A Canadian Cat

Sure but will they come here for that based on this thread title?

LOL you heard right

LOL. I don't think your link pointing to a digital scan of an actual news paper (remember those, me neither) article makes it feel more recent.

Which landmarks are those again? To be fair, you are correct, for sure landmarks are a way to go etc. My point is its not a solved problem yet and how well it works will govern how people ultimately feel about it. Both those in the armed forces - who's opinion counts and those in the civilian population - who's opinion counts in a different way.

Yep. Oh I agree. I think your bundle of assassination drones are way scarier for the civilian population and media even though X number of civilians targeted and killed is not really different. The bad actors are going to like the extra scare feature.

My point is you cannot do that. How do you define the kill box - remember it needs to work when GPS is denied by EW systems. Yes, artillery are using maps and can make mistakes. I realize that. Like I said though statements like "my friend died in an artillery strike" and "my friend died after being hunted by AI drone" land very differently. We can argue that it shouldn't but no one else cares

Also there is nothing special about meeting engagements having touch objectives. Any type of objective can be used in any type of battle.

There are various types of VP locations - some can be seen by both players, others only one. Touch objectives are your side only so there is no such thing as "both of you touching it". Now having said that you can also make a player side only touch objective for both players and place them in the exact same location so you can get the same effect as both touching it but really it is two separate objectives. I was recently playing a battle that had a bunch of touch objectives and those closest to me where worth 50 points, some further away were worth 100 and others deep on the map near where the enemy started where worth 150 points. My opponent had a similar set with the exact opposite points spread. The ones worth 50 for me had one worth 150 placed in the same location for them. In all cases there were two touch objectives in the same location - one for me and one for my opponent.

This where I see an issue with autonomous drone usage - namely friendly fire and civilian casualties. I'm not sure how big the issue will be, that will be based on how these automatic targeting systems work. Friendly fire or killing of civilians could be a serious problem with autonomous drones if this isn't handled well / correctly. The comparison to the Navy CWIS autonomous systems doesn't really work because there is a clear exclusion zone around fleets and warships to the point that if some civilian wondered inside that area they would get no sympathy when they get whacked. So, those systems can be weapons free and autonomous for certain ranges without risking civilian or friendly casualties. In other words humans have managed the space those autonomous systems work in so that they can target anything that comes with in them "safely". Autonomous drones hunting enemy soldiers, tanks and other vehicles do not have that kind of space. They have to operate in a much messier and chaotic environment. Lots can be done, make the targeting smarter, geo-fencing, range cut offs etc. but the issue is none of that is as clear cut as "get within 100m of a destroyer you die". All of those problems have solutions of varying degrees of effectiveness some of which can now be attacked (geo-fencing really should not be relied on for this) or have short comings that have unknown or known failure points (targeting only enemy AFVs is not actually easy and since these systems are actually trying to kill people that problem is more important to deal with). I'm not saying there will not be autonomous drones or that we should try to ban them. I don't think we can do that. I am saying that these systems are going to have problems that human controlled systems don't. Or perhaps a better way of saying it would be they are going to have different failure issues and those failures are going to hit the public's ear differently and that needs to be managed. Or not I suppose

Yes, you found the command. The way it is modeled is the smoke discharge goes off at a set distance. That distance can vary per vehicle but I am not sure it does much (one example is BMPs throw their smoke lots further than 20m). Do you have sources that show the smoke mortar discharge distances and if / how they were controlled for a Sherman?

Check out @Bil Hardenberger's blog: This older thread has some good discussion too: Here is a play list the includes the afore metioned Armchair General videos: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OZ6dDlqye9Q&list=PLmW_vcwM_qxukdDjpfUEerpICUzTrTKek&index=1

Rarity accounts for that. More of how much of the equipment was delivered and available in the area the game occurs and if it was commonly used in large formations or not at the time set for the QB.

