Oliver_88

Answered your own question there. Target Armor Arc.

Plus another icon bug that don't particularly want to discuss too much in public (could maybe ruin some games). But upon your advice I private messaged sburke about it earlier in the year. Turned out that an ticket was existing for it already and that the bug was not introduced in Engine 4 but earlier.

That's a different mortar bug

No less critical, mind you. The one above (from 2015) is the Commonwealth Carrier platoons in CMBN acquiring 2 inch mortars from universal carriers. They Acquire the mortar, and it vanishes, but they don't have it. It really breaks that unit, since that's a large part of their tactical employment.

Plus another icon bug that don't particularly want to discuss too much in public (could maybe ruin some games). But upon your advice I private messaged sburke about it earlier in the year. Turned out that an ticket was existing for it already and that the bug was not introduced in Engine 4 but earlier.

Plus another icon bug that don't particularly want to discuss too much in public (could maybe ruin some games). But upon your advice I private messaged sburke about it earlier in the year. Turned out that an ticket was existing for it already and that the bug was not introduced in Engine 4 but earlier.

I tend to use the Hull Down command combined with the Target command. Because then where the Hull Down commands node is placed kind of determines the limit of movement. And the Target command determines the position to be hull down to, and therefore stop their movement once they can see it.
So take a tank behind an ridgeline, and you want them to go hull down to a enemy position somewhere. You can place the Hull Down command near the top of your ridgeline. And give that node a Target command onto the enemy position. The tank would move forward to that node and stop once it sees the enemy position. But should he not see the targeted enemy position during the movement then no problem he's going to stop near the top of the ridgeline anyway. But not using the Target command and just placing the Hull Down node onto the enemy position your tank might move over the ridgeline and continue downhill moving right onto the enemy position if needs be.
I reckon that's probably got something to do with the reason he's acting strange in your situation. It's being told to move to the ground in front of the house (and only stop once it can see that terrain). And for some reason takes that route towards the house as it considers it would take the least effort (maybe because of the nearby road and lack of brush compared to the direct route). And it only then ends up stopping once it passes through the fence because it now can see the terrain in front house.

I consider another benefit to the orange axis compared to the green/red to be the existence of the road. You have not stated what the initial ground conditions are but from the images does at least seem to be raining. So that road could maybe be some use for the armoured car that he is going to be reinforced with. I am thinking about the possible risk of bogging that asset down when going via the red or green axis instead.
Does not appear as though you have any road routes for when you are reinforced with yours?

Alt W

I'm no great shakes and I've not as yet done anything other than played against the computer in combat mission. But I tend to go with whatever distances and positions I can get away with so long as those keep the C3 chain intact to some degree. For what that constitutes I refer you to the thread on C2 and information sharing that @MOS:96B2P posted, also the thread that @Josey Wales posted about unit morale and etc.
 

I'm no great shakes and I've not as yet done anything other than played against the computer in combat mission. But I tend to go with whatever distances and positions I can get away with so long as those keep the C3 chain intact to some degree. For what that constitutes I refer you to the thread on C2 and information sharing that @MOS:96B2P posted, also the thread that @Josey Wales posted about unit morale and etc.
 

I'm no great shakes and I've not as yet done anything other than played against the computer in combat mission. But I tend to go with whatever distances and positions I can get away with so long as those keep the C3 chain intact to some degree. For what that constitutes I refer you to the thread on C2 and information sharing that @MOS:96B2P posted, also the thread that @Josey Wales posted about unit morale and etc.
 

I just split things such as anti-tank and scout teams as and when I need to. I also sometimes split my infantry sections in order to separate the "bren group" from the rest, for the sake of brinish infantry section doctrine, that's probably the only time I might split a section before needed and leave then split, because recombining the remaining two teams back into a "rifle group" I consider an little bit of a pain. Otherwise I prefer to try and keep units un-split, mainly just for ease of management purposes really, less icons cluttering the map and four rather than ten units to control and keep in c2 with the platoon commander.

