Free Play Account
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


fidd last won the day on January 10 2018

fidd had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

33 FNG

About fidd

  • Rank
  • Birthday
  1. When we get Bren Carrier? Speaking of APC's, I'd like to see commanders with zoom views added to the all apc's, and ideally zoomable views from vision-slits.
  2. What's needed is timers that are both asymmetric and variable, reflecting pop of each nationaility, and overall players on line. So, in low-pop with a big imbalance, capture timers for the low-pop side would be relatively fast, but the overpop side would require much longer to recap a cp, or capture a low-popped one. At peaktime, timers would tend to be shorter, and more equal. etc
  3. Pink is a surprisingly effective colour in some conditions, RAF PRU (Photographic Reconnaissance Unit) Spitfires were painted pink as they often took pictures towards dawn and dusk, when shadows were most pronounced, enabling interpreters to gain more information than in pictures taken at mid-day. Pink was also a very good colour in haze. I imagine the use of pinks in the desert was more of a counter-shading deal, to help conceal the silhouette of the tank.
  4. Thanks chaps. Am I alone in thinking this somewhat eccentric?
  5. I have a number of photos on my pc that I want to put into a post. In other forums I can attach these to a post via an attachments tab. I can see no means of uploading photos from my pc on this board - what am I missing? It can't be the case that the only way of doing this is to upload pictures to a website and then post the link, can it? If I click on "Insert other media" and thence "insert existing attachment" it says "you do not have any existing attachments". I can't see any means of adding them... Help!
  6. This is putting the cart before the horse. Before anything remotely useful can be done with ML's, the unit's spawnable on anu given mission need to be controlled by that ML, and missions be searchable by players before spawning in. So, you want to spawn a PzII, you can search the missions list and find all the missions requesting those that also have that vehicle in the spawnlist. That way ML's will have self-selecting players on their mission responding to requests for xyz kit, and a logical group to lead. People don't follow ML's, currently, as it's impossible to lead a group of odds and sods spread over 4km or so between FB and town, constituted of everything from riflemen to heavy armour on the same mission. It's daft. Sure, there's a few leaders who can deal with that, but they're few and far between, and mostly allied. ;-)
  7. There was practically no resistance activity in Belgium, the low countries or France until after France had fell. The reason for this is that the Germans had come down like a ton of bricks on towns where they suspected (often erroneously) that they'd come under fire from "Franc tireurs"; during the 1914 advance. Hundreds of civilians were shot. Not infrequently this was as a consequence of unseen allied soldiers firing from within the town, rather than civilians resisting. This rough treatment was one of the things that impelled the great coloumns of refugees in May of '40, the presumptions being that a frontline would form as it has in 1914, and that the Germans would behave in the same way - hence no-one wanted to be the "wrong side of the line". As to the idea, not sure really. Most resistance activity was intelligence gathering/cutting telephone lines, killings were relatively rare by Resistance groups because of the taking of hostages, until there was a realistic prospect of liberation before the Germans could intervene. Hence the uprising in Paris only occurring shortly before Leclerc's armour arrived. Consequently I don't think there's much of a basis for armed resistance groups being modelled.
  8. Sorry, that was ambiguous. Yes, you're correct, I did mean town-based supply rather than brigade supply, I wasn't referring to your idea.
  9. Just so, nor indeed that of the ammunition or the crew. As for the 251/22 portee Pak40, you probably have to wonder what on earth induced them to go to so much trouble building it, when a towed Pak40 would have been so much less effort. The answer is of course that the towed Pak40 renderered the 251 virtually un-steerable off-road, and making it a portee mount improved that by bringing more weight onto the wheels at the front- but was still a grieviously overladen and over-stressed transmission. As a stop-gap late-war variant it probably made sense in that it was "better than nothing". But not much.
  10. Oh the old 251/Pak40 chestnut. I looked into this in some detail a few years back. IIRC The Pak40 is right on the limit in weight of what the 251 was rated to tow, and whilst it was capable of "moving" a Pak40 - and was frequently used for that purpose, it was not used as the dedicated tow vehicle over distance or rough ground. This was mainly because the 251's steering was poor off-road, and much more so if towing (anything at all), so it was always a choice of last-resort. Soldiery, from any nation, in any war, will always use what's to hand if it saves pushing something unweildly or heavy, no matter how much QM sobs about burned-out clutches etc! A more representative tower is the HT, as that was easily capable of towing the gun, it's crew, and a modest load of ammunition for it too - unlike the 251. To save anyone the trouble, yes, if you look online you'll find several pictures of 251's with Pak40's 'behind them', however, these were only used if nothing more appropriate was to hand. The question to ask yourself is what if the shoe were on the other foot - would you want to see 17 pdrs or 25 pounders towed with Universal Carriers if someone were to turn up a photograph of some clot "towing" one with one?.... Or a Jeep? (My uncle spent some months towing 17 pounders around after D-Day - with a turret-less Crusader! These heavy-guns would complete bollocks the transmission of lighter vehicles) My suggestion as per spirit of the thread: Add the Universal Carrier, and turretless Sherman (as Ram Kangeroo APC)
  11. The tan/light blue scheme on British tanks is for the Western Desert. The French camo schemes were meant to be used in conjunction with natural vegetation, and were as much to break up the silhouette of the vehicle and prevent identification of it as this or that vehicle, as to conceal it. In Western Europe British and American camouflage was fairly primitive - not needed due to air-supremacy, but in theatres where this wasn't the case it was readily developed. I'd like to see the ability to apply "bits" of speedtrees as camouflage, but not by the tank-player.
  12. You may want to think about that, consider say Antwerp. It'd be impossible to move a Bde into if only one cp, anywhere in the city, were enemy owned.....
  13. I like this idea a LOT, not least because the work required to achieve it would go a long way towards having greater differentiation between different brigades, via the mechanism of having company-sized units of (for example) engineers, AT infantry, ATG's, heavy armour and so forth able to be attached at campaign start to full brigades. Thereafter they'd simply form an augmented TOE for the Brigade to which they're attached. So you might have infantry Rifle Brigades, augmented with ATG's, or an Armoured Brigade augmented with APC's etc; to being a little more variety to proceedings. As these would be attached for the duration of a campaign, or longer if not changed, there would be no addition to work for HC.
  14. The original logic for the current number of Brigades was to allow for some rapid movement if an area was stripped of brigades in good supply. The problem is that it was much easier to go to the edge of the map and cut-off numerous enemy brigades, requiring a high level of HC participation to forestall such moves. I fully agree with you about the town-based supply being a lunatic plan, but differ in that we have already tried it, and it generated a style of gameplay that magnified pop-imbalances and promoted play that was ultimately the same for every attack, Very very dull.
  15. I think you're on the right lines with the idea, although I think it would be much better directed at preventing infantry, wheeled vehicles and ATG/AAA from moving through or across or through 6 foot + bush-lines. As others have pointed out, the difficulty with buildings is in the combination of their ubiquity and proximity. Were this adopted, it'd help make towns less porous to infantry by virtue of creating visual and physical "choke-points" though which attacking infantry would have to pass. Which is not far off what you're call for here.