Killing my own soldiers

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Killing my own soldiers

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Steel Panthers World At War & Mega Campaigns >> Killing my own soldiers

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Killing my own soldiers - 2/7/2002 1:56:00 PM

gappa

Posts: 14
Joined: 2/7/2002
From: Czech Republic - THE REAL HEART OF EUROPE
Status: offline

Imagine that your infantry stands on the same hex as the enemy soldiers. You fire at the enemy and a 90% chance you will kill one or more of your soldiers but none of the enemy. This happens very often and makes me mad. It also happens when computer shoots at my troops within the same hex as his soldiers are. It is just too extreme.
I DO NOT LIKE IT. It would be best to fix it. It wasn�t present in the versions before.

_____________________________

It is nice to be important
but is it more
important to be nice.

Gappa

Post #: 1

- 2/7/2002 9:52:00 PM

Alexandra

Posts: 546
Joined: 12/7/2000
From: USA
Status: offline

Actually, it was. And, it's not broken, so it doesn't need to be fixed. Blue on Blue fire is very realistic, both then, and now, as the Marines in Saudi in '90. Why do more of your guys die in that situation. Because, they tend to be in less cover then the enemy since they moved to contact. The best way to deal with this is to suprress the target enemy infantry with covering fire, then move your guys into the the hex for melee/fire. If the enemy moves into a routed/broken Blue unit, reaction fire tends to hit both squads evenly, and on your turn rally your unit and fire with it first. Overall, IMO, we need *more* features like this that stress realism in combat. A Proud Fan of the World Champion New England Patriots, Alex.

_____________________________

"Tonight a dynasty is born." Ricky Proehl, then of the Saint Louis Rams. He was right! Go Pats! Winners of Super Bowls 36, 38 and 39.

(in reply to gappa)

Post #: 2

- 2/7/2002 10:31:00 PM

Galka

Posts: 129
Joined: 4/30/2000
From: Alberta, Canada
Status: offline

quote:

Originally posted by Gappa:
Imagine that your infantry stands on the same hex as the enemy soldiers. You fire at the enemy and a 90% chance you will kill one or more of your soldiers but none of the enemy. This happens very often and makes me mad. It also happens when computer shoots at my troops within the same hex as his soldiers are. It is just too extreme.
I DO NOT LIKE IT. It would be best to fix it. It wasn�t present in the versions before.

It was fixed before, but has migrated back into the game. Some folks think it's realistic, but I agree it's a farce. If indeed casualties were inflicted evenly it would be a lot easier to swallow, but the disproportion is probably what angers players who agree it's excessive. Perhaps if hexsizes were 10m instead of 50m it would be more realistic to imply 20 soldiers were engaged in hand to hand combat and not in line defence.

_____________________________

"In light of my experience, I consider that your conclusion that the attacker needs a three to one superiority is under the mark, rather than over it. I would say that, for success, the attacker needs six to one or seven to one against a well-knit defence

(in reply to gappa)

Post #: 3

- 2/7/2002 11:01:00 PM

TheZel66

Posts: 210
Joined: 4/6/2001
From: Phila, PA
Status: offline

I too believe its a joke... Especially when it comes to armor in the same hex. I mean, come on, if the hex is suppposed to be 50 yards wide, and i'm right next to it, there no way in hell i'm going to hit my armor 9 times out of 10, instead of th enemy... Thats almost as bad as your air support ALWAYS going after your armor, instead of the enemy, even when your armor is on the other side of the map as where you ordered your air support to aim at.. Both items are stabs at reality that need adjusting...

_____________________________

(in reply to gappa)

Post #: 4

- 2/8/2002 12:09:00 AM

Belisarius

Posts: 4041
Joined: 5/26/2001
From: Gothenburg, Sweden
Status: offline

I don't mind having large losses amongst infantry due to friendly fire, but the tank part is just absurd. (ofcourse, there's limited visibility, problems distinguishing friend tank from evil tank in a battle - but not THAT difficult)
and will you yanks stop calling your domestic leauge winners "world champions" already?...*grr*

_____________________________

Got StuG?