Indeed sburke in essence your impressions correct but excluding the "hop in hop out" as Erwin states. Here's the example (using units I am more familiar with though) about the manner in which I envision acquiring from vehicles could work compared to the current system. Do not take the distances/terrain/times shown in the screenshots as gospel of course. Also to note that acquire could continue to work in the exact same manner as current system with regards to units that are inside the vehicles already. This is instead concerning acquiring from vehicles when the units are not inside them already.
So in this example I have an five man pioneer section that I have rotated out from the front and need to obtain them more ammo from an carrier before sending them to the front again. The carriers are from an carrier section and have their crews mounted in them, so there are just four passenger seats remaining. Pictures might paint a thousand words about how I envision a alternate system, maybe a million words in the case of my unintelligent writings.







Using the current system, to restock the same section from the carriers at any point after the scenario begins the user would need over separate order phases to;
Order to disembark the carrier section from the carrier. Order to embark the pioneer section to the carrier. Order to acquire the ammo. Order to disembark the pioneer section from the carrier. Order to embark the carrier section to the carrier again. So in another example I have on the frontlines an rifle section and light mortar team from an platoon. I cannot rotate either out into the rear at the moment but need to obtain some more PIAT projectiles and small arms ammo for the section from one carrier. I also need to obtain some bombs for the mortar from another carrier, but am content for these to be shared with the mortar team rather than obtained by them. As I cannot rotate everyone out at the moment I decide to obtain the ammo using an detachment from the section.


Using the current system, to restock them from the two carriers in the same manner the user would need over separate order phases to;
Create the section detachment. Order to embark the section detachment to the first carrier. Order to acquire the ammo. Order to disembark the section detachment from the first carrier. Order to embark the section detachment to the second carrier. Order to acquire the ammo. Order to disembark (and recombine) the section detachment from the second carrier. Another example being having multiple units (pioneer section and some rifle section again) and needing to resupply them from the same carrier at the same time. They have both already been rotated out from the front so moving the entire sections to the resupply should be alright.





Using the current system, to restock both from the carrier in the same manner the user would need over separate order phases to;
Order to disembark the carrier section from the carrier. Order to embark the pioneer section to the carrier. Order to acquire the ammo. Order to disembark the pioneer section from the carrier. Create the section detachment. Order to embark the section detachment to the carrier. Order to acquire the ammo. Order to disembark (and recombine) the section detachment from the carrier. Order to embark the carrier section to the carrier again. So yeah the main difference would be that there would not be any need for units to actually have to embark the vehicles in order to acquire some ammo from them. So no having to disembark any other already mounted units/crew just to enable the resupply. So no having to create/recombine any detachments units just to enable the resupply (you could continue to use detachments but that would be an tactical choice rather than an requirement). Units no matter their size should be able to supply from any vehicle no matter the number of passenger seats that vehicle has. Also as your not embarking the resupplying can be chained with various other commands even another resupply at another vehicle etc.
Another difference would be in the time it takes to supply your units. Rather than being based upon how many full turns are required to embark and disembark and etc into various vehicles. The time taken would instead be being based upon what items you are actually trying to obtain from them. For example obtaining 2000 x 0.303 MKVII, 500 x 0.45 ACP, 9 x PIAT HEAT would no longer take the same time as obtaining just 5 x PIAT HEAT. Has anyone else also had the situation where the embarking unit are mid-embark at the end of the turn and are therefore required to wait another turn for them to be fully embarked before acquiring?
Hopefully that describes to you what I mean. Something like this would instead mean that it's just the "which vehicles and what ammunition to acquire" that we would need to micro manage over upon during an single orders phase (as it should be). The rest we entrust to the units to carry out over the next various turns until the tasks complete. But within current system as well as micro managing the "which vehicles and what ammunition to acquire" we also are required to micro manage and baby the units each separate turn through embarking, acquiring, disembarking etc. And it's that last past that I reckon no-one feels the need to want to micro manage over.

Italian versus Italian?

