My views on the game

[tuhhodge]

A wasted opportunity. I loved Combat Mission Beyond Normandy and the follow up games. The graphics were good at the time, random battle maps were truly 'random' or you could make your own, and picking forces was fun. It also seemed fairly realistic.

I avoided TOW because of the intensely negative publicity but TOW2 and the Kursk add-ons seemed to get better reviews. The other day I saw Kursk on sale and bought it. Sadly, it seems the faults ridiculed by the initial reviewers of TOW are still there.

Here's a case in point:-

I set up a random battle, defending a village against the Russian hordes. The village is surrounded by a large open area. I set up all my forces to lie prone and ambush the attacking troops. Within seconds I lost one 1 hidden tank to an air attack. Then I lost about 6 infantry to artillery despite the shells landing about 10-20 metres away from men lying prone at the bottom of trenches and in bunkers! The Russian infantry attacked across open fields. My troops didn't fire at them. Then 4 Russian self-propelled guns rolled up to my trenches. My 4 Panther tanks came out of hiding and attacked from the side at close range. 2 Panthers were knocked out by the completely surprised Russians, who themselves suffered no loss. I stopped the game, disillusioned by the unreality of it. I checked the stats. I had lost 40 troops, the Russians 1 man. I lost 3 tanks, the Russians none. And this is an attack across open fields on men in trenches and tanks hidden between buildings and anti tank guns hidden in vegetation.

As I say, this is indicative of my experiences with this game. Artillery killing men in trenches dozens of metres away is ahistorical and ridiculous. What's the point of entrenching? In the war, men in foxholes survived unless their hole suffered a direct hit. How else do you think the Germans managed to repulse Allied attacks in Normandy or Russian attacks on the Eastern Front?

Read any account of Tiger tanks in action in Normandy and you will see them suffering dozens of hits by 75mm guns and surviving, destroying 10 times their number of enemy tanks. Within seconds of being under direct fire of Russian tanks my Tigers always lose their guns.

[Knokke]

I've never experienced anything like what you're describing.

[apd1004]

I've never experienced anything like what you're describing.

Neither have I, although I have not yet created a scenario like the one he described. So far all I have played is the campaign.

My problems usually revolve around my German tanks getting mobility killed before they get close enough to the defending Russian guns and/or tanks to get visual ID on them so they can engage. If all your tank commanders & gunners have scout skill of 0, it is highly likely they will get mobility killed far enough away from the Russian gun/tank engaging them that they will never see it to be able to engage it themselves.

I've seen several Tigers and Panthers get hit dozens of times without catastrophic kills, but eventually they get mobility killed and after that many hits, enough internal spalling to incapacitate the crew.

Trying to take 4 Panther tanks and 4 StuG's online (usually the average of what you get to pick for armor in the campaign scenarios) and assault across 1000m of open ground against a dug in Russian enemy with flanking & interlocking firing positions is suicide - gee, kind of like historical results.

I'm getting much better mileage by slowing things down a bit, using my post-battle promotion points to increase the scout skill on my vehicle commanders and gunners as well as using scout teams and snipers to allow me to spot the enemy from farther away. I take the individual soldiers from my scout teams, all with scout skill of 90+, and sneak them one at a time through the weeds and ravines as close to the Russian lines as possible to recon the enemy positions. Again, similar to real life - RECON, RECON, RECON. The scouts spot the dug-in Russians and allow me to maneuver my armor close enough behind the contour lines so they can eventually spot the Russians themselves and engage. The individual scouts can sneak through the weeds & trees and get very close to the Russian positions. Once the scouts spot the enemy positions, use mortars and the 75mm infantry guns on area fire against the dug in Russian anti-tank guns. You don't need a direct hit on a gun to take out the crew. The SdKfz 251-2 with the 81mm mortar carries 120 rounds of HE, so I always pick them if I have the points.

I can't emphasize enough the need to be able to spot the enemy positions before they spot you. If you just roll across the open ground like you are playing a standard RTS game, with tanks in front leading the way, the Russian guns will be able to get a lot of shots off before you can even see them and you will fail miserably. Since you can only pick a small number of tanks/SPG's per scenario, you have to resist the temptation to just drive across the open ground with your armor, and instead use the terrain, your scouts, and your guns to your advantage.

