Matrix Games Forums

2) as in a dog hunting/chasing a rabbit, for example. "Hetzen" then refers to the dog exhausting the rabbit by keeping him on the move, pretty much like the dogs hunting foxes in Britain. "Jemanden zu Tode hetzen" would translate to "fatally exhausting someone", i guess.

Really excellent and accurate details about this vehicle provided by GoodGuy.

May I suggest translating "Hetzer" as "Harrier". First, it is technically correct. Second, it is a good name for a TD. The other suggested translations do not meet both criteria.

Situation just before midnight on December 17th:
I've consolidated my gains at the crossings and made contact with some US blocking forces as I pushed down the roads toward St. Vith. The Corps artillery are running out of large caliber ammo. They will recieve a few shells here and there, but nothing like the abundance on the first day.

Note the rogue company (well, 3 AFV's to be exact) of King Tigers plodding on toward St Vith. They arrived earlier in the day and are just about out of gas and in need of a rest. Historically (by most accounts) these Tigers from schwere Panzer Abteilung 506 were part of the piecemeal employment of this unit and were reported near Andler on the 17th and later on the night of the 21st in front of St. Vith.

I've run into a good opportunity to use one of the new "on the fly" maneuver options. "Basing" and "Stragglers" are set by default. I've selected "Attacks" in this case because the I/190 has run into some unexpected opposition while marching along (at night) in road column.

Instead of cancelling the move and ordering an attack task, the "Attacks" selection will direct the battalion to immediately assault any enemy they have recently encountered. Usually this is not a coordinated assault and each company can and will act independantly of the battalion structure.

I found that "attacks" should really be used when you are already in close contact with the enemy, otherwise your close formation battalion will be running off in all directions assaulting recent contacts. These guys need to be monitored closely or it will take several hours to reorganize them back into formation.

Clarification. The "Attacks" SOP option does not guarantee that a force will start attacking immediatley. What it does , however, is allow subordinate AI commanders to launch attacks if they see fit. Using the above example, this means that the Bn or one of its companies could launch an attack on a nearby enemy threat. If a company sees an enemy and thinks it can deal with it, then odds are it will launch an attack. Being a company sized attack these are put in pretty quickly. If it reckons the enemy is too big for it to handle then it will leave it to his boss to decide. Now if the Bn HQ decides to attack, then it will take a little longer to mount.
 
I appreciate Richard's desire to avoid having his force distracted by enemy on the flanks. So for BFTB I tweaked the code that filters the nearby enemy threats. If a force is Moving along a route then it will ignore enemy that are more than 500m from that route. It should also ignore the enemy if it reckons they cannot see the route. 
 
I tend to check this option whenever I want to send an force on a long range mission into enemy territory, especially if it's in a sector I'm not going to be focussing on all the time. That way the force can initiate its won attacks, without me having to closely monitor it. 

Another great feature.......very cool. [8D]
 
Rob.

Amazing, the mechanics of this genre continue to evolve.  "The point" is yours Dave, now some eventual metamorphosis in the eyecandy arena to reduce the impediment of the estabs would be in order for future releases.
 
Something about the Sand, Foxes, and Rats.....I heard mentioned?

ORIGINAL: SeaMonkey

Amazing, the mechanics of this genre continue to evolve.  "The point" is yours Dave, now some eventual metamorphosis in the eyecandy arena to reduce the impediment of the estabs would be in order for future releases.

Something about the Sand, Foxes, and Rats.....I heard mentioned?

I was thinkin' the same thing...so many great additional game features and options since the RDOA days.

ORIGINAL: SeaMonkey

...now some eventual metamorphosis in the eyecandy arena to reduce the impediment of the estabs would be in order for future releases.

Would you care to elaborate?[:)]

You bet Dave, but it seems your attention is a bit diverted, ie BftB. Get this one out first and we'll fine tune some ideas later. The patrons of AA, I'm sure will have much imput. I won't pretend to be in possession of all the answers, perhaps just a catalyst.

I've stated some ideas before, lost I assume in the entrails of posting. So of course I'm a bit hesitant to reiterate. I detest walking on ground that displays my footprints, again, but I understand priorities, I know the losses of "good intentions".

Ok, some fuel, imagine a lot of historical maps displaying the participating forces orientations in the many reference materials we use for learning about history....situation maps. The front lines, defining the deployments, ebbing and flowing with the many dispositions and actions, a loose definition of a unit's footprint.

See the picture? A blob pulsating, oozing into the enemies' territory with a border and the border has different protrusions representing actions like a weather cold front with its teeth, a warm with its semicircles. Getting ideas?

Now in that blob containing that unit and its sub formations imagine mousing over the periphery, the outer....and for that matter its inner deployments and seeing the units' specifics displayed. See the units icons in a unique distinguishing color enhancement and see its light intensify as you mouse over it and the display erupts with its characteristics of strength, action, ...etc.

Are you getting a picture?

There is more!

So you want more information about a unit when you move the cursor over its location on the map. Eg popup or rollover displaying estab and other unit characteristics. Am I heading in the right direction?