(in reply to gappa)

Post #: 5

- 2/8/2002 12:41:00 AM

Kanon Fodder

Posts: 196
Joined: 9/8/2001
From: Portland, Orrygun
Status: offline

While we're on the topic ... Another thing that irks me is when the enemy unit still in the same hex as my infantry and/or tank takes Opportunity Fire through smoke at a unit (even as small as an FO) several hexes distant. I would think they might be pre-occupied. (Pun intended)

_____________________________

(in reply to gappa)

Post #: 6

- 2/8/2002 2:18:00 AM

gappa

Posts: 14
Joined: 2/7/2002
From: Czech Republic - THE REAL HEART OF EUROPE
Status: offline

I agree that friendly fire is realistic.
But as I already said its just too much of it.
Its a paradox - you fire a 150mm round from a sIG33 for example to a hex with enemy soldiers, no one will die (higly improved in 7.0, i agre

)
if the hex is 50mx50m then its OK. But what about fire from rifles, MGs, SMGs? it is just TOO EFFECTIVE. Maybe it is caused by that the weapons used by my soldiers are tuned better to kill my own

In any case - SP WAW RULEZ!

_____________________________

It is nice to be important
but is it more
important to be nice.

Gappa

(in reply to gappa)

Post #: 7

- 2/8/2002 3:04:00 AM

challenge

Posts: 465
Joined: 10/10/2001
From: Austin, TX
Status: offline

I have had my tanks flattened by my own aircraft, my infantry and tanks hit by my offensive and defensive fire. This, I thought is what every one is griping anbout -- and it does stink... Then, a few games later, an allied plane took out a british tank about 5 hexes from my line (was I relieved!). A MG opened up on a position an enemy squad moved into and took out two of my people and half of theirs. (I was extatic; my melee next turn was quite good.) I note both, so I'm not sure that there is an actual imbalance, or a perceived one. When deciding whether something works as we see it, you need to record the times it works for you AND against you. After keeping notes on the occurrances over a few situations and games, you get a feel for the engine averages. I find that if I isolate, suppress nearby units, then move to attack, I don't get nearly the friendly fire and opposition fire damages I used to get. Even when my own units DF into hexes I occupy, the losses (over time) seem to be about even. Firing into a hex you just sent troops into realy isn't a good tactical plan IMHO.

[ February 07, 2002: Message edited by: Challenge ]

_____________________________

Challenge

War is unhealthy for die-stamped cardboard and other paper products.

(in reply to gappa)

Post #: 8

- 2/8/2002 5:41:00 AM

KG Erwin

Posts: 8981
Joined: 7/25/2000
From: Cross Lanes WV USA
Status: offline

The issue of friendly fire, as I see it, is one of the elements of SPWaW that only adds to its realism. I've been a victim of it during gameplay, too. However, it has usually been as a result of getting my forward elements a little too close to called-in off-board arty. The infamous "short rounds" have given me grief too many times for me to count. I've also had squads blundering on top of a cave complex, and getting shot up by my own troops giving covering fire to allow them to escape. I do recall having read that during the Pacific War, the US Army did a study of this. In the battle for Bougainville, IIRC, the US casualties attributed to "friendly fire" was around 30% of the total losses, and the majority of those were due to small-arms, NOT artillery. In that light, the SPWaW model doesn't veer too far from historical reality. Another example is a scene from "Platoon". Taylor's outfit gets surprised by an NVA patrol in the middle of the night. Everyone wakes up and starts shooting. Someone from the back of the ambush position throws a grenade, and it lands short. One of the friendlies suffers the consequences. It's a simple fact that a bullet or shell doesn't differentiate between the good guys and the bad guys, if you're unfortunate enough to get in the way of one. [ February 07, 2002: Message edited by: KG Erwin ]

_____________________________

(in reply to gappa)

Post #: 9

- 2/8/2002 6:21:00 AM

Wild Bill

Posts: 6821
Joined: 4/7/2000
From: Smyrna, Ga, 30080
Status: offline

Freindly fire is a fact. I think it might be too extreme, but it should be there. Remember, it is a fifty yard hex, measuring 50 yards from corner to corner. But also remember that in the game format when you enter a hex with the enemy you are considered in a melee type of situation. You know you can't even enter the hex unless the enemy has some disruption or your force is overpowering. Now the picture here is that of soldiers only a few yards apart, blasting at each other, some locked in bayonet combat. Picture that. Friendly and enemy all mixed in together. That is what the game portrays when units of opposing sides are in the same hex. Now picture firing a machine gun into that jumble of bodies or firing a tank gun or artillery. Of course there will be casualties on both sides. In the real world of combat that would not happen intentionally. The only thing the supporting commander could do would be to try to get more men into that area to overcome the resistant enemy. So this situation is indeed realistic. My only bitchbone here is that I think the results are too extreme. You lose more friendlies than enemy troops in most cases and that does appear to be lopsided. So I'll agree that the results are a little out of whack but the concept is not. Wild Bill

