Trooper

Sure, if it were banished there, it would provide much less enjoyment. NTM

Dude, you're a couple of pages too late for that... I see the residents of this board have suffered an encounter before? NTM

Can you expand upon this one, please? It's a perfectly valid technique, I use it often in CCTT. It provides both a visual and physical shield. NTM

What if you won? NTM

In fairness, Gib's got point. I agree with him in the inherent futility of trying to mod something which is drastically different. This is why I do not, and never will, use your British Steel Beasts skins. If it floats your boat, fine, but there is more than a slight difference in the mechanics between Leo2A5 and Challenger 2 and as such can never represent the British Army, just the Danish/Swedish/Whatever army painted up funny. It should not be taken as any more than that. This isn't helped by the OP's inability to distinguish an ASLAV from a Bushmaster. (Just to make Gib feel even more comfortable, I've never seen an Aussie vehicle in an American TCGST!), which is pretty much like not being able to distinguish between a Stryker and a HMMWV. You'll get as much similarity at this rate with real life as you would if you attempted to simulate a US Light Recon Squadron with 48 Strykers: The numbers of troops would be wrong, the equipment would be wrong, the capabilities would be wrong, and the tactics would be wrong. You don't have an LRS, you have a random accumulation of Strykers and troops who happen to wear the same uniform. Even the ASLAV-PCs and Strykers, though similar in outward appearance, are so much different in capability that you won't be close to simulating Aussies, you'll be simulating Strykers painted up as such. Heck, I don't even know if the Aussie Army uses the fire-team concept or the fire-support-group concept at the section level. In which case, even the infantry squad/section would be vastly difference in technique and capability. Hell, why not just paint iron crosses on the Strykers and pretend they're Sdkfz-234s, and paint the infantry in Feldgrau colours. As a result, I can understand why Gib would have an objection to anything claiming to be a representation of the ADF, even 'At user's own risk', if you know what I mean. It would be such a non-approximation of the Australian forces that I can understand why someone who is proud of it would take not just objection, but also offence at the utter mischaracterisation of his organisation. And that's before you get to this bit: Fortunately, Rob Carpenter's a very switched-on lad, and he might know that the mod is just what you guys intend it to be, but not everyone in the procurement chain is as savvy. Imagine if some Armour LTC in charge of sim procurement is evaluating CM-SF, sees a link saying "Hey, with this we can simulate our Army", downloads it, and then concludes "Dear God, this is a crap simulation of the Aussies. I have no idea why we should buy this" NTM [ December 27, 2007, 12:08 PM: Message edited by: Trooper ]

Considering how much ammo my blue guys have been sending at each other at ranges where the target can speak softly "You idiot, I'm in your platoon", it's probably for the best that they can't hit each other. NTM

I beg to differ. I had an M1114 for several months in Iraq, I'm fairly sure I'd have noticed smoke launchers if it had them. (Mine) (Not mine) (Also not mine) NTM

Treadhead here. Short of reinforced concrete, I'd be hard-pressed to think of a wall which I couldn't knock down with my tank. I've even slammed right into a concrete Jersey Barrier at high warp factors once. Took the guard off my headlight, but no damage otherwise. Even if you're not inclined to ram the wall at full speed, just nose up to it, put it in low gear, and away you go. Yes, throwing track sucks, as does getting barbed wire caught in your sprocket wheels, but if you're perpetually in fear of it, you're probably not aggressive enough. NTM

Just finished it myself, with almost identical results. Took the airfield HQ first, but never noticed a popup saying "Objective taken". So I ended up sending troops to walk every floor of every 'block' of the building. Registered in the AAR as taken, but a more noticeable visual indicator would be nice. (Or a 'victory status' screen). Then took the barracks, as soon as I hit the centre building, I got the "Objective taken" message. Hmm.. So off to SFHQ. Captured it, walked into every 'block', but no message. Figured it might have been like the airfield HQ, so I pulled back, and blew half of it up. (Centre block to the ground, and two next to it). Ended up a minor defeat, and the SFHQ did not register as completed. NTM

OK.. probably a simple fix, but I've been out of the IT industry too long... One machine XP, one Win2K Pro. Using a crossover cable, all the appropriate link lights flash. TCP is obviously required to play TCP multiplayer, and we have to manually assign IP addresses since obviously we've no IP server. Alas, we seem to have hit a bit of a snag that the two machines aren't pinging away at each other. We've put in the same subnet mask for both machines, and each has a manual IP address. Gateway is left blank since there's no Internet to gate to. Not gone anywhere near DNS or Advanced Settings... Anyone have any ideas? NTM

forgot to mention, the OS is 9.22 Yes, it's the same subnet mask, yes, it's the same subnet. The gateway is fine, all machines can talk to it, and the IP addresses were assigned by the ISP, but they are static. NTM

This one rather has us stumped. We've just hooked up a buddy's Mac to the home network. It consists of a cable modem, a hub, two PCs and the Mac. It's a static IP system. One PC isn't used by a CMBO player, not a worry.. All machines can browse the Internet through the modem. All machines can ping each other. Attempts to either join or host a TCP game by the Mac result in a message along the lines of 'could not connect to TCP network'. I say again, this is for either join or host, it's not a case that it can't find the other machine, just CMBO simply can't talk to the network. We know the Mac itself can. Any guesses? NTM

I think part of the reason that moderns are a little less popular (I speak more as a miniatures gamer than PC), is because of the omnipotence of equipment. "Oh look. There's a target vehicle 3km that way." 30 second later, it's dead due to a TOW or M829 or something. Even in naval games, it takes some of the fun out of it. "OK. My E-2 Hawkeye has just illuminated the entire game board..." On initial sight, it may appear that tactics take second-seat to equipment in modern era games. Of course, it's not true, but the catch is that it appears that way. NTM

I'm going to have to wait a couple months before signing on for this one, I think. I ship out for a couple of fun-filled (and probably painful) months at OCS starting in two weeks. NTM

If memory serves, there were two M1s knocked out by enemy fire. One was the T-72 you mentioned, the other was a BMP which got a shot into the engine. Only one Abrams tanker was killed in combat, it was a TC who was unbuttoned when he directed a HEAT round into a BMP at about 20 meters. On the mathematics front, go to http://www.tank-net.org and go to the Armour Scientific Forum. I almost never go in there, it's far too technical for me.. NTM [ May 31, 2002, 04:22 AM: Message edited by: Trooper ]