IMHO

@exsonic01, and can you explain in short the difference between multi-domain and good ol' combined arms? And how it should be reflected in company-level armor/infantry CMxx?

They can always be discussed or traded. As Zagorodnyuk - the Ukrainian Minister of Defense - said full disengagement is not in Ukrainian interests as it will freeze the conflict and after the cessation of armed hostilities the conflict will disappear from political radars of Western powers. I'm ashamed but I don't exactly keep track of channel names My wife speaks fluent Ukrainian and she prefers Ukranian series to Russian so I kinda tag along Let's put off the discussion a bit lest it becomes pure politics. I'll collect a list of programs and get back to get your view.

@Haiduk, I've seen the poll results - you're right to correct me. My comment about "popular opinion" was based on Ukrainian TV. It seems to me the military solution point of view became more widespread in TV now. Is it really so or it's just a random bias of my channel-hopping? PS Again Zelensky was somehow persuaded to backtrack on full disengagement.

That's the result of a choice made in Soviet Union in 70-s - to go for optoelectronics rather than I2. So when the superiority of thermals became obvious it was too late. And developing thermals require base technologies - something that even Russia is hardly able to develop save Ukraine with much lower budgets.

IMO the only imaginable scenario of a restart of hostilities today is if Ukraine decides to bomb out and overrun L/DNR forces. But observing ongoing discussion in Ukrainian society it seems to be too real. In terms of geography I believe it will hardly extend much beyond current L/DNR area. But in terms of systems employed IMO it may be a repetition of Georgia - tactical ballistic and cruise missiles, heavy air campaign etc. Ukraine has limited Air Force - like ten times smaller than Russian - and severely outdated however significant AA defense. After a proper SEAD campaign Ukrainian Forces will be left defenseless. Why do you think Ukrainian popular opinion is slowly drifting into the "military solution"?

@Haiduk will correct me but even T-64BM Bulat don't have them IRL. Only upgraded T-64 mod. 2017 have Belorussian/French thermals. First such tanks were accepted into Ukrainian Army in 2019.

This is a full disclosure of recent backdoor integrated into DVR/NVR devices built on top of HiSilicon SoC. Described vulnerability allows attacker to gain root shell access and full control of device. Full disclosure format for this report has been chosen due to lack of trust to vendor. Proof of concept code is presented below. https://habr.com/en/post/486856/

Just a little information: the scenario won't load until the game is upgrade to 2.12. Just in case someone stumbles upon this issue.

@Battlefront.com, Steve, thanks for the clarifications! @Albert DuBalay, 1. I'd be careful with what to expect from big investments into hardware. If you plan to buy eGPU solely for CM then your money will buy more fun if invested in more CM tites. I can compare CM on MacBook Air with integrated Intel graphics at 1440x900, same at 2560x1440, Win7 box with dual NV GTX 690 at 2560x1440 with 4GB VRAM and a Win10 laptop with NV1070 at 1920x1080 with 8Gb VRAM. There's a noticeable difference on MacOS when jumping from 1440x900 to 2560x1440 but the latter is really pushing meagre Air capabilities way way over the limit. And though somewhat slow the game still plays decently at this resolution. There's obviously a difference between MacOs and both Windows machines but there's absolutely no difference between dual GTX 690 and 1070 even though there's a gap of many generations between them. 2. This friend of mine who bought MacBook Pro + eGPU is kind of unhappy with the investment. Not all the games are playable and those that do offer say half the bang that can be expected from fast NV graphics. We were upgrading at more or less the same time - I preferred a MacBook Air for casual use (cheap) and another Win/NV1070 one (expensive back then) for gaming-on-the-go. He bought an expensive MacBook Pro with Radeon and an eGPU box with expensive NV graphics. The verdict is the former is better. If, say, you have a top MacBook Pro then, most probably, you won't see much difference with eGPU. CM titles are really well optimized for relatively slow hardware.

@IanL, thanks for the info! Interesting!

@Erwin, interesting. I didn't test but I have a general impression that the higher the intensity - the bigger is CEP. Is it what you saw? Can you briefly describe test setup?

As far as I understand individual tree truncks are tracked against for forests. So that's the "source" of protection for forests. Right? But for other terrains individual modifiers are used to determine P-to-hit. Correct? I did some some tests few years ago to determine an optimal number of shells to employ agains different squads/teams and what I saw HE effect is tracked at unit level. A number of casualties in the squad is determined in a somewhat randomized way depending on where the shell explodes. Then in another round the total number of casualties is distributed between WIAs and KIAs. For the first step variance is manageable - far from spotting

I have a decent exposure to Ukrainian TV now (and it's been 12 years since I ever watched Russian TV last time ) and I have a feeling there's a good chance the situation is slowly creeping to a repetition of Georgia conflict. There's no question Ukrainian Army is much stronger than it was during the 2014 conflict. But it looks like it creates a false feeling of an overmatch. Ukrainian leadership falsely believed in 2014 that Russia would just watch helplessly as Ukrainian Army bomb and overrun L/DNR forces. They didn't really believe Russia may escalate. And it seems just like in 2014 the current popular feeling in Ukrainian is Russia will not escalate further than what was in 2014. And since the Ukrainian Army is clearly prepared for the repetition of 2014 there may be a popular urge to try a military scenario again. What do you think?

Ahhh... Interesting. That's the case when a squad occupies two tiles, right? And that's about KE projectiles, right? Not about HE. Correct?

