ASL Veteran

There was no rush to invade now though.  Putin could have just waited until 22 June if he wanted to

There was no rush to invade now though.  Putin could have just waited until 22 June if he wanted to

Re Nuclear War - I think we can all agree that a Nuclear War would kill millions upon millions from many nations including Russia (possibly the end of the world through nuclear winter) and if Putin is threatening that just because Russia was removed from the SWIFT banking system that's probably not a rational actor or he's bluffing.  Putin can't just assume that he can toss nuclear weapons around and not be on the receiving end of a few himself.  Russia could be turned into glass, and I have to assume that he is fully aware of that.  A rational human being would, perhaps, use nuclear weapons if their nation was facing an existential threat of annihilation against an enemy that can't be negotiated with.  Using nuclear weapons because the EU is providing arms to Ukrainian soldiers who are resisting an invasion and are 100% in no position to pose an existential threat to the continuation of Russia as a nation is nuts if Putin actually means it.  If that's a true reflection of his attitude about nuclear weapons, then you could probably assume that he would use them for almost any excuse.  Maybe if he thinks that a coup is imminent, he might decide to light the world on fire as he goes down in flames (Hitler like).  All the more reason to see if he can be removed from the international stage now if possible.
Re abandoned equipment - I have to wonder about all this abandoned equipment.  One would assume that if soldiers were fully on board with what they were doing that they would be destroying or disabling their equipment when they leave it lying about, but if they are just leaving stuff around that they would have to know that the Ukrainian military can use is a little odd to me.

I have seen the video that you are referencing.  It was posted in this thread, but this thread is moving so fast that it's hard to keep up.  The Russian soldier jumped out of the truck after the truck stopped and appeared to be wounded.  He still had his weapon with him (his assault rifle was clearly laying across his chest), and he was shot and killed while lying on his back as in 'taking cover'.  No doubt the driver and anyone riding shotgun were killed through the windshield.  He was not killed execution style as you seem to believe (for some reason) unless you think any soldier that is killed during wartime is a war crime.  He was shot and killed while taking cover behind the truck.  Afterwards someone walked towards where he was after the firing died down, but I don't recall anyone shooting him again at close range.  He was clearly already dead by the time any other individual entered the video.  They simply inspected the truck for loot - at least that's what I saw.

Well if it makes you feel any better, I was mildly disturbed while watching the video as well, but only in the sense that I don't like to watch people die.  That should be a healthy and normal reaction.  I was hoping he would be taken prisoner as well, but he looked to be dead already by the time anyone else entered the video (as I said). 

I have seen the video that you are referencing.  It was posted in this thread, but this thread is moving so fast that it's hard to keep up.  The Russian soldier jumped out of the truck after the truck stopped and appeared to be wounded.  He still had his weapon with him (his assault rifle was clearly laying across his chest), and he was shot and killed while lying on his back as in 'taking cover'.  No doubt the driver and anyone riding shotgun were killed through the windshield.  He was not killed execution style as you seem to believe (for some reason) unless you think any soldier that is killed during wartime is a war crime.  He was shot and killed while taking cover behind the truck.  Afterwards someone walked towards where he was after the firing died down, but I don't recall anyone shooting him again at close range.  He was clearly already dead by the time any other individual entered the video.  They simply inspected the truck for loot - at least that's what I saw.

I have seen the video that you are referencing.  It was posted in this thread, but this thread is moving so fast that it's hard to keep up.  The Russian soldier jumped out of the truck after the truck stopped and appeared to be wounded.  He still had his weapon with him (his assault rifle was clearly laying across his chest), and he was shot and killed while lying on his back as in 'taking cover'.  No doubt the driver and anyone riding shotgun were killed through the windshield.  He was not killed execution style as you seem to believe (for some reason) unless you think any soldier that is killed during wartime is a war crime.  He was shot and killed while taking cover behind the truck.  Afterwards someone walked towards where he was after the firing died down, but I don't recall anyone shooting him again at close range.  He was clearly already dead by the time any other individual entered the video.  They simply inspected the truck for loot - at least that's what I saw.