To nit-pick back  in the images I put the "supply" in the move section because it's something that creates an movement path. There's nothing movement based in the admin section just commands to create detachments and combine etc. But I understand the rational behind the nit-pick. And yeah I would think any non-instantaneous acquire feature would need to track what's been already requested from vehicles and subtract that from the acquire list. Or just first come first serve like with embarking anyway.

Indeed sburke in essence your impressions correct but excluding the "hop in hop out" as Erwin states. Here's the example (using units I am more familiar with though) about the manner in which I envision acquiring from vehicles could work compared to the current system. Do not take the distances/terrain/times shown in the screenshots as gospel of course. Also to note that acquire could continue to work in the exact same manner as current system with regards to units that are inside the vehicles already. This is instead concerning acquiring from vehicles when the units are not inside them already.
So in this example I have an five man pioneer section that I have rotated out from the front and need to obtain them more ammo from an carrier before sending them to the front again. The carriers are from an carrier section and have their crews mounted in them, so there are just four passenger seats remaining. Pictures might paint a thousand words about how I envision a alternate system, maybe a million words in the case of my unintelligent writings.







Using the current system, to restock the same section from the carriers at any point after the scenario begins the user would need over separate order phases to;
Order to disembark the carrier section from the carrier. Order to embark the pioneer section to the carrier. Order to acquire the ammo. Order to disembark the pioneer section from the carrier. Order to embark the carrier section to the carrier again. So in another example I have on the frontlines an rifle section and light mortar team from an platoon. I cannot rotate either out into the rear at the moment but need to obtain some more PIAT projectiles and small arms ammo for the section from one carrier. I also need to obtain some bombs for the mortar from another carrier, but am content for these to be shared with the mortar team rather than obtained by them. As I cannot rotate everyone out at the moment I decide to obtain the ammo using an detachment from the section.


Using the current system, to restock them from the two carriers in the same manner the user would need over separate order phases to;
Create the section detachment. Order to embark the section detachment to the first carrier. Order to acquire the ammo. Order to disembark the section detachment from the first carrier. Order to embark the section detachment to the second carrier. Order to acquire the ammo. Order to disembark (and recombine) the section detachment from the second carrier. Another example being having multiple units (pioneer section and some rifle section again) and needing to resupply them from the same carrier at the same time. They have both already been rotated out from the front so moving the entire sections to the resupply should be alright.





Using the current system, to restock both from the carrier in the same manner the user would need over separate order phases to;
Order to disembark the carrier section from the carrier. Order to embark the pioneer section to the carrier. Order to acquire the ammo. Order to disembark the pioneer section from the carrier. Create the section detachment. Order to embark the section detachment to the carrier. Order to acquire the ammo. Order to disembark (and recombine) the section detachment from the carrier. Order to embark the carrier section to the carrier again. So yeah the main difference would be that there would not be any need for units to actually have to embark the vehicles in order to acquire some ammo from them. So no having to disembark any other already mounted units/crew just to enable the resupply. So no having to create/recombine any detachments units just to enable the resupply (you could continue to use detachments but that would be an tactical choice rather than an requirement). Units no matter their size should be able to supply from any vehicle no matter the number of passenger seats that vehicle has. Also as your not embarking the resupplying can be chained with various other commands even another resupply at another vehicle etc.
Another difference would be in the time it takes to supply your units. Rather than being based upon how many full turns are required to embark and disembark and etc into various vehicles. The time taken would instead be being based upon what items you are actually trying to obtain from them. For example obtaining 2000 x 0.303 MKVII, 500 x 0.45 ACP, 9 x PIAT HEAT would no longer take the same time as obtaining just 5 x PIAT HEAT. Has anyone else also had the situation where the embarking unit are mid-embark at the end of the turn and are therefore required to wait another turn for them to be fully embarked before acquiring?
Hopefully that describes to you what I mean. Something like this would instead mean that it's just the "which vehicles and what ammunition to acquire" that we would need to micro manage over upon during an single orders phase (as it should be). The rest we entrust to the units to carry out over the next various turns until the tasks complete. But within current system as well as micro managing the "which vehicles and what ammunition to acquire" we also are required to micro manage and baby the units each separate turn through embarking, acquiring, disembarking etc. And it's that last past that I reckon no-one feels the need to want to micro manage over.