_____________________________

In Arduis Fidelis
Wild Bill Wilder
Independent Game Consultant

(in reply to gappa)

Post #: 10

- 2/8/2002 7:16:00 AM

chief

Posts: 1660
Joined: 9/28/2000
From: Haines City FL, USA
Status: offline

well said WB you beat me to it, as usual. It definitely is LOPSIDED. Correct me if I'm wrong on another item. Case in point divebomber bombardment.
Target hex has a unit two hexes away. Assuming aim point is center of target hex, that would put unit~125 meters away. (meter=40"> 125 X 40"=5000">5000"=~415')that's a long way for consistent shrapnel casualties is it not ? Hope my math is correct ? I also made the assumption that weapon landed in center of target hex.

[ February 07, 2002: Message edited by: chief ]

_____________________________

"God Bless America and All the Young men and women who give their all to protect Her"....chief

(in reply to gappa)

Post #: 11

- 2/8/2002 8:49:00 AM

BruceAZ

Posts: 608
Joined: 10/9/2000
From: California
Status: offline

quote:

I DO NOT LIKE IT. It would be best to fix it. It wasn�t present in the versions before. [/QB]

I am not sure I agree. I think it is fine as is and I think Alex is right on target. Before you attack a hex loaded with enemy infantry, suppress them or you will have problems. Bruce
Semper Fi

_____________________________

(in reply to gappa)

Post #: 12

- 2/8/2002 9:34:00 AM

Tomanbeg

Posts: 4385
Joined: 7/14/2000
From: Memphis, Tn, CSA
Status: offline

quote:

Originally posted by Belisarius:
I don't mind having large losses amongst infantry due to friendly fire, but the tank part is just absurd. (ofcourse, there's limited visibility, problems distinguishing friend tank from evil tank in a battle - but not THAT difficult)
and will you yanks stop calling your domestic leauge winners "world champions" already?...*grr*

Remember that Tanks of this period had 3x scopes for the most part and used steroscopic ranging, if they had ranging equipment. I think you need to borrow a scoped rifle from a friend and try to keep it focused on a target 500 meters away while driving through the forest in a jeep. Distinguishing one large blob from another large blob while bouncing around inside a steel can, with haze smoke dust etc. 'fogging' the picture is not as easy as you think it is. Most ATG guns of the period would make a guess as to range, observe the shot and then adjust from there. So Blue one Blue is very possible. How did Finlands FOOTBALL team do this year? Who is their quarterback?
T. (who is also curious about who plays first base, but will save it for another time).

_____________________________

"The 15th May, 1948, arrived ... On that day the mufti of Jerusalem appealed to the Arabs of Palestine to leave the country, because the Arab armies were about to enter and fight in their stead."
� The Cairo daily Akhbar el Yom, Oct. 12, 1963.
[IMG]http

(in reply to gappa)

Post #: 13

- 2/8/2002 9:38:00 AM

kao16

Posts: 311
Joined: 4/10/2000
From: Christchurch, New Zealand
Status: offline

quote:

Originally posted by Alexandra:

A Proud Fan of the World Champion New England Patriots, Alex.

Shouldn't that be "World's Series Champion"..... it's not as if they actually played a team from an other country. And the story I've heard is that the paper "The World" used to be a major sponsor of sport in the US... hence "World's Series Champion"... Imagine if another country had a competition sponsored by "American...." and called themselves American Champion

_____________________________

(in reply to gappa)

Post #: 14

- 2/8/2002 9:40:00 AM

kao16

Posts: 311
Joined: 4/10/2000
From: Christchurch, New Zealand
Status: offline

quote:

Originally posted by Alexandra:

A Proud Fan of the World Champion New England Patriots, Alex.