Re Nuclear War - I think we can all agree that a Nuclear War would kill millions upon millions from many nations including Russia (possibly the end of the world through nuclear winter) and if Putin is threatening that just because Russia was removed from the SWIFT banking system that's probably not a rational actor or he's bluffing.  Putin can't just assume that he can toss nuclear weapons around and not be on the receiving end of a few himself.  Russia could be turned into glass, and I have to assume that he is fully aware of that.  A rational human being would, perhaps, use nuclear weapons if their nation was facing an existential threat of annihilation against an enemy that can't be negotiated with.  Using nuclear weapons because the EU is providing arms to Ukrainian soldiers who are resisting an invasion and are 100% in no position to pose an existential threat to the continuation of Russia as a nation is nuts if Putin actually means it.  If that's a true reflection of his attitude about nuclear weapons, then you could probably assume that he would use them for almost any excuse.  Maybe if he thinks that a coup is imminent, he might decide to light the world on fire as he goes down in flames (Hitler like).  All the more reason to see if he can be removed from the international stage now if possible.
Re abandoned equipment - I have to wonder about all this abandoned equipment.  One would assume that if soldiers were fully on board with what they were doing that they would be destroying or disabling their equipment when they leave it lying about, but if they are just leaving stuff around that they would have to know that the Ukrainian military can use is a little odd to me.

Oww, that one is going to leave a mark.  I guess that trip to visit Times Square will have to be put on hold lol.

This randomly popped up on my You Tube - seems pretty good
 

That's all I can say.  All I can do is say that the cheese is on the floor.  Whether the mice can see it or not is up to them!

I have personal experience with a forum that allowed editing at any time.  I was in this big back and forth discussion with this guy about Napoleonic Warfare and he would say one thing, then I would counter that and cite a reference.  He would then continue on until he realized that he was incorrect about something, then he would go back like three posts earlier and alter what he wrote so that he was basically saying something completely different from what he originally said.  My subsequent posts began to make less and less sense because I was responding to something that he altered after I had posted.  The real aggravating thing was that I didn't even know he altered stuff from three posts back and so when he would make a new response to one of my posts it would be very confusing because his new posts were inconsistent with his old posts as I remembered them.  The only thing I could do after that was include his entire original post in my response, but even in that case he would still alter what he originally said even with me quoting his original post in my response (so now his original post didn't match what I was quoting in my response).  I had to give up discussing anything with him because you can't have a discussion with someone who keeps altering what they say after the fact.  It was very annoying.  
Anyway, when I post here I usually re read what I just posted immediately after I post.  In that way the timer doesn't become an issue.

If you click on the three dots in the upper right, you should have an edit option available to you.  You can only edit posts for a certain amount of time before they become etched in stone.  That's to prevent forum discussions from becoming strange collections of posts as people edit things and responses no longer make sense.

If you click on the three dots in the upper right, you should have an edit option available to you.  You can only edit posts for a certain amount of time before they become etched in stone.  That's to prevent forum discussions from becoming strange collections of posts as people edit things and responses no longer make sense.

That's fine - if you want to make changes to it and then upload your version to the scenario depot thing, I'm perfectly fine with it.

The original poster isn't the first one to say that all the games are the same, but that one is just mysterious to me because I'm not really sure what their expectation is.  The games are about tactical combat from WW2 up to modern, so you are going to have tanks, infantry squads, artillery, and various things that are involved in tactical combat.  What could possibly be different?  Is the expectation that Combat Mission Battle for Normandy have tanks and infantry, but that Combat Mission Red Thunder have Trolls and Space Lobsters or something?  What does it mean exactly that all the games are the same?  

Really the time compression is more a factor of command and battlefield friction than anything like 'a battle lasts x and in CM it lasts y'.  Command friction is greater the farther back in time you go, so the effect of the player telling a squad to move to house x and they move immediately is far greater when radios aren't as prevalent (or even GPS tracking).  That's assuming the one taking the orders actually understands the commander's intent or that the commander actually has an accurate picture of what's happening.  The other aspect of time compression is that soldiers are generally not going to be as brave as they are in CM.  In CM you order a squad to take a building, but in real life maybe the squad leader and one dude get to the building and the rest of the squad ... well doesn't advance quite as far so to speak lol.  If a human being takes a bullet, it's permanent and if a pixel soldier takes a bullet, he just gets reloaded.  If pixel soldiers acted 100 percent like real soldiers nobody would have fun playing Combat Mission.  Just imagine how much outrage would be spilled across these forums if your T34 crew bailed out just because a Tiger was beginning to aim at them or when your Sherman crew bailed out because it was hit by a rifle grenade.  People who don't want to die a horrible burning or splattered death aren't so quick to move when you tell them too and if the commander has to move things through the chain of command with the subordinate interpreting orders and what they mean (something that also doesn't happen in games) well then you get a whole variety of behaviors that either can't be simulated or in some case it wouldn't be a good idea to simulate because nobody would want to play that boring game where nothing does what the player wants them to do.  Maybe co play if it ever gets to CM could simulate some of that though, but we don't have co play yet so .....

