RMM

@IanL WISIWIG being what you see is what you get? Yes, anything that would show the player the path isn't going to work is fine. That's ultimately what is needed and what we don't have now, to the detriment of game enjoyment.

This was in conjunction to a post I put in the Tech support as a 'bug'. I had British howitzers firing off their HEAT ammo, iso their HE when using area fire. I cannot possibly imagine that would an RL decision - to purposely expend your AT ammo in area fire! Not unless it's all you had left. This also feeds back into the point about being able to select smoke v's WP. Again, I can understand there might well be significant programming challenges, but I don't think it would make the game harder. Quite the contrary, not having to second guess what one's unit might do in such situations would surely make it easier?

Even highly experienced players mentioned to me previously about being caught out by this feature, and consequently having a battle utterly ruined by having a whole command's units enact orders only meant for the HQ unit. I can understand it may be more programming trouble than it's worth, but would still make the request, because it would just improve game play that much more but not having to roll back the action to a previous minute or having to contact your PBEM opponent to embarrassingly ask for a do-over!

Well, the primary reason would be that he ran out of ammo! Otherwise, I can't agree at all with the reasoning here. It has been very common practice - German infantry loved the Russian PPsH41 'burp' gun, particularly when compared to their arcane bolt-action Kar98K's. The same was true in Vietnam - US infantry were forever throwing away (literally!) their M16's to pickup AK47's! The only drawback that many mentioned was not using the 47 at night, because it's distinctive sound, but they absolutely still picked them up any chance they got and otherwise used them! All well documented in both cases. Think about being in city fight with a bolt-action rifle. You might consider whether it's booby trapped, but that SMG could, also very well save your life in that situation. After that consideration, I for one, would pick it up, particularly if it's in area my unit just managed to takeover. Please reconsider.

I believe, when it comes to AFV's a crew will re-enter a vehicle they bailed out of (in fact, yes, I remember doing that recently), so I see your rationale regarding disabling the weapon, but I still think the same reasoning (for AFV crews) also applies for a crew to go back to the weapon they ran away from due to enemy fire. A deliberate abandoning of ordinance (ie. one that would involved disabling it), is something the player could order, and besides, the way things are set up now, the weapon is effectively disabled for the enemy anyway (feeds into the point about picking up enemy weapons further on), so why wouldn't the original crew set it back up after running away from enemy fire?

I believe that's true for pickup; although when I first posted about this, I believe there were those who commented that it might not always work. However, for disembarking, pause is treated by the game as the vehicle moving, so the inf. don't get off. This is most common when acquiring ammo. The vehicle has to remain motionless, without pause or movement orders for he turn the infantry disembarks, or it takes off with them!

Fair enough that things can change once the unit gets to a particular waypoint, but that fits with RL too. You get there and things have changed, but I think that would be more the exception than the rule (having a path that was open now blocked). I think we could all live with that; however, 'pre-plotting/vetting' (if you will) would still avoid giving orders that appear to be legit only to have the unit wasted when they try a completely different way or take-off in some direction that it then takes several minutes to bring them back! At the very least, would not an automated pause at the point where they can't proceed further be better? Yes, this could still leave them in a vulnerable spot, but that's something that is factored in by the player when they plot the route anyway. Alternatively, yes, if the no-go cursor were to be better tuned then, yes, that would accomplish the same, but sadly, this was another of many examples where it couldn't be trusted either. Yes, if it's fine-tuned to where it will definitely change to no-go in such cases, that would, indeed be the same kind of solution. Your example is noteworthy, because I have found the same to be true in that very same situation - I specifically do NOT order following troops to just go straight through the blasted wall, etc., because they don't always do that! I had a blast unit blow a hole in a wall, but then takeoff around the building to the main door in order to get inside! Precisely because, the plotted paths are so suspect in such situations, I've learnt (and now even more so!) to test it with someone else first! In the case of a blasted hole, this usually being the Breach team. However, this case also shows the drawback in that - infantry might pass through the gap just fine, but not a vehicle, so it's still of limited use. But again, personally I would rather pay the time penalty in having the game initially vet the path and tell me if there's a problem than, potentially have the whole battle/fight ruined by absurd outcomes such as we're discussing here. In terms of playability, I'm not sure I understand the arguement against.

- In as much as campaigns continue play on the same map (eg. Bridge Too Close), the map should retain the wrecks and changes to terrain (eg. rubbled buildings and blasted hedgerows) created in the previous battles.

For immediate dropping off yes, but particularly to have a vehicle come and pick people up, is another issue altogether.

Yes. As I wrote, and have added to Engine 5 wishlist - the game should vet our plots as we order them. I think the delays that might be caused by it's having to crunch that info at the time of the orders being issued would be a much better, much better situation than finding out only when a game gets utterly ruined!

It's an odd experience for purchasing online downloads though. I've never had to wait a couple of says for the download. Usually, as soon as it's paid for, it can be downloaded. Weird.

Ohhh for sure. Came across that the other day! I saw someone suggest a convoy move order that could mitigate at least the worst of that though.

But at least a pre-plotting function in the game, while we are laying down these order paths would catch that. That would be a lot less upsetting than not discovering the problem until the units are actually moving!

Had the British howitzers in Lonsdale's Block fire their HEAT ammo when ordered to fire Area Fire. It should default to HE, since HEAT is far more valuable and likely to be sorely missed when actually needed!

