RMM

Hi Anderw, Yeh, I did go back and check that from the saved games and no. The extra or unwarranted commands were individual in nature, and it happened a number of times but only in the latter half of the game. It was fairly coincident with my not being able to successfully order a couple of other units into their buildings or to stay there.

That sounds pretty true to life

That's an interesting addition. I have not been aware of such a reputation for the PzIV and V. The one for Sherman I've heard in numerous documentaries and interviews over the years. It's definitely a feather in the cap for the game that real life advise can be applied to it, but I would also include in that attacking tanks with infantry unless they're of a higher calibre and in an urban setting or in possession of afore-mentioned, late-war anti-tank weapons.

Oh, I've gone ahead with the purchase

Yeh, true 'nuff

Yeh, fair enough, but it sounds like the balance could do with some tweaking in favour of the AFV

Makes sense in regards to the Sherman crew. Despite many historical notes, people actually didn't like the Sherman. It was actually regarded as a fire death trap, particularly when up against something like a Panther. The rule of thumb is that you needed at least three Shermans to take out a Panther, and at the end of it, you'd be thankful to still have one Sherman. However, particularly if the infantry just took casualties from the MA, that doesn't ring very true.

That behaviour makes sense for lightly armoured vehicles, but I wouldn't think that infantry would be similarly spooked the same just because a tank appears somewhere. This is more in regards to having one right ontop of or adjacent to you.

I dunno though Erwin. I mean if you hear that stuff hitting the outside, I can't think that would be great motivation to jump out of the protection you have into that environment, particularly if you're not sure what it is. Plus, tank crews in general are pretty well trained an disciplined for that very reason. Personally, I'd think one would want to stay within the protective shield compared to the outside where you've got little more than a pistol at most.

Agreed that in an urban setting, that makes sense and is realistic

Yes, that just doesn't sound right at all. Pity

Sounds like you might be right unfortunately. I watched something similar on of the tactical videos from the former Army officer, and was pretty surprised by a Stuart, M5 tank being taken out by some grenade throwing infantry. I dunno. Sounds like a feedback and suggestion entry might be in order!

Hmm, gotta say that sounds a bit sketchy.

Anyone on here able to confirm whether the game does in fact take into account an intimidation factor for infantry v's AFV's? Perhaps the earlier complaints against such a factor were based on that 'TC' being too restrictive?

Oh absolutely. Combined arms has been proven over and over again. Ironically, it was the Germans who got a serious reminder that AFV's need infantry support, even in the relatively open spaces of the Kursk battlefield, when their much vaunted Elephants were eventually taken out by infantry, albeit at quite a price, but one the communists were content to pay, particularly since they could, sadly replace people a lot easier than AFV's.

I would hope that there is something akin to the TC that ASL used, since any reading of memoires makes it clear how infantry were far more shy of dealing with tanks than vice-versa. Hell, people were given medals for taking out tanks single-handed or in close quarters, so that shows the value placed on such actions in real life. To danfrodo's point, true, some AFV's were vulnerable in the rear, but it still, generally took a well placed grenade to affect such areas, and from mid '43 onwards, the introduction of shape-charged weapons such as PF and bazookas, certainly made tankers, sensibly wary of keeping their distance. Regardless, I think John1966 makes a good point about the psychological effect any lumbering hulk of metal is going to have on exposed and unprotected personnel nearby. Well, I'm still waiting for my download link, but hopefully it'll show up soon and I can meet some of y'all on the field .

Indeed. Good point

Oh absolutely, once those weapons began to appear on the battlefield, the whole dynamic began to dramatically shift, but the first of those didn't appear until late '43 with the German PF and American Bazooka. Even then, it wasn't until Spring/Summer of '44 that infantry began to be a hitherto much greater threat to armour.

That's some odd observations. Granted, later in the war, the Germans in particular had some potent anti-tank grenades, but even they took some nerves of steel, because you had to get right up against the vehicle to place them! For much of the war, there was very little infantry had against heavy armour like a Panther. Consequently, traditionally, one of the easiest ways for a tank to quell dug in infantry was to literally drive over the entrenchments and then pivot on their tracks, which would bury the troops alive. It was a terrifyingly effective tactic. In addition, accurately throwing an anti-tank, let alone and anti-personnel grenade at a moving AFV was an intimidating prospect to say the least, and many infantry would balk at the thought. If the AFV were immobilized, that was a much different prospect; otherwise, this seems an oddly not-true-to-life gameplay.

That's quite the amusing image!

Fantastic CHEqTRO. I'll check 'em out! Thanks

That brings up a question - did you remove the demo before installing the actual game, since they're not the same version? Just wondering if installing over the demo could cause a conflict?

Yeh, I watched those YouTube videos and actually found them immensely more helpful then the manual! I do hope that the new CM2 is going to go back and upgrade the CM1 North Africa, etc. games as well as bring out early war and other theatres of Ops? Seems like there's, currently a focus on more modern ops.

Well thanks for the tips and suggestions all. It's been good to hear that this is not an expected game feature or bug, in fact quite the opposite. I'm looking forward to going ahead with the purchase - one can put the same license on a desktop and laptop though, right? I'm a pilot, so constantly on the road and need it on two machines, because I would much rather use the Desktop when at home. As an unreformed and unrepentant, ASL grognard, it's been interesting to find out about this some 20yrs after it was originally developed to be the eASL we all pined so much for! Why I never came across it before when I would do the occasional Google search for eASL or some such to see if anything (worthwhile!) had come along, I have no idea. I do love how the WeGo blends the turn-based process, allowing one to think with the real time action that does away with the clunky turn and/or move process of dedicated turn-based systems!