Suggestions

[filon102]

Jason

#2 states that every time i began a battle, i have to set my soldiers to not move, if i dont they will move on there own and kill themselves like that

[Zeke Wolff]

Jason

#2 states that every time i began a battle, i have to set my soldiers to not move, if i dont they will move on there own and kill themselves like that

Click on "settings" in DCG and then make sure that the option "Player units begins with orders" are unticked. If it isnt, then your troops will move towards their objectives without you ordering them to do so.

~Zeke.

[Titan Uranus]

This is minor, but is there a way you could make your units start the battle with "move at will" off, I do not mean when they auto move towards their objectives, I mean when they attempt, and usually fail miserably to take cover and move without orders from you.

[bwc153]

Is there any way to get the enemy infantry more spread out?
It seems the enemy is always cluster together in one tight group!

The AI ussually does this in my experience if they are sitting on top of an objective, look at the objective list and use the binocular button on EVERY objective to see if its on one..

Also, is it just me, or are Infantry much harder to kill than in Vanilla.

I noticed that in vanilla MoW and in DCG (although not as much in DCG).. infantry seem to take 3-4 MG shots to die.. really annoying, since im used to 1-2 shots from an MG to kill a guy from FoW

[Plasmatix]

When I play on a 5x5 campaign sometimes the enemy has 4 different units on the map (1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th), If they all attack I can only ever hope to stop 1-2 (depending on how the 2nd AI controlled allied army does)

Is it possible to change the number of armies the enemy has, and the number of armies the player gets?
Maybe add this to the screen when your starting a new campaign?
EDIT: I just now realized I just have to make my own operation to get the results I want.. /facepalm

EDIT 2: Would the Sherman Firefly tank be possible? the flamethrower is there, the Sherman is there, anybody genius enough to merge the two?
If I'm not mistaken the firefly's flamethrower was in place of the coaxial turret mounted .30cal also the main cannon was disabled due to space limitations(?)

This is minor, but is there a way you could make your units start the battle with "move at will" off, I do not mean when they auto move towards their objectives, I mean when they attempt, and usually fail miserably to take cover and move without orders from you.

I second this ^^


The following is for Zeke Wolf, and is in swedish, which is probably why you don't understand it
Zeke, redundans betyder överflödigt, dvs information som upprepas på flera ställen.
typ som din TV har en power knapp på fjärrkontrollen, och på själva tv:n.. det är redundant.
http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redundans

[Zeke Wolff]

EDIT 2: Would the Sherman Firefly tank be possible? the flamethrower is there, the Sherman is there, anybody genius enough to merge the two?
If I'm not mistaken the firefly's flamethrower was in place of the coaxial turret mounted .30cal also the main cannon was disabled due to space limitations(?)

Sherman Firefly didnt have a flamethrower. It had a 17 pounder very good main gun, capable of defeating most German tanks. The hull machine gun was deleted and the space left over, was used to store more ammunition for the main gun. Only the coaxial machine gun was left. Most British tanks didnt had a AAMG either, since the British quickly learned that the gunner for this machine gun, got killed quite easily.

However, a Sherman Flamethrowing tank did exist. In fact several different versions, but they were mainly used by the US. The British prefered to use their own Churchill Crocodile instead.

~Zeke.

Ps.
Plasmatix - Jag vet vad "redundans" betyder på Svenska men i sammanhanget tidigare, så passade verkligen inte "överflödig" in... Jag har nog en äldre TV än dig också då min fjärrkontroll inte har en "Power" knapp för TVn, endast en Standby knapp... men det kanske var den du avsåg? :P
Ds.

[Plasmatix]

EDIT 2: Would the Sherman Firefly tank be possible? the flamethrower is there, the Sherman is there, anybody genius enough to merge the two?
If I'm not mistaken the firefly's flamethrower was in place of the coaxial turret mounted .30cal also the main cannon was disabled due to space limitations(?)

Sherman Firefly didnt have a flamethrower. It had a 17 pounder very good main gun, capable of defeating most German tanks. The hull machine gun was deleted and the space left over, was used to store more ammunition for the main gun. Only the coaxial machine gun was left. Most British tanks didnt had a AAMG either, since the British quickly learned that the gunner for this machine gun, got killed quite easily.

However, a Sherman Flamethrowing tank did exist. In fact several different versions, but they were mainly used by the US. The British prefered to use their own Churchill Crocodile instead.

~Zeke.