I've played a lot of games like this and I must say I'm having quite a blast with ToW2:Kursk.

Cheers, happy hunting.

[Spellir_74]

A wasted opportunity.

Lethality IS too high in the game. _And way too high for arty._

Bad enough you lose 50% taking a Ville. But even then you probably haven't achieved enough victory points to end, so you wait for an enemy arti barrage to kill most of the rest of your survivors. [eye roll]

The game world is filled with dudes who want it "harder, harder" [like a two bit porn flick]. Somebody on the design team was of that ilk or heeded that ilk's demand. Irony is these "bungee jumpers" don't actually play games regularly; they play a few times and then move on to the next visceral thrill (that sitting in a chair just will never provide).

I have never played for non axis. Is the lethality across sides or just for the Germans? I wonder if the lethality is the side effect of a fanboy helping 'his side'(allies) to win.

Also the TOW-first-game stock missions (I only have TOW one) from the German side have unrealistic amounts of enemy attacking in _too many waves._ Lethality is as high 90+ percent per mission. Not conducive to enjoying a GAME _that demands player micro manage his troops down to the middle initial in their names._ [eye roll]

This game IS beautiful looking.

Looking out from an ATG or SP position overwatching from a crest, looking across a sloping field for a kilometer plus is time machine like.

Going to Africa was a bit of a mistake since any game can do a desert look. Your strong suit was your green fields seen from tree lined overwatches, near a brook by birds. Stunning. Should have went to Italy if you had an inner need to go tan and (use the grant /lee mods ;-)).

With that relocating to the desert and the high-lethality _in a 1:1 micro-manage-your-men game_, the best choices were not made.

The only other problem I had is the not being able to pause while picking up the player's choice of weapon and ammo _for all who need it_. Ie there needs to be a group-pickup switch. That way a player can issue a few commands while paused. With the pause system now, player has to pause and then order-a man-to-pickup, then un-pause to be able to do the same for the next man who needs picking up and so on. The player will take an unnecessary beating someplace on the map while he is micro managing a squad's disposition.

I mitigate that by letting the game pickup what it wants but that isn't my first choice.

------

If I were to design games as the Thor, it seems money should be make-able through releasing official add-on packs that increase the amount of vehicles and situations and game world physic's ambiance. For my money I like games that have complete liveries and are finished, as far as game world mechanics and physics; and I would pay to get it that way.

The industry now believes that you make money by releasing new titles all the time --with the same ~six units redood in higher polys ever year and a similar weak-physics world; ...energy burnt "reinventing the wheel" rather than moving forward. I wonder if that approach has been market-researched or if it is just some olde designer's inkling (like the "harder harder" thing) that has become a rut for the industry to conform too.

YMMV

[sand digger]

Neither have I, although I have not yet created a scenario like the one he described. So far all I have played is the campaign.

My problems usually revolve around my German tanks getting mobility killed before they get close enough to the defending Russian guns and/or tanks to get visual ID on them so they can engage. If all your tank commanders & gunners have scout skill of 0, it is highly likely they will get mobility killed far enough away from the Russian gun/tank engaging them that they will never see it to be able to engage it themselves.

I've seen several Tigers and Panthers get hit dozens of times without catastrophic kills, but eventually they get mobility killed and after that many hits, enough internal spalling to incapacitate the crew.

Trying to take 4 Panther tanks and 4 StuG's online (usually the average of what you get to pick for armor in the campaign scenarios) and assault across 1000m of open ground against a dug in Russian enemy with flanking & interlocking firing positions is suicide - gee, kind of like historical results.

I'm getting much better mileage by slowing things down a bit, using my post-battle promotion points to increase the scout skill on my vehicle commanders and gunners as well as using scout teams and snipers to allow me to spot the enemy from farther away. I take the individual soldiers from my scout teams, all with scout skill of 90+, and sneak them one at a time through the weeds and ravines as close to the Russian lines as possible to recon the enemy positions. Again, similar to real life - RECON, RECON, RECON. The scouts spot the dug-in Russians and allow me to maneuver my armor close enough behind the contour lines so they can eventually spot the Russians themselves and engage. The individual scouts can sneak through the weeds & trees and get very close to the Russian positions. Once the scouts spot the enemy positions, use mortars and the 75mm infantry guns on area fire against the dug in Russian anti-tank guns. You don't need a direct hit on a gun to take out the crew. The SdKfz 251-2 with the 81mm mortar carries 120 rounds of HE, so I always pick them if I have the points.