(in reply to gappa)

Post #: 15

- 2/8/2002 6:20:00 PM

Fredde

Posts: 498
Joined: 6/7/2000
From: Goteborg, Sweden
Status: offline

A connected issue. If you _really_ want to hurt an enemy unit, aim at another enemy unit sitting in the same hex. Especially if your hit percentages are low to start with, the other unit will take proportionally higher casualties than the one you are actually aiming at. This seems to be an error in the routines. This is probably why friendly fire seem to be too common as well when in the same hex. The fire at other units in the same hex follows another mechanism (more like indirect fire?) than the actual "aimed" fire. In some cases, this seems to go out of hand and provide some very strange results. For the argument that your unit has moved makes it more likely to be hit.. try this:
Dig in one of your units, move in an enemy unit on top of it, and blast away at the enemy unit with a machine gun or infantry squad. The friendly fire will still be terribly effective, even though your own men are dug in (works the same way for two enemy units in the same hex, one dug-in, one that moved, you shoot at the moving one). I haven't done it in tests enough to get statistically significant results, but I do see a trend, supported by actual playing experience

_____________________________

"If infantry is the Queen of the battlefield, artillery is her backbone", Jukka L. M�kel� about the Finnish victory at Ihantala.

(in reply to gappa)

Post #: 16

- 2/8/2002 9:17:00 PM

TheZel66

Posts: 210
Joined: 4/6/2001
From: Phila, PA
Status: offline

I'm defeinately all for the rules of friendly fire. But after playing a whole bunch of scerios, you notice certain consistent patterns that come up all the time, that are obviously present because of the rules of the game. Exceptions to the rule have turned into the rule, and that's unrealistic. But I've learned to live with these. Only using air support when the enemy armor or fortifications are around. Also, if you have a small unit that is going to get destroyed, throw it in with an enemy hex. It's the safest way to keep them alive, and have their squad destroyed by friendly fire at the same time!!!

_____________________________

(in reply to gappa)

Post #: 17

- 2/8/2002 10:14:00 PM

lnp4668

Posts: 517
Joined: 11/10/2000
From: Arlington, TX, USA
Status: offline

Well, like in any situation, one could always take advantage of this quirk in spwaw. 1. Move an expendable units, preferably small size into the hex of an entrench enemy next to several different enemy. The op fire by the enemy units will often decimate the one in the same hex. 2. Always aim for stackup units because even if you miss, there would be a chance to hit the next guys.

_____________________________

"My friends, remember this, that there are no bad herbs, and no bad men; there are only bad cultivators." Les Miserables

(in reply to gappa)

Post #: 18

- 2/9/2002 2:54:00 AM

Capt Chris

Posts: 200
Joined: 2/4/2002
From: Rochester, NY
Status: offline

. Move an expendable units, preferably small size into the hex of an entrench enemy next to several different enemy. Who is going to tell the small units they are expendable? I know this is off topic but I hate it when people bait my troops/tanks with their "expendable" units. This is a game tactic, not one that would sit well with real troops.

_____________________________

Capt Chris

"Badges? We don't need no stinking badges!"

(in reply to gappa)

Post #: 19

- 2/9/2002 3:31:00 AM

TheZel66

Posts: 210
Joined: 4/6/2001
From: Phila, PA
Status: offline

Capt Chirs, Any Russian officer in the WWII area would have no problem doing this... not to mention Taliban, VietCong, etc..

_____________________________

(in reply to gappa)

Post #: 20

- 2/9/2002 4:08:00 AM

Capt Chris

Posts: 200
Joined: 2/4/2002
From: Rochester, NY
Status: offline

Yes there are probably a few exceptions but I still don't like it. Use of the "sacrificial lamb" tactic really depends on how each individual sees the game. Is it a historical re-inactment, or is it just a game? Are they real men, or are they just 1's and 0's? I lean a little more toward historical myself. Just my 2 cents.

_____________________________

Capt Chris

"Badges? We don't need no stinking badges!"

(in reply to gappa)

Post #: 21

- 2/9/2002 4:20:00 AM

lnp4668

Posts: 517
Joined: 11/10/2000
From: Arlington, TX, USA
Status: offline

I guess then the Suicide AT squad of the Japanese are not historically correct then.