Yeah I do remember a post introducing MacOS port and mentioning some third-party libs provider. I had a MacBook Pro back then with a Bootcamp Win partition created solely to run CM. But that was years and years ago so I don't think I'll find it. A friend of mine wasted well over a grand for eGPU box and a decent video card. Some games can be goaded into working - some are not. But to succeed I'd have decent understanding of MacOS internals

Yeah, I understand that it was just an example in the BTG composition discussion. It's just the table was interesting so I started digging Yeah it seems that's more like a list of Russian Army units redeployed to Ukrainian border that were a potential threat to Ukrainian forces. But since it's an outdated information let's not make a big discussion out of it I'd rather ask your opinion on why the Ukrainian losses were so heavy? It's like 4.6:1 in all armored vehicles, 2:1 in tanks, 5:1 in SPG, 7:1 in APC/IFV.

Another funny observation about this strange table. I've finished checking air-mobile and airborne units and the table lists ALL AIR-MOBILE/AIRBORNE UNITS IN RUSSIA. So I do suspect the table was created by Ukrainian command as a justification of their high losses. To say they were fighting against all Russian Army.

What is the source of the table? Is it official reporting of Ukrainian military? The table looks really strange if we check it against lostarmor. The table claims there were 36 T-90s yet there's not a single loss of a T-90 recorded. The table claims 7 full airborne and air-mobile battalions armed with almost 250 BMD-2/BTR-D yet there's not a single loss of BTR-D recorded. IRL TO&E provides BTR-D to BMD-2 ratio of about 1 to 3 for airborne and 1 to 2 for air-mobile. There's only one recorded loss of BTR-82A though the table claims there were almost 80 of them deployed. L/DNR tank losses are 45 T-64s to 35 T-72s. T-64s are not used by Russian Army so if we assume losses were the same for T-64s and T-72s it means L/DNR deployed about a third more tank units than Russian Army. The table states the following composition of Russian artillery: 2C1 6 2C3 25-27 2C4 3 2C6 2 2C9 36 + one more whole arty unit 2C19 15 + one more whole arty unit 2C23 6 2C34 6 Whereas L/DNR losses state ten 2C1 and just one 2C19. So just L/DNR losses of 2C1 exceed all 2C1 deployed by Russian Army by ALMOST TWO TIMES whereas out of 93+ other artillery systems claimed to be deployed by Russian Army there's only one recorded loss. And I may go on and on. The table looks more like a list of all Russian units deployed along the Russian-Ukrainian border and an attempt by Ukrainian command to justify high losses of Ukrainian Army.

@Haiduk, thanks for the very detailed and as always interesting answer. From a quick research it seems Israel and China are the only sources of non-steel long rods in 125mm caliber apart from Russia. Why do you think Ukraine does not follow the path of drastically upgrading T-64 engines from 5TF to 6TD-x? 6TD production is still alive so it's low risk. Drastic increase in power output would allow significant increase in protection (we put aside balance of the turret and tank as a whole and shock-absorber upgrade). Staying within 5TF family does not give much room to play with. Money issue?

Try a ticket to the tech support. AFAIK MacOS CM is not a "native" app developed for MacOS from scratch - it's a rebuild of Windows app using some third-party libs/SW so it may be trickier that it seems.

If you mean near-peer conflicts then the battle will be decided long before the action comes to the grunts of CMxx-level. Or rather there's hardly a chance we could have CMBS action at all. So it's somewhat akin to the discussion that CMSF2 RPG-7 is too powerful compared to RL results as seen during Iraqi invasion. It's just CMSF2's weapon configuration is not present IRL and making it closer to RL would have made the game dull and uninteresting.

My take you will not want to play CMSFx after CMBS It feels like being teleported ten years back with very rudementary TacAI reactions. Though having CMSF1 and not upgrading it to CMSF2 is kinda lame now IMO. Upgrade price is really modest if you compare it to an all-new purchase.

1. Thanks for your kind words. 2. I don't really use them - very small teams - as scouts. They can't really see ****. Just pure baits. And as a bait a one man team is worse than a 2/3-men team in my experience. One-man team is too stealthy. Enemy just don't see them and I have to move this one-man team too close to make it seen and provoke the reaction. Spotting itself I do by full squads and a lot of them. These small teams are no more than a bait.

@Yskonyn, you can also use the logic of the engine to your advantage. 1. Infantry units become easyly spottable only starting from 4 mean teams and higher. A two-man team is really difficult for the enemy to spot beyond 300m. A three-man team is a middleground between 2 and 4 but also stealthy enough. So when you need to cross a dangerous open space with minimum losses then practice breaking down your squads into teams. Two teams of 3 soldiers are not the same as a squad of 6 even though both may occupy the same tile. 2. Probability to hit is also sharply decreases with the number of pixeltruppen in the unit. Two-men team can walk around under sparse small arms at 300m and farther and stay practically invincible. 3. If you have enough time and firepower to leverage over identified enemy contacts you can practice baiting. Make seen to the enemy a 2-3 team of yours and the engine is invariably open fire revealing its positions. 2-3 men team is more or less safe against moderate amount of small arms fire starting from 300m. If you make your bait team dwell for enough time and no fire was laid against them it means the there are no enemies. Just be careful with 2-men teams - they're really hard to spot. With 2-men team you'd better go closer to 200-250m distance. If you go straight with this approach then the downside will be that broken yet not eliminated enemy teams tend to cuddle in the most surprising places. So I myself prefer to go for full elimination whenever possible rather than mere casualties and suppression. Point 3 applies to PvE games. In PvP human opponent controls the fires so will hardly go for this lowly bait

1. In terms of penetrators - Ukraine is still using Mangos and predecessors or something else? 2. Has Ukraine set-up an indigenous production of long rods or it uses Soviet stocks?