Ps.
Plasmatix - Jag vet vad "redundans" betyder på Svenska men i sammanhanget tidigare, så passade verkligen inte "överflödig" in... Jag har nog en äldre TV än dig också då min fjärrkontroll inte har en "Power" knapp för TVn, endast en Standby knapp... men det kanske var den du avsåg? :P
Ds.

Hmm, must of gotten the names mixed up.. I always thought it was the Sherman Firefly that was the Sherman fitted with a flamethrower instead, considering the nickname Firefly it would make sense..

I guess I was referring to the M4A3R3 and or the M4 Crocodile (wikipedia ftw)

Anyways, Would it be possible?

P.S.
Nog tycker jag överflödigt passar på det han sa? lägg till fordon så länge de inte är redundanta?
aja, sak samma :P

On a completely unrelated topic, why where the Americans stupid enough to leave a so called AA machine gun on top of the turret when the gunner was so obvious a target?
The British figured out it was suicide to sit up there, why didn't the Germans and Americans?
I realize the field of view would be far greater than that of inside the tank.. but at the risk of getting a bullet through you from any one of 360 degrees kind of outweighs the benefits don't you think? Sniper target much?

[Zeke Wolff]

On a completely unrelated topic, why where the Americans stupid enough to leave a so called AA machine gun on top of the turret when the gunner was so obvious a target?
The British figured out it was suicide to sit up there, why didn't the Germans and Americans?
I realize the field of view would be far greater than that of inside the tank.. but at the risk of getting a bullet through you from any one of 360 degrees kind of outweighs the benefits don't you think? Sniper target much?

Because the AAMG on the US tanks were used mostly against fighters and the US army, like Israeli Army, used to prefer to fight with a open hatch, due to bad vision from inside the tank. The British didnt use the AAMG, but you can quite often see their tanks moving around with a open commanders hatch and a commander peeking outside with just his eyes above the edge.

The Germans rarely had AAMG installed on their tanks. Most of the later tanks had provision to mount a AAMG but none were supplied. Instead when a AAMG was needed, they used the coaxial machine gun in this position. I have several hundreds of photos of WW2 German tanks in my collection of books, and only a very few of them has an AAMG installed.

Many German tanks had provision to use a kind of periscope from within the hatch. This can very often be seen on StuG´s, Jagdpanzers and Befehlspanzers.

~Zeke.

[Plasmatix]

On a completely unrelated topic, why where the Americans stupid enough to leave a so called AA machine gun on top of the turret when the gunner was so obvious a target?
The British figured out it was suicide to sit up there, why didn't the Germans and Americans?
I realize the field of view would be far greater than that of inside the tank.. but at the risk of getting a bullet through you from any one of 360 degrees kind of outweighs the benefits don't you think? Sniper target much?

Because the AAMG on the US tanks were used mostly against fighters and the US army, like Israeli Army, used to prefer to fight with a open hatch, due to bad vision from inside the tank. The British didnt use the AAMG, but you can quite often see their tanks moving around with a open commanders hatch and a commander peeking outside with just his eyes above the edge.

The Germans rarely had AAMG installed on their tanks. Most of the later tanks had provision to mount a AAMG but none were supplied. Instead when a AAMG was needed, they used the coaxial machine gun in this position. I have several hundreds of photos of WW2 German tanks in my collection of books, and only a very few of them has an AAMG installed.

Many German tanks had provision to use a kind of periscope from within the hatch. This can very often be seen on StuG´s, Jagdpanzers and Befehlspanzers.

~Zeke.

well with AAMG on the Germans I meant the coaxial machine gun, IE and MG34/MG42, (sorry my mistake, I should have clarified that) but the gunner is still just as vulnerable.
I guess my biggest gripe is that in MoW, the AAMG on US tanks is pretty useless vs aircraft as once they are in range, they are pretty much overhead. and if you drive through a building, the gunner is likely to die. once he is dead.. the other crew often likes to pop up and get a couple rounds through them, often within a couple seconds.

Anyways, back to the flame tanks..
I think it would be real nice to have a flamethrower tank, you can use it to burn out those pesky infantry when they are holed up in the second story of that building.
Besides, I love the fire effect in Mow, especially how it spreads. but I hate how vulnerable the flamethrower infantry is.

[filon102]

Zeke, no thats not what i mean, you have the option in game (move or not move) so if the soldiers get in heavy fighting, they dont move in or out of the fighting, so they can stay in one place, thats what i mean