Or the long talked about Space Lobsters

Ooops I missed that Elvis already responded. Once you guys said the riders were positioned inside I figured they would get protection. Model placement matters. So, the oopsie is bigger than graphic.

Absolutely - go for it.

That one I am not so sure of. Setting aside the darkness surrounding a full Russian state collapse, that you have appropriately pointed out, it seems to me that China is actually the one in a position to benefit from that. At least in their near border area they are in a place that the could take over (directly or by proxy) and stabilize huge portions of the country to their exclusive benefit. Then considering the darkness that may result form a full state collapse China is also the one least effected by those concerns. They have far better and more ruthless control over what nerdowells get up to inside their country and given they could likely stabilize a large portion of the country for their benefit they might skate on the downside of a state wide collapse.

Looks bad indeed. Do you have any mods installed? If so can you reproduce it without them? You can just move the mod folders to a temp location and open a saved game to check.

The Blitz is running two scenarios this month. Sign up for the April's Scenario of the Month has started over at the Blitz. This month the scenarios are: CMSF: Ambush at Al Sheik Bader (Note this is a custom scenario so you need to download it) CMRT: Tigers at Ogledow (Note this requires Fire and Rubble plus Battle Pack #1) The form post on theBlitz for sign up.

The Blitz is running two scenarios this month. Sign up for the April's Scenario of the Month has started over at the Blitz. This month the scenarios are: CMSF: Ambush at Al Sheik Bader (Note this is a custom scenario so you need to download it) CMRT: Tigers at Ogledow (Note this requires Fire and Rubble plus Battle Pack #1) The form post on theBlitz for sign up.

I suppose but wan't it an objective / desire even after the 2014 invasion? Yep, makes sense.

Found it - @MikeyD

Thanks for laying this out so succinctly. You have said them before but with more words and over more than one post :-). I have even pointed out what I am about to before too. I would add - restore territorial integrity to the 1991 borders. Yes, I was paying attention to you when you said the Ukraine might have to settle for less. Yes, I agree you could even be right. Likely right even. I just think it is unfair to leave it off the list. There is a non trivial number of Ukrainians who want that on the list of victory. Outside Ukraine too. I realize it doesn't mean they can necessarily get it but I think it needs to be there. As you, and others, pointed out they might be better off with some of those regions festering under control of Russia and no longer a drain nor a problem for Kyiv but there is no denying that Ukraine feels aggrieved after the invasion of 2014 and would like to have that restored too.

Yes, agreed 100%. Keep it tight and simple. Preferably so simple there are none. A way more interesting and fun thing to do is introduce a few rules on how you manage C2 - for example the Hard Cat rules (https://community.battlefront.com/topic/135087-hard-cat-rules-v2i-simple-to-use-command-control-rules-updated-01-june-2022/ ) Those don't create expectations that opponents will not do things to hurt you it just limits some of the god view flexibility. Yep, for me if someone reaches out with a bunch of rules it's a major red flag they are going to be no fun to play against. Not to mention I would hate to accidentally break a rule I agreed to because I simply forgot - I usually have a few games on the go after all. So hard pass if a new player starts saying "oh and do not this... and don't forget not to that...". Now having said that, a long time playing partner who wants to experiment with something, that's a different kettle of fish I'm all in on trying something interesting. That's not what we are talking about though. One of the great things about CM is rules lawyers are not successful because a truly impartial judge is keeping the game rules - the computer. One that you cannot wear down and befuddle. I suspect there are people here who have played war games with the people I call rules lawyers and don't want to repeat the experience. It used to be you were required to play with who showed up. Not any more

No lol in no universe is a running vehicle getting an accurate sound location and pinpointong the exact location of the enemy. I know it is common for us to call them sound contacts but they are not all sound contacts. They are unclear or unestablished contacts. Sound is one way but just spotting something but not being sure what it is exactly is also depicted by the same symbol.

I suppose that's true. I didn't think something else was going on at the time but the building could have been damaged by other things I suppose. I really should see if I can do it again I suppose