frieze

Since I am now a mac person I was thinking of buying a machine basically for the purpose of playing CM:SF. I'd be interested in seeing what a good recommended system (not the minimum) would be.

I could probably make some kind of reasoned and reasonable argument why it's a good decision from battlefront's end but basically my thoughts are these: I have a dual-dual g5 mac and I want to run CM:SF on it. So please make that happen. Plea ends.

offtaskagain: is the same thing generally true of the 50 cal? I have no experience in this area but it seems to me that it would be a fairly effective deterrent in an antipersonnel capacity and wouldn't be burdened with all the destroying-neighboring-buildings problems that 120mm gun rounds tend to cause.

V: that seems much easier to model than the situation is without it. After all, this way the tank commander has visibility in all directions (in some reduced capacity) when buttoned, rather than a totally different visibility structure.

Just to back up to the stated topic of the post for a second, does anyone have any insight into the tactics used by the israelis in these situations? I have to assume that serving IDF members will be a bit reticent about this but I know that Hizbullah isn't the only group that's been preparing for this conflict for the past few years. Does anyone have any insight into what the unique challenges are in moving forces of the composition the israelis have (mostly armor and armor supported infantry is what things look like to me) against an enemy relying more on anti-tank weapons and small arms? Given that they have the task of a)looking for Hizbullah fighters and b)finding and destroying rocket caches, what size groups would you think made sense to deploy on individual missions? And how much has the strategic play of destroying lebanese infrastructure (bridges and roads primarily) in order to hurt resupply and troop movement altered the battlespace to the israeli's disadvantage tactically since they are using a more armored force?

From what I read (primarily via the links off defense industry daily) it seems that the missile system (C-802) uses interial guidance for launch followed by active radar for terminal targeting. My understanding from what I read about that is that a launch crew could use simple (though recent) positional information on the target from conventional nagivation radar to get a good enough fix on the target and then be well on their way out of the area by the time the missile reached its active radar stage. In my mind this tactic would be the naval equivalent of having an undercover (or guerrilla or covert or whatever the term currently is) spotter walk through an enemy's positions on a seemingly innocuous task in order to measure ranges for mortar or artillery strikes. Clearly it is a gambit that cannot be employed on a large scale, but it is effective both operationally and in terms of the added suspicion it places on non-combatants. It seems a bit out of the scope of a CM type game. That said, I could imagine an adjustable set of operational orders one could give troops whereby one would have to balance the concern of not potentially attacking civilians with that of protecting oneself from undercover enemy agents.

I just want to hear about the mac version info. Color me optimistic.

Sorry for the wonky sentence structure and grammar above, I'm sneaking peeks during work hours.

I don't have the materials at work but the manhattan project kept producing fissile material and bombs after the preparation of the first two bombs on a continual basis. It is safe to assume that the US could have engaged in such a war, though I don't think this is a sensible topic for this forum. One that is however is what effect tactical nukes could have in CM:SF. Assuming that one side has access to a device that, for the sake of argument, could destroy say 20% of the battlespace at one stroke. How would you alter your strategy to deal with this eventuality. At one level it would just be a form of super-artillery or super-mine, but on the other hand the EMP effects and the morale and health drop from radiation exposure and such could make for an interesting scenario.

Yeah, but at what time?

I have to concur. Blah indeed.

Pvt Ryan: Your post indicates a lack of touch with modern thinking. Most scholars agree that the past and the future are illusions and therefore we should only look to see CM:SF come out in the present. Also, trying to look left and right at the same time makes my head hurt.

Maybe there's some deeper nomenclature issue here that I am missing, but from a gaming perspective aren't IEDs identical to command detonated explosives or land mines? From a strategic or political perspective they differ in that they are not being issued by a conventional military, but in practice I can't see a big difference. Except for VBIEDs, which are fairly unique in terms of the tactical challenge they present.

Stupid question, but can't you achieve the same effect by just saving your game, committing a turn and then loading again if it was a wash?

Okay, my g4 that would run in classic mode has been put to sleep and I have a question. If I buy the windows version of CM and run it in virutalPC, will it work? I'm running a dual G5 power mac, so my concern is really whether the additional computational horsepower of the machine will make up for the lack of hardware rendering caused by virtualpc. That and whether directx et al will function at all. This issue has been discussed on the forum in the past, but the last real post addressing this exact issue that I saw was three years old, so I was hoping for some new insight. Has anyone out there got a mac with virtualpc on it that they can try a demo on?