_____________________________

"My friends, remember this, that there are no bad herbs, and no bad men; there are only bad cultivators." Les Miserables

(in reply to gappa)

Post #: 22

- 2/9/2002 2:04:00 PM

Galka

Posts: 129
Joined: 4/30/2000
From: Alberta, Canada
Status: offline

quote:

Originally posted by Capt Chris:
. Move an expendable units, preferably small size into the hex of an entrench enemy next to several different enemy. Who is going to tell the small units they are expendable? I know this is off topic but I hate it when people bait my troops/tanks with their "expendable" units. This is a game tactic, not one that would sit well with real troops.

That's one thing I like about CC. If you ask them to do something they'd never do, morale breaks and off they go in the wrong direction 8) In our game I dislike dismounted tank crews being brought up for bait. I liked it when anyone who'd been shot out of a vehicle , either retreated, remounted, or were pinned for the balance of the game. It's not completely accurate but suicide tanker squads weren't either. One chap recently drove his kubelwagen back and forth within two hexes of my infantry to draw fire so his infantry could move next to mine without taking any damage. Blatant, no doubt. I fear this kind of gaming will always take place, until we have a real time simulation on a large enough scale to retain interest.

_____________________________

(in reply to gappa)

Post #: 23

- 2/10/2002 12:47:00 AM

Wallymanowar

Posts: 651
Joined: 8/1/2000
From: Vernon, B.C., Canada
Status: offline

Have you ever heard the expression 'A good Scout is a dead Scout'? Well the use of 'expendable' units in such a manner is good tactics. The use of the term 'expendable' is not really accurate. What you are talking about is using a low value unit to perform reconnaissance in preference to using a high value unit. While I might have agreed in the past that the tactics of using a unit such a Kubelwagen in the manner described was gaming, now with the ability to use selective opportunity fire it is not. Since the unit is trying to find out the positions of your units either by spotting them or by drawing their fire, it is doing precisely what a good scout should do. The essence of a good ambush is using your fire discipline to 'not' reveal your position until a target of high value presents itself. On another note, I try to limit my own friendly fire casualties as much as possible by observing the following:
(a) not firing into hexes where my own units are mixed with enemy units, unless my unit is an armoured unit and his is an infantry unit and I am using infantry fire into the hex. In this way, my unit may take some suppression, but his will take casualties.
(b) calling in air strikes well behind enemy lines and in areas of enemy armour concentrations, not right at the point of contact - I have never had my friendly air strikes hit my troops.
(c) Not leaning too hard on an artillery barrage (ie. advancing into, or too close to, a friendly barrage) - if you need to bring down artillery close to your own lines use onboard mortars, they are much more likely to hit the targeted hex. Using these guidelines, I have managed to limit my own losses to 'friendly' fire - although I do agree that in such cases that they do occur they seem to be excessive.

_____________________________

I never blame myself when I'm not hitting. I just blame the bat and if it keeps up, I change bats. After all, if I know it isn't my fault that I'm not hitting, how can I get mad at myself?
Yogi Berra

(in reply to gappa)

Post #: 24

- 2/10/2002 1:46:00 AM

Tomanbeg

Posts: 4385
Joined: 7/14/2000
From: Memphis, Tn, CSA
Status: offline

quote:

Originally posted by Capt Chris:
Yes there are probably a few exceptions but I still don't like it. Use of the "sacrificial lamb" tactic really depends on how each individual sees the game. Is it a historical re-inactment, or is it just a game? Are they real men, or are they just 1's and 0's? I lean a little more toward historical myself. Just my 2 cents.

Then you must be in favor of it. The 'holding' attack where one formation attacks to get the enemys attention while another formation flanks it is as old as warfare. Like Patton said, "Hold them by the nose and kick them in the A$$". Have you heard of the fake retreat? I could do it with SP2, but I havn't figured out how to do it in WaW. I think it was coded out.
T.

