elementalwarre

i've asked that opengl 1.2.1 be posted to software updates. if it is i'll post the link here

a few possible reasons offhand: - for students, school's back in session - for software geeks, there's (insert some convention date) waiting for our product to ship. no offense, i'm in this category! - we've all gone catatonic waiting for CM 1.1 - new guys are searching, then asking. hey, it could happen - there are 140k+ messages in 12k+ threads. finding a genuinely new topic's gotten harder - CM's not picking up as many new players since all its killer reviews are not in the latest issue of (insert favorite game mag/site here) i don't mind the first 5 but the last one would be annoying please ship CM 1.1...aside from catatonia my tongue's tired of drooling...by now even dogs are disgusted by it [This message has been edited by elementalwarre (edited 11-22-2000).] [This message has been edited by elementalwarre (edited 11-22-2000).]

past posts, mine included, asking for contemporary versions of CM were stumped by modern weapon range vs possible map size what if onmap weapons were restricted to man-portable, plus the usual swarm of offmap support? of course direct fire range also doesn't help as much in rough terrain, so perhaps just having maps limited to rough terrain would be enough just my $0.02. right now i oscillate between TacOps and CMBO. one's modern but isn't as immersive, the other's WW2 but has a slicker UI. i'm gonna crack under the strain

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by aikidorat: I notice that it isnt posted at apple yet, any idea when? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> not before the next mac os 9 system software release, sorry however, since the fixed ATI software is shipping, anyone is welcome to ask me to send it to them. just reply to this message via email who, me post? says who? i hacked the bbs, of course. why bother accumulating messages when you can just set a bit instead

a bit more info, although it's still more marketing than technical: http://www.army-technology.com/projects/piranha/index.html some of the configs are ATGM, fire support, and recon. pillar, whatever the intended use, i'd bet long odds that those configs will be right in the middle of firefights pretty damn often

for a -bit- more info see http://www.generaldynamics.com/news/press_releases/2000/F riday,%20November%2017,%202000%20Images/IAV%20Specsheet2.pdf with add-on armor it'll take an rpg-7 hit. oh joy. so a 25mm bushmaster burst or any modern AT missile would brew it up? i'd usually agree some armor's better than none, but -this- light?! someone please tell me the brochure's just disinformation. -please-. armor this light isn't cavalry, it's just juicier targets than straight leg infantry just my civvie $0.02

FWIW - these are the most recent drivers that i've seen anywhere and they've been tested across all macs. speaking as an apple software guy, by all means use them! now i'll go beat my head on a wall. finding every way apple software ships, plus when that software ships, has been that !@$!! frustrating john, aka mac os integration engineer

think about it like this: - sprint 100 meters with a rifle - safety on and nothing in the receiver! - stop and shout 'pull!' to your friend, standing at the distance where the target covers the same arc as a tank at 200 meters, or whatever distance you think a gunner should hit accurately - see how many shots hit tell your friend to be behind sandbags/trees/stuff that will stop a bullet you might be surprised. i know i was, even more than having my friend agree to do it note this is while you're -not- being shot at. also you're using a machine with rather less to adjust than a tank cannon

if the US navy's serious about going brown-water, bet they're reevaluating firepower vs survivability, brilliant weapons vs suppress that square, and all the other tradeoffs. littoral warfare looks a lot more similar to land warfare than fighting off the continental shelf

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Pillar: Then why are we so reluctant to do this same "modernizing" of ground forces? Missiles, light armour, speed, and air cover all work the same way on wheels as they do on keels. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> modernization is necessary, but a lot of what's suggested doesn't necessarily apply on land how do you fire missiles when you've run out because you can only afford 4 per unit? how do you fire missiles at a spoof target or one you can't lock onto since it's in rough terrain? will that light armor help when you have to attack through a kill zone, or into rough terrain, or through a barrage? however fast you are, you can't outrun the 30mm chain gun that just ripped a burst right through the LAV next to you how good is air cover if the opponent has effective anti-air, or hugs your forces, or the weather's bad? i'm -not- saying missiles, speed, etc aren't useful. i'm saying that betting on them -alone- has clear costs for land units

