can be a bit of a game-breaking bug when it ends up like that, especially when playing a long campaign where every casualty you take matters. Luckily I save the game at the beginning of every turn anyway just in case something like this happens. I have multiple other examples and screenshots of this happening to other buildings on this same map as well.

So here is an example of the problem I was talking about on the Stavelot map. 
The problem affects these two white buildings highlighted here, just off the town square:

 
Here is a close-up. As you can see I have men stacked up right in front of the doors. Neither the front nor the rear doors are functional for these buildings, and it seems the only way in is to go through the inside of the adjacent buildings. Also, this is not the only building type affected by this bug. Some of the really narrow buildings on this exact same block are also affected by this, but for now I'll just point out these.

 
Here are the movement orders I have given. I had two separate teams try to enter the buildings side by side at the same time to illustrate the problem.


 
When I hit the big red button, both teams ignored the doors and then started running off to the right:

 
They circled around the corner, made a U-turn, and then entered the adjacent building at the end of the block.

 
Naturally, this meant that they ran right into the bullets of the Americans across the street.

 
So as you can see, it can be a bit of a game-breaking bug when it ends up like that, especially when playing a long campaign where every casualty you take matters. Luckily I save the game at the beginning of every turn anyway just in case something like this happens. I have multiple other examples and screenshots of this happening to other buildings on this same map as well.