Indeed sburke in essence your impressions correct but excluding the "hop in hop out" as Erwin states. Here's the example (using units I am more familiar with though) about the manner in which I envision acquiring from vehicles could work compared to the current system. Do not take the distances/terrain/times shown in the screenshots as gospel of course. Also to note that acquire could continue to work in the exact same manner as current system with regards to units that are inside the vehicles already. This is instead concerning acquiring from vehicles when the units are not inside them already.
So in this example I have an five man pioneer section that I have rotated out from the front and need to obtain them more ammo from an carrier before sending them to the front again. The carriers are from an carrier section and have their crews mounted in them, so there are just four passenger seats remaining. Pictures might paint a thousand words about how I envision a alternate system, maybe a million words in the case of my unintelligent writings.







Using the current system, to restock the same section from the carriers at any point after the scenario begins the user would need over separate order phases to;
Order to disembark the carrier section from the carrier. Order to embark the pioneer section to the carrier. Order to acquire the ammo. Order to disembark the pioneer section from the carrier. Order to embark the carrier section to the carrier again. So in another example I have on the frontlines an rifle section and light mortar team from an platoon. I cannot rotate either out into the rear at the moment but need to obtain some more PIAT projectiles and small arms ammo for the section from one carrier. I also need to obtain some bombs for the mortar from another carrier, but am content for these to be shared with the mortar team rather than obtained by them. As I cannot rotate everyone out at the moment I decide to obtain the ammo using an detachment from the section.


Using the current system, to restock them from the two carriers in the same manner the user would need over separate order phases to;
Create the section detachment. Order to embark the section detachment to the first carrier. Order to acquire the ammo. Order to disembark the section detachment from the first carrier. Order to embark the section detachment to the second carrier. Order to acquire the ammo. Order to disembark (and recombine) the section detachment from the second carrier. Another example being having multiple units (pioneer section and some rifle section again) and needing to resupply them from the same carrier at the same time. They have both already been rotated out from the front so moving the entire sections to the resupply should be alright.





Using the current system, to restock both from the carrier in the same manner the user would need over separate order phases to;
Order to disembark the carrier section from the carrier. Order to embark the pioneer section to the carrier. Order to acquire the ammo. Order to disembark the pioneer section from the carrier. Create the section detachment. Order to embark the section detachment to the carrier. Order to acquire the ammo. Order to disembark (and recombine) the section detachment from the carrier. Order to embark the carrier section to the carrier again. So yeah the main difference would be that there would not be any need for units to actually have to embark the vehicles in order to acquire some ammo from them. So no having to disembark any other already mounted units/crew just to enable the resupply. So no having to create/recombine any detachments units just to enable the resupply (you could continue to use detachments but that would be an tactical choice rather than an requirement). Units no matter their size should be able to supply from any vehicle no matter the number of passenger seats that vehicle has. Also as your not embarking the resupplying can be chained with various other commands even another resupply at another vehicle etc.
Another difference would be in the time it takes to supply your units. Rather than being based upon how many full turns are required to embark and disembark and etc into various vehicles. The time taken would instead be being based upon what items you are actually trying to obtain from them. For example obtaining 2000 x 0.303 MKVII, 500 x 0.45 ACP, 9 x PIAT HEAT would no longer take the same time as obtaining just 5 x PIAT HEAT. Has anyone else also had the situation where the embarking unit are mid-embark at the end of the turn and are therefore required to wait another turn for them to be fully embarked before acquiring?
Hopefully that describes to you what I mean. Something like this would instead mean that it's just the "which vehicles and what ammunition to acquire" that we would need to micro manage over upon during an single orders phase (as it should be). The rest we entrust to the units to carry out over the next various turns until the tasks complete. But within current system as well as micro managing the "which vehicles and what ammunition to acquire" we also are required to micro manage and baby the units each separate turn through embarking, acquiring, disembarking etc. And it's that last past that I reckon no-one feels the need to want to micro manage over.

