Andreas

Steiner is just talking about his neo-nazi friends, not about reasonable people who have two braincells to rub together. I would recommend ignoring him. All the best Andreas

That look is going to take you all of five minutes at this point is my guess, and then it is back to twiddling your thumbs while waiting for the release of the Commonwealth module to CM:x2 WW2 in about 3-4 years. Sorry. All the best Andreas

What I don't like about modern warfare in CM are idiot posts like this.

My War Stryker Blog - does anyone know where the original posts of that blog ended up? All the best Andreas

Always nice to see someone show his true colours, so I'd thought I preserve this. As for the initial question - I am not disappointed. Not thrilled either, but I really look forward to all the lessons learned from this one making it to WW2 in the next game, and the possibility of multilayer co-op making it to that game as well. All the best Andreas

Obviously you have been to a very peaceful school. Look, in the schoolyard it is always the weakest kid who gets dragged behind the bikeshelter and has the crap beaten out of him by the school-yard bully. In this case that is Syria. This is far more realistic than an attack on Iran - while the US could easily beat the Iranian army, take the post-war operations in Iraq and multiply the problem by, uh, a lot. Iran's male population that could be called up to serve is almost as large as the total population of Iraq, and three times the service-age population of Iraq, 4.5 times that of Syria. Landmass is almost four times that of Iraq, ten times that of Syria. Borders with lots of countries that are problematic in the case of Iran, only with US Allies in the case of Syria. World factbook Iran World factbook Iraq World factbook Syria Syria is to Iran what Arnold Schwarzenegger is to Woody Allen. I know who I would like to take on, even if I am Mike Tyson. All the best Andreas

</font>

All the best Andreas

There's always CMBB and CMAK. All the best Andreas

I'd guess they would not be allowed to play. All the best Andreas

Yep - I did. Not so much forget, rather not know. That sounds more like it. All the best Andreas

The Merkava Mk. 1 was introduced in 1979, production stopped in 1983. The Mk. 2 production stopped in 1989. The Mk. 3 is the current model. Looking at this site makes me think that the Mk.1, Mk.2 and probably non-upgraded Mk.3 are slightly less dangerous to an M1A2 with current equipment as a frightened Sparrow is to a very hungry pussycat. All the best Andreas

You are right, it has nothing to do with borg spotting (hopefully), but all with God spotting. The problem is quite clearly whether it is possible to allow this action only for area fire near units that have been spotted by either the unit doing the area firing, or a unit within its, let's call it comms circle (e.g. a scout who could alert them or a commander who could order them). Otherwise you are going to see gamey abuse galore. I am sure that if BFC can think of a way to do it, they will. But it does not seem an easy thing to do to me. All the best Andreas Ps. A real-life example of this is the reduction of encircled Soviet forces in a forest in the Uman pocket in 1941, when the commander of 101. Jaegerdivision, Generalmajor Fretter-Pico, ordered 24cm mortars to fire in direct fire into the tree tops of the (relatively small) forest.

Nononononono :eek: Not France. Please, errr, you wouldn't like it. How about Outer Mongolia? You'd like that. The food here in France is horrible, the girls ugly, the public transport does not work, it is friggin' cold, there is nothing to do in Paris in the evening, and the street cafes suck. It is just like Helsinki. No point in moving here. Go to Winkler County, Tx. You'll like it. Honest. All the best Andreas

The problem is that with borg spotting, firing into areas out of LOS is open to very gamey abuse. AIUI that is the reason why it is not allowed, and why e.g. smoke is another impenetrable veil. All the best Andreas

And while you try to sort yourself out after this horrifying experience, the other 18 tanks in the squadron and the attached infantry company, and the attached gun battery in overwatch make short work of the AT rocket launcher team, no need to thank them.

That's a funny statement.

Still does not sound right - unless the commander knows the way intimately, there should still be short/long delays along the way while the unit is trying to figure out where it goes. In fact, the initial delay can be neglible ("Go to grid reference 8134956, be there in 30 minutes, don't move outside this and this boundary"), but there should be random-length delays at random points along the way (ideally tied to the terrain, they are more likely in a forest depression than on a ridge with a commanding view) where the platoon leader tries to figure out where the hell he is, how he can get to 8134956, and why he ever left Pansyltucky for this horsecrap.

As far as I know - I am not even sure of that. You raise an important point, and one that further supports Steve's line of reasoning, IMO. Additionally - when you know there is no enemy, is that legitimate knowledge (realistic), or knowledge gathered through borg-spotting (unrealistic), and can/should these two be handled separately? If not, which one to choose?

But the complexity of long vs. short movements is the issue here. Happy to accept I misunderstood you. Still, if we go with Sergei's suggestion (AIUI) that movement distance should be penalised more than number of waypoints, it is necessary to understand what the difference really is between a long move across unfamiliar terrain in the absence of the enemy (I am presuming you won't order this if you know the enemy is between your start and end point), or a short move when enemy presence has been established. The point Dalem makes is an additional complication - what should happen when you are reasonably sure there is no enemy, as opposed to when you don't know? How do you communicate to the AI that 'Avoid obstacle left' should be done in a manner that takes account of potential enemy presence, or in a relaxed manner because you know no enemy is there?

No, but I don't assume that in my post, or anywhere else.

Here:

I don't agree. I think Sergei is by and large right, i.e. overall movement distance should be valued higher than it is at the moment in terms of delay. Abandoning delays for complexity completely is the wrong direction (excuse the pun) to take. I would however like to understand a bit more about how squads/platoons/companies move in various situations before I accept the reasoning that short movements in the presence of the enemy are less complex to execute than long movements in the absence of the enemy. I would e.g. think that moving around an obstacle is very easy in a safe situation, but if enemy presence is suspected, it is very complicated, because you have to assume the enemy has the obstacle covered somehow - check for mines, closely observe potential ambush locations, send a scout forward to see if a machine-gun is trained on the 'easy' path around the obstacle. All these things cost time, and we have to assume they are currently abstracted into the movement somewhat.

The results are in: Normandy [Hushed Voice]Conservatives[/Hushed Voice] 17,938 [Loud clapping and exuberant joy in the background] Kip Anderson [Hushed Voice]League for the Liberation from WW2 Oppression in Gaming[/Hushed Voice] 11,241 Mr Peng [Hushed Voice]Crazy as a treeful of rats[/Hushed Voice] 915

Panzerspähwagen