Wdll:
"1 M1A1 is not = to 1 T-72s...Also training, where do you put that?"
It's a controversial topic, and it has nothing to deal with the game's engine, because reaction shoots will come always first, irregardless of whether it's T-72s, T-90s orLeopards. I am neither prepared nor want to start a dispute over the effectiviness of T-72 agains the Arbrams in Desert Storm.
"Just because the M1A1 needs some seconds to fire at one of the two T-72, it doesn't mean that the other T-72 can locate lock and fire in that same amount of time."
Mistake here. That does mean that the other T-72 has _twice_ more time to lock and fire (assuming double numerical superiority).
"Also, there have been battles in Iraq where the allied tanks were outnumbered, they still annihilated the Iraqi tanks. Even without Opfire."
Maybe those were the TOW missiles that T-72s couldn't resist? You say "even without Opfire" as if it helped the T-72s in some way, but in fact it helps the Abrams tanks vary much (given the tut scenario's situation)
"If you want to get a chance, then perhaps you could force the enemy tanks to fire at something else first."
That's cheating, so many thank to the developers for Op-fire filtering!
Cross:
"In the context of this game, I think it's right that the non-active player gets to shoot first. I think the active player has a huge advantage during his move turn."
This 100%-first Opfire approach not only balances but sometimes even over-balancesthe game, i.e. turns the situation to equally unjust with respect to the opposite side.
"I like to see turns as 'fire and movement'. So at the end of your move your men have halted briefly to take a more defensive stance."
That's how you adapt for the turn-based-ness. But the turns are only a logical division of time and the less they affect the game, the better and the more realistic it is. For example, in WinSOMBT a vehicle's speed is calculated using a very strange assumption that it is proportinal to the tatal distance that the vehicle has crossed by the moment. What about the stop-and-shoot technique?
By driving into his view, you have effectively driven into an ambush. This is even more true if the Abrams tanks are stationary.
Why so? If I my tanks' crews know the enemy is there, it's no longer an ambush. They're prepaired to meet and attack them.
Mobhack:
"The main problem the original poster has, is trying to play the tutorial scenario as the Iraqi".
Yes, but I did it on purpose because the thinngs I am talking about are brightly pronounced in it. Other "real" scenarious are accurately designed and balances so that such problems are not so terribly decicive.
And thanks for the rest of the post, about the possible tactics! It's indeed more like a meeting engagement.