RMM

Snipers etc really need to be all Crack or even Elite to get the PITA effect.

I would like a new option to Scenario Editor. It would make it possible to have good force balance in all 3 playing modes: H2H, human vs Red AI, human vs Blue AI.

I think this could be done if each unit would have an option that can be selected "only for AI player". 
If this would be checked, this unit would appear in the battle only when the AI is playing this side. Otherwise it would not appear.  By default the option would not be selected.

This way you could first select units that would create good force balance in H2H mode. Then add more units for Red/Blue side that would allow AI to compete against human player. And check this option for these AI-only units.
I think this would be a very simple way to do it and you could get good force balance in all modes. Now usually balance is good in one mode, not as good in the other 2 modes.

Every time there's an abandoned anti-tank gun in the game, belonging to either my troops or the enemy, I wonder what the reason is for this rule which says that a gun crew that are leaving a gun to avoid getting killed aren't allowed to man the gun again.
 
If it is for so called "reasons of game balance" the question is what the game balance is in a situation where: A tank is approaching a house where an anti-tank gun is hiding in the corner of it. The gun crew shoots at the tank but misses. Almost immediately after that, and at the same time, the tank is shooting at the gun and the gun is shooting at the tank. The gun hits the tank and the tank crew gets scared and leaves the tank although it isn't destroyed. The tank hits the corner of the house and the gun crew gets scared and leaves the gun although it isn't destroyed. In the next few minutes both the tank crew and the gun crew feel brave enough to continue fighting. The tank crew is allowed to climb into their tank and continue the attack but the gun crew isn't allowed to climb onto their gun and continue their defense.
 
Where is the game balance when a gun with more than two wheels, and which also is much quicker and more mobile, is of more importance than a gun with only two wheels?
 
I hope there will be a change to this behaviour so that gun crew can man and use their gun again although they have left it for a few seconds or minutes.

Steve said this is just a matter of not having done the programming that they did for the vehicles.
There's probably hope that this comes in the future.

Yeah. I mean the troops can actually shoot out of the vehicle, so why not let them spot?

I'm going to go ahead and say that unarmed vehicles should have a LOS tool, too.
Right now they do not have a LOS tool since LOS is done via the target command, and without a weapon you don't get a target command.
But that leads to some absurd situations. Not everything unarmed is combat-irrelevant. For example I have a SF2 German Aufklärungs platoon, which comes in Wolf vehicles. The Wolf doesn't have a weapon, it has 3 scout crewmembers (not passengers, crewmembers, big difference). So if you drive your scout vehicle to a certain point on the map you cannot determine LOS (without dismounting). This seems opposite of the scout's purpose.

Its a small wish, but I wish the text editing function for scenario briefings was a bit more robust. I'd like to be able to make things bold, italicize, us an indent or numbered list format, etc. Even just something as basic as whats offered on this forum would be great. I would also like the opportunity to preview a briefing screen without having to save the file, paste it into the scenarios folder, exit the editor, open the new battle file, wait for the entire map to load in, realize I spelled the word battalion wrong, go back to the editor, reimport the revised text, save the file etc etc. Sometimes you dont catch things until you see it in the scenario window, especially when it comes to formatting issues. 

Yes hotseat or PBEM. 🙂

So many things I would like to see. So many things that was said in this thread and other threads.
More AI programming, more AI artillery commands, more AI groups, triggers for reinforcements ... I agree
Ability to split squads in vehicule... I agree
Ability to unacquire ammos or weapons... I agree
But, the most important to me, is to teach the TacAi that when it is done, it is done.
When your pixeltruppen enter in a kill zone, avoid it. Find another way. I know this is not a human player. But, as soon as bullets are coming to you, run, avoid them, don't do like a terminator, you are not a terminator.
And don't continue to try using the same way, it is done. It is done!

Take note it is easier to get an LOS with a mortar unit he may get an LOF on an MG but the MG doesn't get an LOS on the mortar. I give you a link to a YouTuber I follow. When it comes to mortars you are better off to use them in direct fire mode in CM but be careful how you position them. Mortars start around the 14:15 mark. 
 

Keep asking...
 

A personal experience is bad information? Most people test issues on testers mode but you can't test when the AI is on Iron and the Icons are invisible. Apart from replay it and check it out a few times. Katyushas are inaccurate and the odds that their shell goes in a Foxhole is extremely remote. I tested something else again this time with an JS2. Shelled a house where I knew a German sniper was. Sure enough the patrol found the died Germans. Sharing players experiences is not bad information. I never stated anywhere which was not objective. The editor can paint triggers which could cause enemy units to occupy trenches and outposts later in the game. 

