yet another morale/probability question

[Cpt. Cook]

I am wondering whether or not "good" orders plotting affects targetting and morale.

Obviously there is a practical advantage, i.e. changing orders from "hunt" over say 200m to a safe 180m "fast move" and 20m of "seek-hull-down" towards a clear enfilade. This has worked to my advantage as I have learned.

What I am wondering is whether or not the AI recognizes this difference and adjusts the ability of units to target and identify enemies, or perhaps their morale or some other variable when "better" orders are plotted.

For example, I lost a T-34 which flanked a Pz-IVg with clear LOS using the hunt command--while the tiger was able to rotate 45 degrees, fire twice and kill my tank without a shot fired in reply. I had the T-34 hunting on flat ground towards the cover of scattered trees. The Pz-IVg was in open ground I believe.

And yes, I know their is a difference in the optics and profile of both and generally most tanks, and potentially in experience (although I suspect experience was similar--the pbem is in progress). Both were buttoned yet both were within about 300m (easy range IMO). I have never found optics to be much of an effective variable so far but I wonder if what I experienced can be boiled down to this?

And yes, it is in a pbem I am losing badly.

Furthermore: I have a distinct problem using heavy armor that has been somewhat resolved using light armor (I can't resist directly supporting infantry with it). Probability cancels out ineffectiveness (i.e. lack of shrugging off hits), so instead I group light armor and use it en masse (playing earlier war scenarios). Is this ahistorical?

I play smaller scenarios so if I buy heavy armor (or have it given to me) I naturally split it. I find it boring to play with, it always ends up smoking because I want to mess around with it.

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Cpt. Cook:

Furthermore: I have a distinct problem using heavy armor that has been somewhat resolved using light armor (I can't resist directly supporting infantry with it). Probability cancels out ineffectiveness (i.e. lack of shrugging off hits), so instead I group light armor and use it en masse (playing earlier war scenarios). Is this ahistorical?

Grouping armor? No, it's the way countries won battles during the war. In another thread I recently posted, "A platoon of tanks is very nice to have, but a single tank most often just a very expensive target for the enemy to shoot at."

In CMBO at first I used to send in tanks singly and they amost always got shot up before they could contribute anything useful to the battle. So I learned to send them at least in pairs, but preferably larger groupings. The difference was amazing. If an AT gun dared to speak up it was instantly saturated with HE, and even if it wasn't immediately destroyed, the crew was so busy keeping their heads down that they never got off a second shot. Taught me a lesson.

Michael