- AFV's using Hunt should move slower than normal, just as infantry do. Also, spotting abilities should be enhanced when doing so (assuming they're not already, but it doesn't seem so). - Instead of Hunt orders being cancelled when a unit is spotted, have a pause added, so that player can go back in and cancel that pause, causing unit to continue along the originally plotted path in next action phase. - Conversely, bring back the Advance to Contact/Fire order. It would work by being able to attach an Area Fire order (even though the target are is initially out of LoS) to a movement waypoint. Subsequently, if there's any slight misalignment around that waypoint, where the unit has to manouvre some to bring that point into view, then it would do so automatically. Even if the Area Fire is not assigned, the unit will continue along its path, regardless of targets it may see along the way, until it gets to the end point.

- Vet movement orders/paths as they're plotted. Having the system slow down to do this would surely be better than watching a unit run off into death by taking a route that one specifically had plotted to avoid! This would also avoid idiotic movements like units taking off half way round the map, because there's one hedge or some such that they can't cross even though the plotted path goes right across it! There are so many instances in when having the game do this pre-plotting/vetting would save countless heart and headaches and make it so much more fun! - (More WW2 specific) AI should not use SCW (eg. bazooka) against infantry/targets that are not behind some sort of solid surface (eg. steel or brick). Would never happen in RL, coz the charge/warhead would probably just bury itself in the ground and not go off at all! These weapons needed hard surface to work against. - Have a way to order a vehicle to wait for pax to load/unload before moving. - Ability for crews to re-crew abandoned ATG's, etc. For AFV's, they would usually have to be qualified to do so (ie. a Tiger crew could crew most any Tigers), but for things like ATG's, if a penalty were applied, it doesn't seem unrealistic (quite the opposite) that they would attempt to use enemy weaponry, especially if in a desperate position! - Ability to 'Buddy aid' fallen enemy for their ammo and weapons. Obviously, a penalty would have to apply to using foreign weapons, but would certainly add to the realism factor. - Indirect Fire observers should, absolutely not call for FFE unless they've actually spotted a round land at least somewhere close to the intended target, no matter how long it's been! - Have the ability (in Options section) to disable the groups-orders function! That way, those of us who just have this create headaches and not ever, otherwise use it, can just turn it off, and not have it ruin a battle. - Have the ability to select between normal Smoke and WP. WP had an offensive capability. I haven't really had an opportunity to see it in the game, but are its affects reflected in the game? - When ordinance used to Area Fire, have the ability to specify what kind of ammo to use. It can default, but there should be an ability to change that if so desired.

Hiya. Still waiting for the sale to 'process' so that I can download FB. Last time too about 4 days, but should be ready soon enough Suppose I could switch to Steam. Not sure if the purchases work quicker there...

Good info, thanks. The map is Lonsdale's Block. The confusion is further exacerbated by the fact that infantry will pass just fine through the gap. Surely it is fixable though by 'simply' having the system run a test on the path as one plots it. This has been the one real drawback of this game that I've come across, and it is a big one. Against the AI, I would simply say "Up yours!" and replay the turn accordingly, but of course not possible in MP. Again, it does seem like the game system could be made to vet plotted paths at the time, and from what I've seen in just the few, short months I've been playing this, that would be a major improvement/fix.

Tks Yeh, the details of it could get drowned in the weeds, but in general, I think a good case can be made for investing in the Hunt command that way while having a separate Advance to Fire order.

Yes, I'm sticking with the game; it's the best I've ever found. I fact, I just purchased FB, but still, seriously ('xcuse the language)...WTF!? I very carefully and deliberately plotted a path for this jeep and towed ATG round the back of the building, using the wall as cover, and mindful that it was, potentially a narrow gap, even though it appeared to be a 'hex' size in width. I hovered the mouse over the area to see if there would be any point at which it would say "No can do." Never said a word. Then, as you can see, it drives up to the gap and then turns away. It ended up driving right into the open crossroads...you probably don't need to guess too hard what the inevitable outcome was ! Is it really not possible for the game to do a better (proper?) job of telling us that a plotted path isn't workable? On a more calm note - suggestions how this should/could have been done? I presume dismounting the ATG behind the building and having them push it through the gap, but how do we know that would not have been a problem? Quite sure I'm not the first to come across this. In fact, I already posted about a similar issue, but what remedies have folks found in such situations?

'It is a good thing that war is so terrible, lest we grow too fond of it' Oft ascribed to Robert E Lee, but my understanding is that something similar goes much, much further back to Roman General Scipio. After all, look how many of us enjoy these wargames, and consider that chess...is a wargame.

Well, I tried that previously, but nothing happened ... 'course, now I try, and sure enough!

How do you create these tags? I've tried just writing '@...' or adding the hyperlink to it afterwards, but I suspect you're doing something else, more simple! Not sure I follow what you're saying here? The frustration I posted originally was that I would like them to continue on to the end of the path if they lose contact, certainly if it's as a result of the unit's own fire. Jabble referred to a potential, annoying situation of pause and edit, but that's what's 'irritating' me about the current Hunt command; I have to go back and reorder them forward, but if I want them to do it cautiously (ie. Hunt), then they might immediately stop again ... in other words they can get stuck, and my only other option is to use another, less cautious move order. On the other hand, maybe using Move or Slow are inherently more cautious and likely to spot and shoot? I don't know. insights?