_____________________________

(in reply to gappa)

Post #: 25

- 2/10/2002 2:32:00 AM

brianleeprice

Posts: 176
Joined: 10/5/2001
Status: offline

There is a difference, imo, between using scout vehicles to draw fire and using trucks to draw fire. Of course it depends on national doctrine and whether or not one is attempting to play in a more or less historical fashion. One might argue that in the case of scout vehicles, they are just doing their job. In the case of trucks, except for Soviet and perhaps some few others, such use would be, I think, rather ahistorical. There is also a difference depending on whether or not opfire confirm is on or not. For pbem play, the best you can do is to restrict the firing range of your units and it is quite possible to run an ATG for example out of opfire using a cheap vehicle. It is quite a bit harder to do so with non scout vehicles if C&C is on though still not impossible. Like so many of these types of issues there is a rather fine line between what is and isn't acceptable and many players have widely differing opinions. Take for example the following case: I move a scout vehicle and it is fired upon by an enemy tank. I determine a good firing position for my nearby tanks but I don't want to commit them until I'm certain I'll be engaging only one target. So, I move a second scout unit to the desired firing position - it too is fired upon by the same tank. That's two opfire shots thus far. I now move my first tank into firing position, causing another opfire. Now I move a second tank into a flanking position, drawing yet another opfire. At this point, most nation's tanks are pretty much out of opfire and as my two tanks alternate firing upon the target, chances aren't bad that I'll take it out, but assume that I don't. Now I bring up a ht mounted platoon of infantry and/or some infantry AT. By this time I have a pretty darn good chance of moving to range 1 without losing a halftrack. Unload, assault, rinse and repeat until tank is dead, reload and retreat (if C&C is off or using 'near the flag'). Now - have I 'gamed' the system or employed allowable, somewhat historical, tactics? Or perhaps a bit of both? Thanks,
Brian

_____________________________

(in reply to gappa)

Post #: 26

- 2/10/2002 11:18:00 AM

Galka

Posts: 129
Joined: 4/30/2000
From: Alberta, Canada
Status: offline

quote:

Originally posted by Brian Price:
There is a difference, imo, between using scout vehicles to draw fire and using trucks to draw fire. Of course it depends on national doctrine and whether or not one is attempting to play in a more or less historical fashion. One might argue that in the case of scout vehicles, they are just doing their job. In the case of trucks, except for Soviet and perhaps some few others, such use would be, I think, rather ahistorical.

In my example the infantry troops were in a known location, as they were engaged with the troops which eventually snuggled up to them with their FTs; so the player wasn't doing any scouting. He was merely avoiding any return fire. The idea that 'simple hans' can be coerced into driving an unarmed vehicle into a cross fire and make 3 passes(12 movements) before being stopped, is somewhat silly. I've nothing against kublewagens being used as recon, it's most realistic and I'm not suggesting that the system be revised to have recon bug out when fire is taken. It just provides an insight into the mindset of my gaming opponent.

_____________________________

(in reply to gappa)

Post #: 27

- 2/10/2002 7:44:00 PM

Frank W.

Posts: 1958
Joined: 10/18/2001
From: Siegen + Essen / W. Germany
Status: offline

quote:

Originally posted by TheZel:
Thats almost as bad as your air support ALWAYS going after your armor, instead of the enemy, even when your armor is on the other side of the map as where you ordered your air support to aim at.. .

interestingly i noticed that the air support for the US player sees to work quite good..... perhaps because of better FO�s ?? don�t know..

_____________________________

(in reply to gappa)

Post #: 28

- 2/10/2002 8:23:00 PM

David Lehmann

Posts: 72
Joined: 10/10/2000
From: France
Status: offline

Hello, About CAS I have to say I never managed to have my planes straffing the infantry, even if this one is in an open area ... they persist to attack armor with MG for example although they could be deadly by firing on infantry units ... A strange behaviour I also noticed, in the same order of idea than extreme friendly fire :
For example, you know ennemies are present in an hex but you can not see them, or alternatively you see them but your hit % is very low. If you fire at them with the "z" key, area fire instead of direct fire, you will kill more ennemies than if you had fired normaly at the spotted unit. Can someone explain that to me ? David

_____________________________

"Remember not only to say the right thing in the right place, but far more difficult still, to leave unsaid the wrong thing in the tempting place."

(in reply to gappa)

Post #: 29

- 2/10/2002 8:40:00 PM

Frank W.

Posts: 1958
Joined: 10/18/2001
From: Siegen + Essen / W. Germany
Status: offline

don�t target any inf. with the planes. ever target a truck or tank. but be shure there are some inf. men in the same or adjacent (spelling?) hexes. this tactic should work,even if truck/tank is not killing the inf. will get much casualities. for the the other topic: yes,with the Z firing you can get good results with luck. so,no reason to explain it: just use it!!!!

_____________________________

(in reply to gappa)

Post #: 30