hoolaman

LMAO You too?! TF Thunder is pretty hard that's for sure.

haha. Unfortunately the AI calculations are exactly the same AI that would otherwise have been there. Pretty cool, FastForwarding turns is awesome, it just FEELs like CM.

The man knew that his actions would be the final line in a history of Bush's contribution to Iraq so it was kind of impressive in a way. Good on him for showing his frustrations, remember only a couple of years ago a massive bomb killed the UN envoy to Iraq, be thankful the Iraqis now get an outlet like throwing a shoe instead of choosing to kill 100 people to maybe also kill a foreign dignitary.

Runyan wins the prize for correct answer. Clearly he missed the point of the thread by introducing logic and reason. 40 seconds? Are you some kind of girly man? Might as well drink a glass of warm water. Good tea should not have any old haggish tendencies after a couple of minutes.

I'm pretty sure a stag moves quick enough that the plan is workable. You'd have to be very unlucky to have them engage such a quickly moving target across their frontal arc, and they turn slowly. But there is a very good possibility for a classic hair pulling CM replay if the Stag gets distracted engaging a target OTHER than the stugs. I'm thinking close infantry anti-tank would get the TacAI to ignore the stugs.

Luckily AA is not simulated. Santa assumes that he will have total air superiority across the globe.

If recreational opiates were legal, they could be grown in much friendlier and more productive locations in the west and the Afghan harvest would be completely unwanted. No money for warlords, they'll have to go and grow wheat or something. Cocaine could be also grown and distributed by the good guys in South America. Just make it available to anyone from a government dispensary under strictly controlled conditions.

Don't ALL guns including MGs go down if "gun damaged"? Essentially I think your tank is now completely unarmed, however unlikely it might be that two cannons and 1/2 MGs were disabled with one shot simultaneously.

Great read tux thanks. Must be pretty funny to read everyones opinions about what you should do next when the game is long complete and you know the outcome.

You could use a road or pavement for a similar effect. I completely agree with what you are saying. CMSF and CMAK have "open" terrain that fudges in cover for infantry, and more importantly an arbitrary movement order can give infantry very good cover in "open" like crawl vs run. Really there could be an "astroturf" tile to represent terrain where a man can never hide and will be instantly and accurately cut to shreds no matter what move order is in use..

The one on the left seems to be pensively stroking his whiskers, clearly being the more intelligent life-form.

A vaguely related aside: I recently washed a USB stick and once dried it worked flawlessly.

Don't forget you can pick up a new PCI-e motherboard for under $100 which will give you access to a whole lot more possibilities.

You might be pleased to know I think you are not too far off base. Most scenarios of any sort have very little GAME info in the briefing, like "losses over 20% are unacceptable" or "preserve building x y z". In most cases they don't even mention "take and hold objective X". Given the complex way the game calculates victory this is a terrible oversight, and really should be coded into the game in some way to make sure the feedback people need is in there. Even a scenario with no AI plans should have a brief-briefing of some sort for multiplayer usage. A scenario might be balanced and great for two-player but would put the red player at a big disadvantage if he is given no briefing.

That's a quality effigy. Who says Iraqis aren't creative and industrious.

I guess the fixed format scenario briefing headings don't really lend to discussing victory points, but it would be nice to be able to translate "Take that building" into "that building is worth 100 points". What I mean with the flags is more about the concept of knowing that a certain objective is worth a certain value to both sides. Like a $100 bill on the map, I know if I take it its mine and if you take it its yours. At the moment the US objectives are in US dollars and the syrian objectives are in Syrian Pounds if you understand my tortured analogy.

The 2x4 wheel chocks and oil drip pan don't inspire confidence. Nice pics though. They are much more attractive vehicles without that crappy cage on them.

The real problem is they generally don't. In Cmx1 you always knew how the points would break down, because they were simple and consistent. Big flag was 300 points or whatever it was, casualties make up a certain percentage etc. The new objectives are great but often the designer goes for the military jargon and a good story and forgets about telling you what you have to do to win the GAME. I'd much rather see the game interface tell you which points are available where (except hidden ones of course) similar to the end screen but at the start. And you don't get a sense of what you have to deny to your opponent either, whereas before you knew they had the same amount of points on offer as you do, a flag denied them was points for you and points away from them. It tends to make the game feel a lot less gamelike when you and your opponent are playing to different rules and you never are quite sure what they are. I'd like to see a return to standard points markers like the big flags and little flags, although obviously they don't have to be flags. That way you know exactly the relative values of objectives.

Looks very much along the same lines as the Aussie Bushmaster truck.

Bunkers have been reported flying 200m in the air. Maybe look up^? Supposedly when the scenario launches they work ok though.

Nice. Why not reduce the minimum search string to TWO characters instead of three? While you are at it, how about reducing the ridiculous minimum charater count per post to ONE instead of ten? If there is one example where forcing people to post more than ten characters is useful I'd like to hear it.

Yes 30 seconds is a bit of an exaggeration, but modern CB should have the position of the firer very quickly and respond soon after. I will obviously defer to the artillerymen on this one. As for being a designer issue, I agree up to a point, but you can't simulate a mortar battery with large amounts of ammo but only an option to fire for a minute before moving to another position, and the potential to be lost for good if they linger and get killed. I don't want it to sound like I think CB is a must have, but it is a factor in modern war that could be added in a more detailed way.

I believe "someday, maybe" was mentioned somewhere, but I don't think it is the main game plan for modules.

I don't expect any policy detail at all, but you'll note all the speeches you mentioned are fairly plainly spoken, humble, not to mention quite short. Maybe Obama's speech tried to match the historic nature of his victory, but it sounded a bit waffly and grandiose for my tastes. It may also just be his style of speaking that bugs me. I don't know, I just wasn't a fan.

Yeah his acceptance speech sounded to me like utter waffle. Even in the era of the soundbite, those are some loong sentences, and he said them so slowly. Paraphrasing: "If you are wondering if any US citizen could become president, he can. Because people voted, many of them for me. Because the USA is a democracy. Yay for us." Now I'm no fan of Bush but at least you knew he wasn't smart enough to obfuscate with bull****. If he bothered to give you an answer it would be what popped into his head at that moment, and he didn't seem to care about anyone elses opinion enough to lie.