chuckdyke

Going back on topic about the Cold War the World War before that taught that you lose when you fight the last war. I think the way the Germans handled the occupation of Europe cost them dearly. Eastern Europeans were seen as sub humans in their propaganda everybody else knew different. OK you invade and what then? Peoples ambitions don't go away. Take Poland officially didn't exist before WW1 it was divided between Austria-Hungary Prussia and Russia. The trigger of World War 2.

PHD stands for Pot Hole Digger.

TRP's Have as I understand multiple uses in the game, they also stimulate the role of bore sighted weapons for AT-Guns. That is the way I use them just below the crest of a ridge or a hill. By their employment I call it indirect fire on platoon level, I was puzzled why some people use them for indirect fire using the FDC as you call it and waste their ammo on spotting rounds. In the game I use their HQ to get a contact icon and see or I get an LOF from a concealed position. By the way when I play Germans, I use their MG42 in HMG mode the same way it is a little harder but possible. Kind regards

I don't know about you but we live in a free country with freedom of speech.

What I understand is we have the following references. The map for preplanned artillery missions and TRP's, the FO his position is known to the fire control center, or he makes his position known and then the landmark references the HQ's can use when they need support. Now my question is this why we need the fire control center to plot indirect fire missions when the FO, HQs are in contact with each other not only by radio but often in full visual contact as well. I just sort of innovated by a so-called direct fire.

it has plenty in common. The King is the morale in the game. The Queen is attrition.

Time to cool it! I just gave him a tip with the best of intentions previously. In the game it doesn't make any difference if an FO is on one dimension, or two dimensions if he can spot there is no time bonus if he spots on one dimension. We don't even know where the off-map assets are. I had a look at Seven Winds in BN. That Scenario relies on artillery and 81mm mortars which are all off map. I think the LOS of the spotter is the only thing which is relevant in the game. Kind regards

I think it depends on the authors of a scenario: As a suggestion in the briefing, you get your TRP's and can't put them anywhere but an x-number of landmarks in which are typed in red. It depends also how the C2 is respected with the TRP's. Example a scout out of contact spots enemy movement the player can then call an arty strike on a TRP. It needs to be overhauled, on Hotseat at home it is easy to make some house rules in this regard. At least you can make a suggestion in the briefing to get a more realistic game advice how the TRP's should be used.

I can remember it was a scare campaign. I crew up as a child in the Netherlands and remember the Hungarian uprising. People forgot that Hungary was allied with Hitler's Germany ten years previously. The Berlin airlift was still fresh in everybody's memory. The idea was that the Soviets and their allies could invade any day. So, our family made the decision in the mid-sixties to migrate to Australia. I can tell you nobody wanted a war with the Eastern Block. The Cuba crisis almost triggered WW3 in 1962.

I agree it could be cloud based and you can play it like you play at home on Hotseat.

Oh the internet is full with Medal of Honor and VC's What has military service to do with computer gaming? Zilch is the answer, sorry to disappoint you. We play a game here nothing more and nothing less. I know how to plot direct fires and indirect fires in the game. I just illustrated that you could do both in some instances with the mortar out of sight of the enemy unit. Cover is the same the HQ is the same Angle and Direction of Fire is the same and the units are the same. It becomes indirect when you go through the silliness of going through the Fire Control Centre by radio to achieve the same result. To claim that 2+2 =5 because the claimant is a professional mathematician doesn't impress me. As a player of the game, you experts are only as qualified as me. Not in editing in that I am a novice.

Ok if 2+2 =5 it is because you guys say so. Like the Chieftain said about his military service it has nothing to do with computer gaming. I went to the trouble of providing the screenshots. That you chose to ignore it I take with a pinch of salt. I just advice some new guys to look at the direct fire option first especially when your shells are limited. The 60 mm mortar is most of the time better used in what this game calls direct fire. Us ignoramuses call it indirect because the unit doesn't have LOS and, in the past, called for a fire mission which is not necessary.

A Chess player takes to CM like a duck to water. The King Objective and you need to maneuver. The Castle, Bishops and Queen linear danger zones. K-Terrain the 4 center squares. The correlation is all there.