Don't be confused. The AI does *NOT* have any special protection. If someone has tests that show otherwise lets see them. Such claims have to be near the top of the ridiculous pile of BS made on here.

Another suggestion along  the lines of arty issues:
Shouldn't a mortar's direct HQ be able to have an almost immediate response (ie. at most a minute) to an OBA request is the mortar is actually in their LoS? It seems bizarre that a company's mortar section should have no faster reaction time to a request from their immediate HQ that is in sight, or at least in speech-contact than the Company's actual HQ that has to go through that mortar's HQ for access?

I should have added that the same explanation goes with TRPs too. TRPs are pre-plotted, the firing data for the guns is already calculated and checked. It's a pre-planned mission that just  hasn't been fired yet. So all that same logic of adjusting off a TRP works the same. They are plotted on likely enemy locations, or places you want to deny the enemy. Usually these are readily identifiable on the map. If you know the coordinates accurately, the fire should be accurate, because the calculated data is highly accurate.
It's very common for an FO to call a fire mission that is a FFE, shift from TRP X, say, and provide the shift distances. The battery just needs the FOs direction to the target so they know what L400, D200 means to the FO, as seldom is the FO on the same axis as battery to target.
Dave

This is because except in an emergency (which can by a fleeting high value target), they will go through the adjust fire sequence to zero in on a target before FFE.
Preplanned fires are accurate because the firing battery has time to carefully calculate the firing data, and the preplanned fire is usually on a readily identifiable terrain features, such as a treeline, or say the edge of a town, or the far side of a stream - all things where grid coordinates are able to be pretty accurately determined. So adjusting a preplanned fire is also pretty accurate, because you've already got good accurate firing data for a preplanned FFE, and then assuming your FO is competent (and they tend to be), when he provides a shift, as long as it isn't a huge one, your new firing data should also be pretty accurate.
For an on call fire mission, using maps and slide rules for firing data, there are usually two map plotters and they check each other, and the "computer" (the guy with the firing stick slide rules), is alone but checked by the NCOIC. The Fire Direction Officer checks everyone, but usually not to more detail than that the data sounds ballpark correct and the most important function, that it is safe in regards to friendly troops.
The issue with a huge shift is the FOs ability to estimate that distance, unless he shifts to an easily mapped location. But that may not always be true, depending on where the target is, or where he expects it to be in a couple or few minutes. Targets of opportunity don't always cooperate and line themselves up with map features 🙂
Taking all this, an accurate shift from a preplanned FFE is pretty reasonable, assuming you have an FO in position to send the data.
Dave
Dave

Why?  Pre-planned barrges were quite complex by the mid-40s (ie: tne period of the current games).....The ability to adjust a preplanned barrage is the best way to simulate a rolling barrage.

When I take a look at towns and cities in my copy of Final Blitzkrieg I often feel that they seem unfinished. There are quite a few things that could be added to the scenario editor which would help to make cities, towns and villages look better. One small thing that I think could make a great change would be to add pedestrian walks to the editor. It is possible to use for example cobbled stone tiles for the streets and other tiles to serve as pedestrian walks. But that method still doesn't make the streets look the part.

That may be the understatement of the century!  I've been advised to put 'health warnings' on some of my scenarios where the AI lets loose with a full scale and sustained barrage!  I've levelled whole city blocks and killed every last living thing in them! 

Whether this can be an Engine 5 update or a regular update to a patch I would like a message box to pop up to display what the FO is saying (in English) when you are using artillery. It's nice to have all the different nations in their own native language but you are obviously missing some vital information if you lose LOS or if something happens that delays or cancels your arty and you don't have a clue as to what they are saying.

Currently it takes the same amount of effort for tanks to go through a stone wall as it does to go through a wooden fence. Maybe it's a programming issue but a wooden fence would hardly be noticed by a tank going full speed. 
Would like to see something more realistic in that area.

Absolutely love these suggestions, particularly in regards to placing ATG's in buildings. That's a long overdue, missing feature of the game and should also include AFV's. After all, there's plenty of historical precedent for that too.
I do think that foxholes and trenches, the way they are currently portrayed in the game do detract from their protective abilities and make them more visible.
Possessing and being able to use abandoned weapons is also, an absolute must! As well as being able to get ammo off of enemy casualties.

Great lists, BornGinger.

You can actually go inside the building and plot your LOF there.