I can't emphasize enough the need to be able to spot the enemy positions before they spot you. If you just roll across the open ground like you are playing a standard RTS game, with tanks in front leading the way, the Russian guns will be able to get a lot of shots off before you can even see them and you will fail miserably. Since you can only pick a small number of tanks/SPG's per scenario, you have to resist the temptation to just drive across the open ground with your armor, and instead use the terrain, your scouts, and your guns to your advantage.

I've played a lot of games like this and I must say I'm having quite a blast with ToW2:Kursk.

Cheers, happy hunting.

Hmmm, you don't have to do anyhing fancy like you describe to take out AT guns, just use artillery to pound every gun emplacement. Game problem is all these emplacements are visible when they should not be so attcking gets to be a very methodical and eventually boring exercise.

[Knokke]

If I were to design games as the Thor, it seems money should be make-able through releasing official add-on packs that increase the amount of vehicles and situations and game world physic's ambiance. For my money I like games that have complete liveries and are finished, as far as game world mechanics and physics; and I would pay to get it that way.

The industry now believes that you make money by releasing new titles all the time --with the same ~six units redood in higher polys ever year and a similar weak-physics world; ...energy burnt "reinventing the wheel" rather than moving forward. I wonder if that approach has been market-researched or if it is just some olde designer's inkling (like the "harder harder" thing) that has become a rut for the industry to conform too.

I kind of agree with that. I would prefer the kind of deal peoples get with Flightsimulator, or Railworks - a core game engine with officials and/or unofficial addons to add new content, vehicles, missions, maps...etc

[Redjac]

@Spellir,

You may not be correct about lethality being too high, in certain contexts. Out of boredom with the game I set up experiments with 2 soldiers standing in a field squared off at 200m. It takes a sniper 2 shots to kill a guy standing at 200m. I have seen the odd single shot kill but i've also seen snipers shoot 3-4 times in that experiment. Same with MG 42. Sometimes 2 and 3 bursts. I am not saying that is unrealistic. But it is definitely not overtly lethal.

Infantry get killed easily for many reasons. I notice when I am suddenly down to a few units suddenly their survive-ability goes up and they are much more successful at killing and staying alive. That means to me I am not playing on a slow enough speed setting, and the time I move my attention from one unit to another is too long resulting in units not being managed, and left to die.

[apd1004]

Lethality IS too high in the game. _And way too high for arty._

Bad enough you lose 50% taking a Ville. But even then you probably haven't achieved enough victory points to end, so you wait for an enemy arti barrage to kill most of the rest of your survivors. [eye roll]

The game world is filled with dudes who want it "harder, harder" [like a two bit porn flick]. Somebody on the design team was of that ilk or heeded that ilk's demand. Irony is these "bungee jumpers" don't actually play games regularly; they play a few times and then move on to the next visceral thrill (that sitting in a chair just will never provide).

I have never played for non axis. Is the lethality across sides or just for the Germans? I wonder if the lethality is the side effect of a fanboy helping 'his side'(allies) to win.

Also the TOW-first-game stock missions (I only have TOW one) from the German side have unrealistic amounts of enemy attacking in _too many waves._ Lethality is as high 90+ percent per mission. Not conducive to enjoying a GAME _that demands player micro manage his troops down to the middle initial in their names._ [eye roll]

This game IS beautiful looking.

Looking out from an ATG or SP position overwatching from a crest, looking across a sloping field for a kilometer plus is time machine like.

Going to Africa was a bit of a mistake since any game can do a desert look. Your strong suit was your green fields seen from tree lined overwatches, near a brook by birds. Stunning. Should have went to Italy if you had an inner need to go tan and (use the grant /lee mods ;-)).