Windows symbol (On the left of Alt) + G gives you the XBox Games Bar where the screenshots are saved for you in a special folder.. It also let you to record and make screenshots of everything else. To make a screenshot for this App Press Windows+Alt+ Printscr.

If you have RT on engine 4 you need only to download the latest patch. For FR you need only the key because the files are in the latest patch. To make everything clear go by the advice of @Schrullenhaft above.

I installed the latest patch and don't have a problem with Baranovichi. One scenario is no half an hour longer in one of the campaigns. I have not dismounted any crews.

The difference between direct and indirect fire. According to BF. Same position same observer same result. Indirect fire will go through the fire control center.

By common sense. They may have called to the mortar crew something like "50 yards over". By passing the fire direction center. According to the BF Dictionary it becomes then a direct fire mission. I think it sound silly calling by radio the fire direction center for a mission when the HQ is in direct contact with his mortar and crew. I solve the problem nine times out of ten by direct fire according to the BF definition which I see as indirect fire.

OK with a Platoon HQ standing 32 meters (4 action squares) next to his mortar he needs to go through his radio for a fire mission while the problem can be solved by plotting a direct fire with the mortar team under cover, It makes a lot of sense especially when he has only 20 rounds. @LukeFF feel free to call me by my name. Your trolling at my posts is of no value whatsoever. In my game the mortar received the contact icon from the HQ and could fire over the crest to engage an enemy unit he couldn't see himself. Fortunately, the designers allowed for instances like these. I suggest you purchase a dictionary and look up the definition of indirect fire. Right or wrong is not determined by a popular vote.

To accept the suggestions in PC games as fact is being out of touch with reality. The Soviet Union never intended to invade Western Europe and NATO never intended to invade the countries of the Warsaw pact. The retaliation would have been nuclear on the average CM scenario something unplayable. I won't buy the game till there is a complete NATO module. That there would be a Hot WAR without any input of NATO is also unthinkable. In this regards Shock Force 2 is closer to reality. If NATO had not existed an invasion could have happened in the 50's.

By micromanaging too much is when you get beaten by the AI who doesn't do anything at all apart from the Battle Plan. This is from the game manual the TacAI is real and can override your decisions. Just as in real life, your virtual soldiers are not robots and therefore will not mindlessly execute each and every order from you. There are many situations - usually under heavy enemy fire - in which soldiers may simply refuse to execute a Command you have given them or may replace it with what they consider more suitable. For example, you may give a unit a Fast Move Command only to see it changed instantly to a Slow Move Command because the soldiers feel hugging the ground is the better way to stay alive. Units with or without orders will also usually initiate evasive action on their own in the face of extreme danger - for infantry this may including crawling to cover, for vehicles it could mean popping smoke, rotating to face the threat, and retreating away from threats. This could happen if you ordered it or not, if you want it or not, as the unit is simply concerned about its own survival at that moment. Keep this in mind when you see that your Commands are not exactly working out as you think they should...

Using the MG42 in HMG Mode. Grazing fire to counter the US foxhole line of defense. #spoilers With grazing fire the MG42 creates an effective beaten zone. Unfortunately, I can't force the riflemen to go under cover. The HMG can be positioned just on a ridge. The fire is effective the US Foxholes are in a similar position as our HMG however fire superiority is ours. Hopefully their 60mm mortars will be unaware of our HMG. I am impressed it seems the engine illuminates tracer? If that is the case it works both ways eyes open for spotting rounds.

Free enterprise Mars Bars, Jojo's Fairy Flush.

Same pagan origins adopted by Christianity as Saint Nicholas which became Santa.

still subjective better ask him yourself. He says what option to use a single dimension or two dimensions. The FO with a 60 mm on platoon level is its HQ or any other member. Communications can be given verbally or by signals. The game allowed for this, technically it is a direct fire mission inside the game. I agree with you if there is a need for radio and reference maps. On platoon level I illustrated indirect fire which the game allows. The HQ is the FO a squad received incoming fire the mortar with no LOS got the contact icon and the game let me plot a LOF to the target. This can happen in real life too. The game mirrored this realistically by letting the first two rounds fall shy of the target before it was effective.