Matrix Games Forums

FYI, if a tank blitzes through empty enemy territory (e.g., no combat units), and into another territory behind it without stopping in the first territory, that first territory does not change possession. Is this the way it is supposed to work?

you must stop inside a territory to capture it. ( follow up tanks with 1 militia is enough)

That is the way it's supposed to work.
You can also Blitz right through Militia lol! But yoiu cannot take 2 territories unless you're Amphib Invading.

Everyone knows a tank cant shoot while moving.........[8|]

I mean come on, you cant really be saying you actually want to use the Blitzkrieg strategy? That would be down right historical, and this game isnt supposed to be based on history is it?

For those that cant tell, the above was 100% sarcasm.

I think the Blitz is well represented in GGWaW, actually!
It wasn't all that common in WW2, and the ability to "punch through" and take areas well in the rear of enemy lines is a big factor in WaW.
There's a book out about how the whole "Blitzkrieg" idea was more myth than anything, and a bad idea to boot! IDK about that, but I do know that expecting units to knock out the defending front lines AND exploit far into the rear is NOT reasonable. Thus the WaW philosophy of only ONE attack per unit per turn. Except Amphibious Invasions...

Thats not my point, although it is the point of the original poster. My point is that several strategic/tactical options are missing in this game. Most important of which is the advantage of having combined arms. Combined arms was the foundation of military orginaztion(still is) in a war in which land has to be conquered and held. Yet in this game tanks, artillery and planes are basically all you need.

The blitzkrieg is actually modeled somewhat in the game. In fact Germany usually uses it to take Paris on the first turn. Take the netherlands. Use your planes to soften western europe, and mop up with the armor. This is basically what the blitzkrieg was, soften with planes, mop up with armor.

Oh, and if I remember correctly, tanks WERE able to move and shoot, but could rarley hit anything unless they stopped to shoot. They didnt have the advantage of fire control computers as we do now.

Yes I think the Panther (Pz Mk V) was actually built with that in mind, with gyro-stabalizers & such. Aside from the Germans though, I doubt tanks could fire while moving very effectively
Another thread discussed combined arms. I think it's already factored into the game, just MHO.
The main thing is if you Blitz through a Province, you don't actually capture it. I don't have any problem with that.

Can a tank move to one empty enemy space, capture it, then move to another empty enemy space and capture it too?

Actually it was the Americans that had the first working and effective gyro-stablizers in the late war Sherman, which could move and fire. The best tank for this was the Pershing, but on a few saw action. The Panther to my knowledge did not have a gyro in it, but I could be wrong this.

ORIGINAL: 5cats

Yes I think the Panther (Pz Mk V) was actually built with that in mind, with gyro-stabalizers & such. Aside from the Germans though, I doubt tanks could fire while moving very effectively
Another thread discussed combined arms. I think it's already factored into the game, just MHO.
The main thing is if you Blitz through a Province, you don't actually capture it. I don't have any problem with that.

I thought it was the Stuart that first employed auto gun stabalizer (which by the way was disabled by the crew most of the time as it didn't work) ??

ORIGINAL: Fazman

I thought it was the Stuart that first employed auto gun stabalizer (which by the way was disabled by the crew most of the time as it didn't work) ??

I do believe it was the Sherman that was first. As for it being many times disabled by the crew, yes this happened. But not because it didn't work, but for the fact that when running in rough terrain the stablizer did keep the gun pointed at the target while the breech would fly around wildly in the turrent to do so.

Also, many crews were not trained to use it properly.

just googled this:

The radial engined M3A3 Stuart Tank was produced by American Car and Foundry during Sept 1942 till Sept 1943

link

it goes on to say this "After their experience with the M3 Light Tank, the Americans designed the M3A1 to remedy some of the short-comings of the earlier model, and the changes began with the first new vehicles in May of '42. A Westinghouse gyro-stabilizer and an Oilgear hydraulic traversing mechanism had been tested successfully in some of the later M3 tanks,"

when did they start producing Shermans which i believe was the M4?

EDIT:

upon digging a little deeper i found this so who knows...

In March 1941 the United States Army decided it needed a new tank to replace the Grant M2A1. After looking at five different proposals the Sherman M4 was chosen. Production began early in 1942. The original armament was a 75mm gun capable of firing high explosive shells. Its 500hp engine had a maximum speed of 26mph. This was replaced by a 76mm high-velocity gun in February 1944. The tank's suspension was redesigned and improved by the beginning of 1945.

Back to my original question, I think my problem is this: if there are two empty enemy spaces, and you have your tank selected, it will move to through that first space but not take it, but then it will take the second space; however, if you move the tank one space at a time, it takes both spaces. Why force us to click on both spaces? Why not just change control of a blitzed-through space if it is unoccupied?

Ah, but it will not take both spaces, or at least it shouldn't.
After capturing the first province, a patch fixed the problem of tanks being able to move into a second, hostile, territory. So only 1 province, whichever one you stop for 'combat' in, gets captured.
At least it's supposed to be that way

I just did it under the new patch, and took two spaces with the same tank.

ORIGINAL: toddtreadway

I just did it under the new patch, and took two spaces with the same tank.

By stopping or not stopping in the first area?

Clearing up confusion ---> The patch change was that a unit that fires at a unit cannot move into a hostile territory, even if empty. So if armor moves into empty territory A, and then stops there and attacks the empty territory then it should be able to exploit into territory B , because even though it "fires" to take over A, it's not firing at a unit.

Back to my original question, I think my problem is this: if there are two empty enemy spaces, and you have your tank selected, it will move to through that first space but not take it, but then it will take the second space; however, if you move the tank one space at a time, it takes both spaces. Why force us to click on both spaces? Why not just change control of a blitzed-through space if it is unoccupied?

Because the movement AI cannot read your mind and decide which of two equidistant routes you want to take. For example, blitzing from Kharkov to Stalingrad the AI will route you through Kursk, when you would rather take Rostov. This way you have more control.

Okie! Missed that part of the patch readme