I could be wrong but is that not maybe missing the point. I do not believe Erwins stating that such things are not possible (other than the engineers blasting through). Rather that such things are possible but the amount in user interface actions required to accomplish those tasks is maybe excessive. They are taking numerous turns/clicks to carry out when with an more streamlined user interface that could be halved.
An shoot and scoot is kind of possible as you state. But consider how many key presses and clicks you need to do to accomplish the task. And even then that can end up just being an scoot and scoot instead (when unit sees enemy too late during the pause), and leaving you needing to try and repeat the manoeuvre again. Or leaves them waiting to die as Erwin describes (when unit sees an enemy too soon during the pause). But with an command for the purpose and the fixed degree cover arcs that Erwin also mentions consider how much that would cut down your workload to accomplish the task.
  The selecting the group then placing the arc is not quite an solution to Erwin's example. As that would set them to the same arc. And he states setting them to different arcs. So take four vehicles moving down an road, and first need to cover front, second left, third right, fourth rear. Again consider how many key presses and clicks are needed to set just four vehicles each their own individual arc. Where as if an arc could be set with an single key press with your cursor on the terrain consider how much that would take to do the same.
  Adjacent units from the same group share ammo. Adjacent units from different groups cannot. So 1 Platoon cannot share with 2 Platoon etc.
  I use the same method when wanting to resupply my sections also. And I believe from what Erwin states in the quote above he does too. You suggested the same thing as he stated it needs at the moment basically. But again look at how many user actions you need to carry out over how many turns to accomplish that. And you need to do the same procedure when that sections been moved to the reserve and is right next to the ammo source already. And then compare it to if acquire was just an move command, to make the order would only take an single turn and much fewer user actions to accomplish. I took his post to be able saving time and making actions easier rather than stating such things are not possible in any manner at the moment.

I could be wrong but is that not maybe missing the point. I do not believe Erwins stating that such things are not possible (other than the engineers blasting through). Rather that such things are possible but the amount in user interface actions required to accomplish those tasks is maybe excessive. They are taking numerous turns/clicks to carry out when with an more streamlined user interface that could be halved.
An shoot and scoot is kind of possible as you state. But consider how many key presses and clicks you need to do to accomplish the task. And even then that can end up just being an scoot and scoot instead (when unit sees enemy too late during the pause), and leaving you needing to try and repeat the manoeuvre again. Or leaves them waiting to die as Erwin describes (when unit sees an enemy too soon during the pause). But with an command for the purpose and the fixed degree cover arcs that Erwin also mentions consider how much that would cut down your workload to accomplish the task.
  The selecting the group then placing the arc is not quite an solution to Erwin's example. As that would set them to the same arc. And he states setting them to different arcs. So take four vehicles moving down an road, and first need to cover front, second left, third right, fourth rear. Again consider how many key presses and clicks are needed to set just four vehicles each their own individual arc. Where as if an arc could be set with an single key press with your cursor on the terrain consider how much that would take to do the same.
  Adjacent units from the same group share ammo. Adjacent units from different groups cannot. So 1 Platoon cannot share with 2 Platoon etc.
  I use the same method when wanting to resupply my sections also. And I believe from what Erwin states in the quote above he does too. You suggested the same thing as he stated it needs at the moment basically. But again look at how many user actions you need to carry out over how many turns to accomplish that. And you need to do the same procedure when that sections been moved to the reserve and is right next to the ammo source already. And then compare it to if acquire was just an move command, to make the order would only take an single turn and much fewer user actions to accomplish. I took his post to be able saving time and making actions easier rather than stating such things are not possible in any manner at the moment.