With that relocating to the desert and the high-lethality _in a 1:1 micro-manage-your-men game_, the best choices were not made.

The only other problem I had is the not being able to pause while picking up the player's choice of weapon and ammo _for all who need it_. Ie there needs to be a group-pickup switch. That way a player can issue a few commands while paused. With the pause system now, player has to pause and then order-a man-to-pickup, then un-pause to be able to do the same for the next man who needs picking up and so on. The player will take an unnecessary beating someplace on the map while he is micro managing a squad's disposition.

I mitigate that by letting the game pickup what it wants but that isn't my first choice.

------

If I were to design games as the Thor, it seems money should be make-able through releasing official add-on packs that increase the amount of vehicles and situations and game world physic's ambiance. For my money I like games that have complete liveries and are finished, as far as game world mechanics and physics; and I would pay to get it that way.

The industry now believes that you make money by releasing new titles all the time --with the same ~six units redood in higher polys ever year and a similar weak-physics world; ...energy burnt "reinventing the wheel" rather than moving forward. I wonder if that approach has been market-researched or if it is just some olde designer's inkling (like the "harder harder" thing) that has become a rut for the industry to conform too.

YMMV

You mention above that you only have TOW 1. Maybe it's just me, but I'm not sure how you can give a good account of TOW 2 if you don't even own it. Big difference between TOW 1 and TOW 2 from what I've experienced. Lethality is nowhere near TOW 1. I played TOW 1 for about 2 days before I deleted it, for all of the reasons you mention above. Figured I'd give TOW 2 a try because it was cheap, and I was pleasantly surprised at the difference between the two.

I also agree it would be nice to have completely finished games without having to pay for DLC or add-ons, but I'm an Advanced Squad Leader player as well and we waited 20+ years to get the full livery with that...

Cheers

[apd1004]

Hmmm, you don't have to do anyhing fancy like you describe to take out AT guns, just use artillery to pound every gun emplacement. Game problem is all these emplacements are visible when they should not be so attcking gets to be a very methodical and eventually boring exercise.

I agree, those emplacements should be more difficult to detect. I force myself to spot units occupying them before I just pound them with on-map artillery/guns, mainly to conserve ammunition. Besides, some of the emplacements in certain scenarios have dug-in tanks occupying them, and you don't get much bang for the buck pounding T-34's with 81mm mortar fire.

Cheers

[Knokke]

Game problem is all these emplacements are visible when they should not be so attcking gets to be a very methodical and eventually boring exercise.

I agree with the fact that it would make the game more interesting if trenches and pillboxes were not known right from the beginning, and if the player had to send scouts to discover their positions. But you can always pretend that theses positions are already known to you because of information optained before the battle started, either by reconnaissance by foot troops or by aerial reconnaissance.

Anyway, it is still mandatory to send recon troops even if the ennemy positions are known, as you don't know before hand if the trenches are occupied. There are many fighting positions that are left unoccupied, just like in real life, some of them being decoys, their purpose being to delay, confuse and draw ennemy fire. The player would quickly run out of ammunition if he tried to plaster every single fortified position on the map without knowing if they're occupied or not.

[apd1004]

And, it is pretty darn difficult to try to spot enemy inside those emplacements, even with scouts forward. Maybe a little too difficult - sometimes those guns are able to get off dozens of rounds before they are revealed on map.

That is also a good point about known emplacements - a lot (not all) of the trench lines were known due to aerial recon beforehand. Many were pretty well camouflaged though and didn't get discovered right away.

[Spellir_74]

Small arms lethality was NOT too high for me. You're right, Redjac. Small arms was just about right to me. Ie Fudged to be low lethality. ;-)

(...Now, now, we all know that games are fudged versions of "reality" right?

The cause and effect of the universe traces any given event, right now this moment, back to the big bang, while a game-world's cause and effect--eg combat resolution-- traces back to "dice rolls" which attempt to "model" reality based on stats. Problem is that reality is problematic--ie real world events aint just ballistic test-range statistics. If you make each artillery round always have a 42.6m kill-radius(per some real world Ballistics stat), a game world environment can become un real in a hurry _because all the other cause and effect complexity for each moment of existence has not also been traced back to dice rolls or a big bang too_ --only the arti round hit has (no wind; no blurry eyes etc). Dig?

