Argyll wrote: Sat Nov 22, 2025 10:52 am We're taking the reports seriously, even beyond just editing the scenario, there is some behaviour that isn't expected happening as you're pointing out. So we're on the case!

Good to hear!

Just played the first campaign of the Big Red One campaign and still the Soviets run their artillery into my guns.... Three scenarios and I still have not faced a single artillery/mortar bombardment.

Played a couple scenarios and both times Soviet artillery doesn't do anything. I have not been hit by a single barrage. This was in scenarios Lessons of War and the basic training. Both times it seems like artillery just moves forward with the convoy and gets destroyed.

Sorry for the so reply. Thank you for the response. I'll be looking forward to the new game.

Bought this game when it first came out but quickly grew frustrated with some of the mechanics:

1. Not being able to set the destination of units set to auto move when shot at/taking artillery. This meant units would auto move to hexes that made them even more vulnerable than originally.

2 ...

If I send a platoon of tanks toward the enemy using the "Advance" command then they just keep moving forward and get destroyed. If I use the "Contact" command then one of my tanks will spot an enemy and the entire unit sits there as only one of my tanks engages the enemy.

Is there a way to move ...

Is it possible to set an unload order at a location, and give an order to the dismounts to advance to another location by themselves without having to wait until they are dismounted and split to give them orders?

I don't think there's any problem with a scenario where one side is heavily favored. The victory conditions just have to be adjusted so that it's not about defeating the enemy but how long can you hold on.

This is not a contest. There is no winning or losing in this. In fact we are on the same side. We have always taken your comments seriously. In fact, this thread has had a lot of discussion in our group. When we disagree, we need to explain ourselves and why we disagree. However, just because we ...

I know I am replying late and MikeJ offers good into as a former artillery officer. Let me offer my experiences from this era as a "caller for fire".

I only called for adjusting rounds in a class or testing situation My first call was Fire For Effect. Moas and met data were good enough by at ...

I haven't seen much detailed reporting on Ukraine. But I haven't been looking. I did find these easily enough:

https://www.usmcu.edu/Outreach/Marine-Corps-University-Press/Expeditions-with-MCUP-digital-journal/The-Big-Three-Revisited/

A senior advisor to the commander of the armed forces of ...

Hello All and Happy Thursday!

Suggestion - Two part

Part One - When reinforcements arrive during your actual turn the units should be capable of receiving and executing the start of an order in lieu of a stationary position until the next friendly order cycle

Part Two - Allow for modification ...

I understand, would you mind elaborating? Do you think relocating under fire is an efficient move compared to staying in place? Or should it not be an efficient move? Are you saying artillery in the 80's is pinpoint accurate with no spotting rounds need like in game?


I start from a ...

I understand, would you mind elaborating? Do you think relocating under fire is an efficient move compared to staying in place? Or should it not be an efficient move? Are you saying artillery in the 80's is pinpoint accurate with no spotting rounds need like in game?


I start from a different ...

There is an adjustment of targets in the game, you just do not see it. Also, observers had many ways to bring fire down quickly and unexpectedly. I believe that the game does a good job of covering the artillery.


One example. When trying your Canadian campaign my first thought was have my ...

There is an adjustment of targets in the game, you just do not see it. Also, observers had many ways to bring fire down quickly and unexpectedly. I believe that the game does a good job of covering the artillery.


I think we'll have to agree to disagree on the effectiveness of artillery, that's ...

I do see preparatory bombardments at the beginning of some scenarios. I don't know if this is done by the AI, or the scenario designer. I do know that I try to avoid being in the places that the AI might hit. That's not always possible.

As for the rest, I have different expectations than ...

If I want units to move out from under artillery fire I let the AI handle it via SOP. It does a much better job of scooting out from under. than I do by giving orders. The difference between local initiative and orders through the chain of command? Maybe so. Could the users be allowed to issue ...

First of all I want to say I really like this game and am grateful to the designer for creating it, well done! Additionally there are many enjoyable and positive things about this game, it's quite something else. I want to start with saying this so you don't think this is a purely negative ...

If I want units to move out from under artillery fire I let the AI handle it via SOP. It does a much better job of scooting out from under. than I do by giving orders. The difference between local initiative and orders through the chain of command? Maybe so. Could the users be allowed to issue ...