I could be wrong but is that not maybe missing the point. I do not believe Erwins stating that such things are not possible (other than the engineers blasting through). Rather that such things are possible but the amount in user interface actions required to accomplish those tasks is maybe excessive. They are taking numerous turns/clicks to carry out when with an more streamlined user interface that could be halved.
An shoot and scoot is kind of possible as you state. But consider how many key presses and clicks you need to do to accomplish the task. And even then that can end up just being an scoot and scoot instead (when unit sees enemy too late during the pause), and leaving you needing to try and repeat the manoeuvre again. Or leaves them waiting to die as Erwin describes (when unit sees an enemy too soon during the pause). But with an command for the purpose and the fixed degree cover arcs that Erwin also mentions consider how much that would cut down your workload to accomplish the task.
  The selecting the group then placing the arc is not quite an solution to Erwin's example. As that would set them to the same arc. And he states setting them to different arcs. So take four vehicles moving down an road, and first need to cover front, second left, third right, fourth rear. Again consider how many key presses and clicks are needed to set just four vehicles each their own individual arc. Where as if an arc could be set with an single key press with your cursor on the terrain consider how much that would take to do the same.
  Adjacent units from the same group share ammo. Adjacent units from different groups cannot. So 1 Platoon cannot share with 2 Platoon etc.
  I use the same method when wanting to resupply my sections also. And I believe from what Erwin states in the quote above he does too. You suggested the same thing as he stated it needs at the moment basically. But again look at how many user actions you need to carry out over how many turns to accomplish that. And you need to do the same procedure when that sections been moved to the reserve and is right next to the ammo source already. And then compare it to if acquire was just an move command, to make the order would only take an single turn and much fewer user actions to accomplish. I took his post to be able saving time and making actions easier rather than stating such things are not possible in any manner at the moment.

Disagree. Using the names of birds such as the Martlet, Fulmar, Skua, Roc, Gannet are great ways (esp those that are seabirds) to name your naval fighter aircraft. Likewise using the names of fish such as Swordfish, Barracuda, Albacore, Tarpon are great ways to name your torpedo bombers. It's almost poetic. And in another point in our defence we have not as far as am aware named any aircraft Fairey that's just an aircraft manufacturer. Should have stuck with the names Martlet, Gannet and Tarpon rather than going and adopting the yankee names.
Using same names now that have always been used on ships. So if they used to be good names then for what reason are they no longer good now?

Was curious so just tried this (in CMBN) on those urban Dutch ones. And the regular 2 inch mortar (not the airborne one) could indeed fire from the top!
I presume the same would be true on any CM building that has an floor named "Roof".
E2A: So can the 3 inch mortar!

Not unless they are the airborne 2 inch mortars that airborne sections are equipped with. Those can shoot from buildings. However the sections are only provided smoke rounds as standard. However the ammunition between the two mortar types is the same. So get that airborne 2 inch mortar some high explosive through acquiring from an vehicle, sharing from an adjacent standard 2 inch mortar team, or buddying aiding an incapacitated team, and then you can have an airborne 2 inch mortar firing high explosive rounds from buildings. It's only able to do direct fire however so basically becomes a grenade launcher rather than an mortar.
There's an video in the thread linked below.
CMBN rather than CMFI but probably still stands true.

Not unless they are the airborne 2 inch mortars that airborne sections are equipped with. Those can shoot from buildings. However the sections are only provided smoke rounds as standard. However the ammunition between the two mortar types is the same. So get that airborne 2 inch mortar some high explosive through acquiring from an vehicle, sharing from an adjacent standard 2 inch mortar team, or buddying aiding an incapacitated team, and then you can have an airborne 2 inch mortar firing high explosive rounds from buildings. It's only able to do direct fire however so basically becomes a grenade launcher rather than an mortar.
There's an video in the thread linked below.
CMBN rather than CMFI but probably still stands true.

Not unless they are the airborne 2 inch mortars that airborne sections are equipped with. Those can shoot from buildings. However the sections are only provided smoke rounds as standard. However the ammunition between the two mortar types is the same. So get that airborne 2 inch mortar some high explosive through acquiring from an vehicle, sharing from an adjacent standard 2 inch mortar team, or buddying aiding an incapacitated team, and then you can have an airborne 2 inch mortar firing high explosive rounds from buildings. It's only able to do direct fire however so basically becomes a grenade launcher rather than an mortar.
There's an video in the thread linked below.
CMBN rather than CMFI but probably still stands true.