[Also for vehicle simulators... the situation of sitting at a 21inch computer monitor in a chair in your draws presents difference "feedback" from all the real-world feedback one would be getting in a real life situation. Thus even simulators (eg flight, tank, sub) need to be fudged too. The "harder harder" modeler set doesn't grapple with that; and that irks me enough to harp on about here.])

I didn't mean TOW rifle shoot outs. But I did mean, along with arti barrages, now that I remember, aerial attack lethality coming in incessant waves. ...Planes are super combat effective=true; Normandy Germans took _massive beating_ from planes=true; a 1:1 game that has player loose 50% to unnecessary spluttering waves of death in its demo mission (along with fresh enemy tank waves)=bad fudge of truth.

Both with arti and plane waves here, that could have been tuned down by having fewer come in during missions. (But arti did hit my trench line hard too I recall.)

APD1004, correct I have only the first TOW. I wasn't really trying to make a review off-site; I was just confirming Tuhhodges observations. (And trying to tweak game-reality in general to my preference.)

I like the game. And appreciate the art.

Mitigate lethality in a 1:1 and RTS* by using game as platoon vs platoon type. Ie No kampgruppe coming in multi road, multi prong assaults: just a few squads bounding up one road to take out enemy positions (while the rest of the kompanie and KG pursue their goals off map). One gets so good at the title's "mechanics" (combat resolution dice) and UI that lethality becomes realistic again? Similar to olde Close Combat. TOW maps are _big_ and beautiful though.

(*for an RTS, TOW pause function could be perfect if not for that glitch of not being able to issue multiple orders etc.)

Note platoons rarely fight alone. Hollywood would have us believe all combat is the "lost squad." One would be surprised how nearby half a kilometer is; how integrated a company --and even btn-- is with its flanking-fire assists in support.

-------

My comment at the bottom of my post about releasing add on packs rather than 'reinventing the wheel' with new titles all the time was meant more as a 'sig (...trying to tweak games to my preference) than a jibe.

[Lemonade]

I have to agree with Tuhhodge, but only up to a point. The trenches' and weapon pits' and fortifications' mechanics are broken, this is very true. I tend to call them "The Trenches of Death" for they provide little to no cover, are much to wide (which raises the chance of direct hits), the infantry can't lie prone in them, and most importantly, they are visible from the very beginning of the scenario, and that's IMHO the most critical flaw of ToW series that needs urgent developer's attention. I don't imagine myself buying another part of the series, like Korea, if it will still contain them. To be honest, I'd be more satisfied having a simple flat terrain decal simulating trenches, than this "thing" we have now.

Now, according to this source: http://nigelef.tripod.com/wt_of_fire.htm, the amount of artillery fire needed to dispose a person crouching in the trenches is 25, up to 100, times greater than if he was standing in the open field. I have a feeling that in ToW series those numbers are much lower.

Tuhhodge wrote about artillery shell detonations that cause casualties within the ranks of infantry crouching in trenches and bunkers 10-20 meters away. I think it's quite safe to say that it really shouldn't happen. Not in the case of light and medium artillery, that is. But I think it's quite safe to say that larger calibre arty, like 152mm+, if detonated within a 10 meters range from a trenches, would cause casualties inside them. Not to mention soldiers within hypothetical foxholes, who would probably be buried under the rain of earth or earth movement. According to Sami H. E. Korhonen (www.winterwar.com), the crater caused by shell detonation of this calibre is to be ca.4.5 meters wide and almost 2 meters deep. Noone will convince me that this wouldn't have any impact on the health of entrenched infantry nearby. Although I agree that in ToW2 this is exaggerated, probably because of still broken, and already mentioned, infantry cover mechanics (though this has been somewhat corrected since ToW).

I too have experienced enemy attacks similar to one that Tuhhodge has described. The enemy was assaulting my positions across the open field, killing my entrenched soldiers within a blink of an eye. I've even described this in another thread. I guess, until infantry is fixed, the best tactics is to hide your soldiers and crew served weapons anywhere but in the trenches and weapon pits. Conceal them in bushes, houses, in tall grass. Places where they won't be spotted, or will be spotted too late for the enemy to do something about them.

