Apocal

Exactly the same number as the number of times it's conducted strikes in the face of a modern AD.

Then what is an armed Reaper doing in-game?

Any air defense environment that would no-sell an A-10 would also no-sell an MQ-9 or RQ-4, so...

Literally your post in the thread I got the quote from.

Yeah, all that stuff came with Steel Beasts like... a decade ago? There were some translated manuals as well, especially once the in-game T-72 premiered.

Its easy enough to test, just drop units close to each other: Put two opposing infantry battalions in close (like 30-50m) on a QB map. Play for a few seconds and note the FPS. Reset, pan camera away from the action and start again; the actual drop in FPS is minimal, hitting primarily when it comes to render trees, units, smoke from HE being delivered, etc. There might be other under-the-hood stuff that is being broken, but it is definitely not frame rate. As a sidenote, I have trouble believing you know very much about computers yourself if you describe your rig as "very high end" yet claim to get only 15 FPS in forests. I assumed you had an actual point you were attempting to support with your anecdote. If you agree that AI vs. AI play isn't particularly popular, why would you ask me for a source? And no, most ACE features do absolutely nothing for AI vs. AI play, which is what I was referring to.

The AI in this game tries to save the ATGMs for actual armor. That's why I asked for a Target Heavy command.

That doesn't even make sense.

A less flexible approach is already how scenario designers do things and I can't imagine a branching structure would be so ponderous to implement that it overrides the advantage not following a fixed step-by-step without accounting for the enemy at all.

The biggest stumbling block I encounter when shilling CMx2 is that gamers are used to easily accessible pick-up/public games.

I'd buy that for a dollar!

You've never tried to gain protection from 50cal fire by hiding in a flimsy building then.

The vehicle itself cuts the time down a bit, the specialized teams (COLT, FO, TACP/JTAC/Air Controller) basically slice it in half. Purchasing the vehicle gives you the team in the case of the M1200 Armored Knight, but not the various fire support vehicles.

Very difficult. The way AI plans work is all steps are run sequentially, with no branching decision tree. You can have a time delay or a terrain trigger (or both!) for the next step, but it is always 1,2,3...8, never 1, 2, IF Casualties taken -2A; IF No Casualties -2B.

I wouldn't mind having a smarter high-level TacAI (opAI?) that could perform basic terrain analysis ("I need to hit that building with my supporting weapons to suppress, I will move a team here to do so"), intelligently coordinate elements if given a decent starting point and react to sudden reversals by attempting to flee the field and limit casualties when playing gametypes that penalize large force losses.

Quick Kill.

Well, the Russians have all but come out and said that NATO putting boots in the Ukraine would be treated the same way as putting boots in Russia itself and Europe doesn't seem all that enthused about going ahead putting that resolution to the test, so I don't really have a problem with sitting back and letting sanctions work their magic. It isn't like Ukraine is some critical foreign policy objective; we can take our time and handle it without undue escalation.

I unbutton a lot because the AI and a lot of players don't provide strict controls to their troops, so they'll pop off rounds at a very temporarily exposed TC.

The amount of morale degradation they suffer once those four Panthers start killing them should suffice as an abstraction.

The number of non-AI compatible -- but still popular! -- addons found on fan sites like Armaholic; e.g. the multiplayer focused ACE mod vs. this one to add in functioning AI calls for fire. A comparison of AI-only videos, AARs, etc. posted compared to those featuring player intervention on one or both sides. More generally, around 1200 hours in ArmA2 and a lot of contact with the rest of the community. What's your source for AI-only spectating being even, oh, I dunno, let's say five percent of the total of any wargame of the past ten years?

Yeah, but it isn't exactly the most popular feature. I think everyone does AI vs. AI in ArmA at least once to see an awesomely massive battle unfold around them, but after that?

Yeah, but the Russians are the ones hurting, since what should be a specialized counter to the APS-equipped Abrams is somewhat neutered by the issue.

Niche products attract niche audiences dude. And I seriously doubt heyhellowhatsnew has much experience with other games if he thinks AI vs. AI spectating is a popular feature and uses the appeal of competitive DOTA tournaments to support that position.

In-game they have one better than that: the standard NV set is a mixed image intensifying/thermal rig for Americans.

It was in CMSF; you gave the AI side all the orders you would a player side during the setup phase and they'd run through them. I used it for a few tests of getting AI tanks to intelligently use bounding overwatch and it was pretty cool when things worked out. But it was sort of time-consuming and if the player acted in a different manner the whole effect fell apart. They removed it from CMBN and apparently very few people noticed.