ORIGINAL: Arjuna

Am I heading in the right direction?

I think you undersatand his hints, but it is not the "right" direction. Popups on the battle maps while just moving the cursor? Pulsating lights?? Hell NO! (please).

ORIGINAL: VictorInThePacific

2) as in a dog hunting/chasing a rabbit, for example. "Hetzen" then refers to the dog exhausting the rabbit by keeping him on the move, pretty much like the dogs hunting foxes in Britain. "Jemanden zu Tode hetzen" would translate to "fatally exhausting someone", i guess.

Really excellent and accurate details about this vehicle provided by GoodGuy.

May I suggest translating "Hetzer" as "Harrier". First, it is technically correct. Second, it is a good name for a TD. The other suggested translations do not meet both criteria.

This is the translation I have always preferred.

Regarding the "proper translation" of Hetzer; since when does a name need to be a technically correct word? BTW, you hunt rabbits with a Harrier, you can hunt bear with a hound.[;)]
In any event, Hetzer was used on American board game chits 40 years ago-it is a known name, so why even translate it? It is, so to speak, small bratwurst-machs nix.

A very good AAR going on here-drive on hard.

ORIGINAL: 06 Maestro
..
In any event, Hetzer was used on American board game chits 40 years ago-it is a known name, so why even translate it? ...

Absolutely. It would be senseless nit-picking to translate it.

No Dave, there is enough information, No 06M not popups on the map, on the contrary I want less intrusion upon the maps.  The foundation is the geography, the land stays there, the armies move, they come and go, they should have the transparency, not the intrusion on the beautiful AA maps by their overlay.

But we need the units' orientations.  Seems I didn't communicate very well, my apologies.  Let's see...an example...hmmmm.

OK...the units are in a grouping, a command structure, in various formations of deployment.  AA has this, but the way its presented on the map should be like the situation maps in our history books.  The NATO icons for this example will do, but no base, just the unit designation on the side of the type box, the size above.  So for an AA battalion for instance you may have a cluster of the HQ, 3 companies and a couple of platoons, =6 nato icons.

This cluster has a border, a defining line on its perimeter, its front, flanks,sides, rear, etc.  There is cohesion so it should be a blob like footprint loosely based on its chosen formation...think of a cloud in two dimensions with a distinct border,  like a computer radar signature of precipitation hovering over a google weather map, its animated and you watch it move into your location of interest.

Ever interact with a weather map where you can change the degree of tranparency the precipitation signal diplays so that you can still observe the underlying geography?  Ever observe the different colors based on the degree of intensity the rain cloud precipitation has?  Green is light rain, yellow heavier, red ...really intense, its all from a doppler radar and it gives you a definition of the action in conjunction with the land it is invading.

Now do you see?  The rain clouds are the combat formations in the user's chosen transparency moving in the geographical display(map), not obscurring it.

See those 6 nato icons in that cloud, you can tell what they are, where they are, their size and with a little more visual aid their current actions(AA has all this), ...we'll get to that later.

Now Maestro, when you mouse over those icons in that cloud(deployment footprint), and their tranparency brightens a bit, over to the left, or right, or whatever, not on the map, where ever that unit panel's location happens to be(Like AA has now), guess what resides in that "Unit information panel"?

Am I being a bit clearer now?

I'm not asking for more information, just a little bit different configuration of diplaying it.

So I can enjoy the beautiful AA maps in a more dynamic, interactive combat environment, just like if I happen to open the pages of  "Afrika Korps" to a situational map of "The Cauldron" and all of a sudden it comes to life.

Late morning on December 18th.
Dave was right; the group I gave the attack SOP to (I Bn 190 Grenadier Rgt) did not encounter any threats worth breaking formation over and they plodded on through the night all the way to the Prummerberg hill overlooking St. Vith. When dawn broke they discovered that the town was not theirs for the taking and pulled back to defensive positions. They are way out on a limb now, with what looks like retreating elements of the 106th division following them up the road from Schlierbach. Not good.

The Americans are starting to pull together some cohesive defensive postions, putting a halt to the advance of the II/164 north of Steinebrück and the Vorausabteilung of the 18th VGD west of Heuem.

My assets are stretched to the limit right now and I'm looking forward to Otto Remer's Führer Begleit Brigade due to arrive sometime tomorrow morning. In the meantime I can scrape together some Pioneer companies and some Infantry Gun platoons from Division to hold some of the key junctions and free up some of my line companies.

ORIGINAL: simovitch

Here's a good example of the new feature where the map textures have changed now that mud has set in on the 17th. You can compare the texture below with the sceenshots from December 16th:

Now you can visually stuck in mud - that's great! .. is there a chance to loose an equipment when driving in mud/forests?

Helpless,
 
No we have yet to add in a "breakdowns" feature. After BFTB, I'm afraid.

SeaMonkey, so you are requesting a unit footprint feature?

The questions I initially ask myself are: units "out of contact", would they be part of the footprint? Is it hierarchical? i.e if you click on a line unit does it display ALL it's super force and all it's sub units?

I bet the yanks are feeling fairly hard pressed too! One more push...then another...and...