Oh, and elite AFV crewmen accuracy against infantry is superhuman. Both for the enemy and me. With 100 gunnery skill one can take out all entrenched infantry with coaxial mounted MG from 800 meters. In my opinion, this needs to be reduced significantly. No Ubermensch accuracy, even when a unit has an elite status.

The tank battles are great, in my opinion. Tuhhodge wrote that the Russian SPGs were to be surprised by the presence of your well hidden tanks. But I think he may be forgetting the fact that the enemy may know from where to expect the tanks as they're pretty loud. Tuhhodge, I'm sure you're familiar with audio icons, telling you that there's a certain unit somewhere on this position. You know this from CM, and it's here too. I don't know if the AI makes decisions by taking such information into consideration, but I think this might be the case. And a direct hit from SU-122's massive high explosive shell, from a relatively close range, most of the time will cause armour spalling and ammunition detonation even inside a Panther or Tiger tank. It's also possible that the situation was just a pure luck. Yesterday I was playing the last German mission in Kursk and drove my four tanks escorted by my sturmtruppen into a village. I've set three of them (PzKpfw. II Ausf. F, PzKpfW IV Ausf. H and PzKpfw.III Befehlswagen) behind some bushes on its eastern part and I drove the remaining two (PzKpfW V Ausf.D and PzKpfW III Ausf. N) a bit forward, deeper into the village, to dispose of a routing Russian infantry. Some 400 meters to the south of the village, a Tiger on a hill in a hull-down position was overlooking the village main road. Suddenly one of my tanks spotted two T-34 (plant 112, if I remember correctly) heading full speed through the center road towards my two lone tanks. I was so surprised that I immediately reversed my both forward tanks to hide them behind some houses. I almost panicked when those two T-34s appeared to be five! Nevertheless, my three tanks on the eastern side managed to ambush the russian machines (even though they weren't in ambush mode) and destroyed two of them. The remaining three were knocked out by a Tiger (1) and a Panther (2 - at point blank range). That's not the only ambush situation I've had a chance to survive.

A week ago, while playing as Russians, I've rolled three tanks (one M3 Grant and two T-34s) into a distant, large village occupied by allied AI AA guns and infantry. The moment the tanks arrived on the edge of the settlement, two Panther tanks appeared on the edge of neighbouring forest. Then the manoevering tank battle began. We both manoevered between houses just to get a good aim at the other. Luckily I was outnumbering the enemy by one tank, which gave me an upper hand in this clash. I ended up with slightly damaged Grant but managed to knock out the two German cats. Then two more Panthers arrived, but now I was prepared for them. This was the most crazy and enjoyable tank duel I had.

Finally, a word on Tigers. Tiger tanks taking dozens of 76mm rounds on their armour and still remaining battle effective are not a rarity in ToW2. Please, take a look at this particular Tiger from the screenshot. This is the one I mentioned earlier, standing on a hill, overlooking the whole battlefield. At one moment, it began to take simultaneous hits from four or five 76mm ZIS-3 guns and 45mm located on an opposite hill some 820 meters away. He took, like, 30 hits, including some penetrations to insignificant parts of armour like mud guards, before I decided to reverse him behind the hill. Suddenly one of his tracks was hit and he turned 120-degrees left, exposing his right side and part of the rear armour. I thought he was done, but somehow I managed to turn him back to face the hurricane fire from the ATGs. So he just stood there, taking more and more hits, pounding back his ordnance at the guns. He's been there to the end of the battle, surviving all the fire, with no injuries to the crew nor any significant damage done to him. He knocked out all of the 76mm ATGs and all entrenched T-70s from the hill. The shell impact vectors visible on the screenshot are just a small part of what his armour has withstood.

I don't know what did you do with your Tigers that they got knocked out so fast, but perhaps you should rethink your tactics?