There is definitely an agenda in this thread - I'm not sure it's about handguns though

the game calculates the LOS from every action square to every action square and the file probably gets large after it's done that.

the game calculates the LOS from every action square to every action square and the file probably gets large after it's done that.

Most PBEM players.  A 2 hour long scenario can take as much as a year to complete PBEM, therefore shorter scenarios are preferred over longer ones generally speaking.  You also don't want to spend six months playing something only to then have your opponent disappear in the middle of the night.  Just look at the size distribution of scenarios and Quick Battles that are recorded at the Blitz.  Feel free to modify your remarks after looking that up.

Most PBEM players.  A 2 hour long scenario can take as much as a year to complete PBEM, therefore shorter scenarios are preferred over longer ones generally speaking.  You also don't want to spend six months playing something only to then have your opponent disappear in the middle of the night.  Just look at the size distribution of scenarios and Quick Battles that are recorded at the Blitz.  Feel free to modify your remarks after looking that up.

Yeah, interacting with Semmes is a complete waste of time.  As far as the time compression thing goes - I mean time is obviously not compressed in a literal sense lol.  I don't think anyone claims that.  The compression is that an action in real life takes say 4 hours, but in CM it takes say 1 hour for a variety of reasons.  Can you find real life actions that only take 3 hours to 'complete'?  Sure.  Would they take three hours to complete in CM?  Unlikely.  Now this 'compression' is less pronounced in CMBS, especially for US forces, than it is in WW2 for example.  Modern armies simply have better and more robust means of communicating / transmitting orders, better maps, better means of spotting the enemy, better overall situational awareness than any commander would have in WW2. 
Essentially almost every scenario that I've made for Combat Mission is a recreation of a battle that actually happened.  Sometimes I have better information available than other times, but in essence I can mostly compare 1 to 1 between what actually happened and what happens in Combat Mission.  The scenario that I had the most information for was probably 'Wax Museum'.  I had a book that was a first hand personal account from the German side, a book that was a first hand personal account from the American side, I had an overview of the battle as a whole from a third source, I had about the best sources of information available for any WW2 battle I've ever recreated in terms of unit strengths and composition (hint, most of these units were not at full strength and several American platoons had squads detached for duty elsewhere).  I can say with a high level of confidence that battles happen in CM for WW2 faster than in real life probably by a factor of about 4.  So what takes four minutes in real life would take one minute in Combat Mission.  Obviously some things like troops walking across a certain field is going to be one to one in terms of time expended, but the way orders are transmitted and carried out are simply not represented in CM the way it happens in real life.
Casualties are also higher in CM than they would be in real life - at least for WW2, I can't speak to modern - and I believe that it's a combination of factors rather than one thing and I believe that 'time compression' is a factor, but not the only factor.  Now, can I find WW2 battles that had a similar level of casualties than what are produced in Combat Mission - sure.  I have run across a few.  Does that mean that CM is perfect in every way in terms of casualties?  No, I don't think so.  Does it bother me?  No, not at all.  To me its irrelevant and I'm not sure why people complain about it.  I do think that some things could be tweaked though and I have made an effort to bring those things to BFC's attention.  In some cases it comes down to game limitations, and in other cases it will be a function of 'game vs reality' and how much to you want to tilt the scale to one side or another. 
One great example is troops moving at night - if you are walking around on a moonless night and you are trying to get to the church by passing through the woods - well if you can't literally see the church from where you are beginning your trek then what are the odds that a squad will end up walking around in circles in the woods not really knowing where they are or where the church is?  If you can't see a landmark then even if you have a map it's difficult to get your bearings and as shown on the Mythbusters (great episode by the way) it's almost impossible for a human being to walk in a straight line.  Naturally squads in Combat Mission don't have that problem.  You just select the squad and click on it's destination and presto the squad goes there regardless of whether they are doing this on a clear sunny day and they can see the church tower, of if the fog is so thick they can't see more than 50 meters.  Do gamers really want to select a squad, click on the church, and then have the squad walk around in circles?  Raise your hands if that's a game function you want implemented.  No hands?  Yeah, that's what I thought.  

Your question doesn't really make sense.  Not for nuttin was a gentle reminder from Elvis to IanL that since Ian is a beta tester he can play around with PBEM+++ and help squash bugs if he wants to know more about it.  The PBEM+++ is a Slitherine thing, but it would be added to the game for Steam Release.  The PBEM system is not Steam's but Slitherines.