So, to sum up... I love the series. Truly. But still, I agree that there are lots of things to be fixed. It would be wonderful if our dearest 1C left the visuals as they are (and it's, like, wonderful, ATM. I was shocked when I launched my first rocket barrage in Kursk. It's bloody awesome! Just look at the horizon!), and shifted their attention towards tweaking the AI (especially the infantry AI) and game mechanics. That's the most critical thing right now.

PS. Oh, and Africa? It was a really good choice.

[apd1004]

Great analysis, Lemonade.

I think we all agree that the entrenchment system and infantry are both in need of fixing, especially for a game about Kursk in which trenches and prepared positions were a major part of the Russian defense. If a soldier goes prone in a trench (currently he can't), it should take pretty much a direct hit inside the trench to take him out with anything but very heavy payload warheads. The downside of that is he also has no situational awareness, which is why you supress the hell out of a trenchline if you want to attack it. A soldier should be able to stand in a trench and still be under significant cover from fire, with the only thing exposed being the shoulders and higher, but he is still exposed. A soldier crouches to duck from fire but stands right back up to continue firing again, so the idea is to keep them supressed. The Russians had also mastered the art of camouflaging fighting positions by this period in the war. You should have a difficult time spotting fighting positions, but then again they are not invisible, especially when whatever occupies them starts shooting.

I absolutely agree with what you say about the visuals & sounds, I don't think 1C needs to do a whole lot more in that area. The one German campaign mission, Syrtsev-Dubrova Line, where you are attacking the Russian strongpoints, was probably my favorite so far. At the very beginning where the artillery pounds the strongpoints, the visuals and sounds of the artillery impact were about the most realistic I've seen to date (yes I've seen the real thing, many times). Also, the unique sounds for each weapon are incredible. The difference between the sound of an MG34 and an MG42 for instance, or the difference in the sound of a low-velocity 75mm L/24 and a higher velocity 75mm L/48 show that a lot of effort was put into making this part of the game right. I think 1C can leave this part alone.

On the subject of infantry, I was playing the Kursk campaign mission where the two scout teams and one sniper are sent in to take out the Russian AA positions. I was pleasantly surprised to even see this scenario because it was quite a departure from all the larger combined arms scenearios before that. I had an absolute blast maneuvering the infantry around the village, clearing houses and using grenades & rifle grenades to take out the AA guns and MG positions. There are no trenches in play in this scenario, but there are sandbagged positions and bunkers. It appeared to me that the sandbagged positions offered no actual cover to the troops behind them, because if a grenade went off outside the sandbags, it still took out the soldiers behind the sandbags. Another thing I noticed was that the hand grenades and rifle grenades had a pretty lethal blast radius. Also, there are 8 DshK positions in this scenario. The DshK is a pretty powerful weapon, and should be able to lay down some good supressive firepower and also be able to penetrate the walls of the small village houses. Not sure yet how penetration of building walls is modeled in ToW2. They should offer some cover but they are not impenetrable. I expected a lot more fire to come from the DshK's, but the gunners almost seemed dumb. Seems to me if a soldier has any zero's on their marksman and/or scout skills, they are pretty blind.

That's a great graphic on the Tiger tank, I seem to remember a book somehwere about how a tiger tank took dozens of hits to the frontal armor with no penetrations.

[Lemonade]

Yesterday I was playing the last German mission in Kursk(...)

I have to correct myself. It wasn't actually the last German mission. It was Novoselovka. Sorry about that.

I was playing the Kursk campaign mission where the two scout teams and one sniper are sent in to take out the Russian AA positions.

I don't know whether you chaps noticed that, but this particular mission is 1C's bow towards Willi Heinrich's novel "Das geduldige Fleisch" a.k.a. "Steiner - Das Eiserne Kreuz", a.k.a. "The Willing Flesh" a.k.a. "Cross of Iron" (so many titles, I know). The book made into the movie, starring James Coburn as Feldwebel Rolf Steiner. Just take a look at the name of a squad leader of one of the scout teams...

[sand digger]

What is such a shame is that this game's visuals are brilliant and totally immersive, its not eye candy, its real. Or so it seems. This sort of game is so hard to get near right though, good enough so that you will keep coming back to it. Unfortunately here with the obvious gun emplacement positions and an inflexible defensive arrangement that has not happened for me. 1C, you came so close