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Compassion: Probably the desire to prevent ahistorical use of crews or depleted AT teams as disposable shock troops or fill ins in the line. That's what prompted the current state of affairs, I think (the Forum of last year is so hazy). <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> their morale's hammered, they may have casualties, and they probably have little ammo for their personal defense weapons. er, -what- shock troops? dunno. to me it may be going too far towards enforcing weapon team uselessness to say they've no other weapons. change victory points or something, but leave the teams as they really were bailed-out vehicle crews i understand, but weapon teams?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Los: Once a year, (Around August I believe), Ft Bragg hosts an open house and the 82d Airborne Division Association convention is held. Part of it is a Division review and they also have a live Fire Exercise out at OP5 which I believe is open to the public<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> august? it's every august and you tell us NOW?! TEN MONTHS to the next one?! AAARGH! can't...take...it...that...long

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Schrullenhaft: elementalwarre - What did they end up putting in Haiti after the US forces left ? I think that there was some sort of international police force (though it isn't "permanently" organized) that was set up. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> yes, haiti had an international police force. minus US participation, it didn't stabilize the country very well. check cnn archives

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Splinty: Guys,the Army isn't giving up ALL it's heavy units<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> this article says otherwise: http://www.usnews.com/usnews/issue/000918/tank.htm granted this won't finish until 2031, but by then this says there will be -no- heavy armor this is part of why i'm skeptical. assuming excellent intel and that opponents will attack against a defense from good terrain sounds like a rand institute sim, not reality

ok, CM's currently written so a heavy weapon team has that weapon and nothing else what prevents a patch, or CM2, or the next engine rev from treating a weapon team the same as a squad or half-squad? ie squads have a weapon mix, why not a weapon team?

cyrano01, just checking - did you try several times with the units that refused to cross the hedge? perhaps it's a probability not a boolean?

i often don't agree with US foreign policy committing forces to peacekeeping missions in the first place...but that's another thread entirely given a policy i do agree with, then military OOTW are ok IF - the military's primary purpose is not affected - there are plausible exit strategies to me, the current bombing of iraq, the somalia humanitarian mission, etc do NOT meet these criteria. on peacekeeper missions, i think police - possibly with infantry training and equipment plus nonlethal weapons, but still primarily police - should be the primary force with military units as backup using the military for peacekeeping means dulling their warfighting edge. violently imposing your will on an opponent is a lot different than maintaining a status quo that's why i asked has anyone considered a separate OOTW force. i suppose i really mean a separate peacekeeping force, since there are OOTW which need warfighting abilities i don't see the UN doing such a force well until it has a reliable budget. that leads into yet another thread as for desert shield - sending airborne was a bluff. sending marines was not. i'm curious how the transformed US army will complement what the marines already do. hopefully the usual interservice rivalry could ease up a bit here note: it's been 20+ years since US president carter declared the RDF. i don't think we've come nearly far enough since then 'the future of war' had video clips of imaginary wheeled vehicles meant to replace the M1A1. if those are what Def Bungis refers to, i hope field tests are laughing them back into the lab. high profile, exposed wheels...very cute. maybe hasbro's squad leader could use them in a GI Barbie mod

thought-provoking episode last night, although it really focuses only on the US army, not all warfare if you pay attention to current military issues, it's nothing new otherwise, i think it's well worth watching if it's on again some questions: - ok, the army's preparing for operations other than war (OOTW). what if we get into a major conflict? ok, such a conflict may be less likely now. i still don't want to see the US military assuming it won't happen and so changing training and equipment, and getting a bloody nose as a result from china/some islamic federation/(insert favorite bogeyman here) - US army chief of staff shinseki wants to change the US army to be more rapidly deployable, with more firepower once it arrives. good, but it still looks like the marines are the first to go. are they? - it's plausible that concentrating on OOTW will leave the US military less ready to fight a major war. what have people said/thought about a separate OOTW force? - france is doing a relatively radical reorg with combat battalions and support units grouping into task forces as needed. might that flexibility better serve the US army than ready brigades? - there was no comment on how to fight a non-battlefield opponent as robert bunker, steven metz, et al have described. what if someone uses computer viruses, attacks our civilian logistics, embeds their command/control in civilian areas...?

count me in - cupertino, aka south bay

wow we're good at veering off. we've long since left even ghengis jim's question, let alone CM <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Chupacabra: IMO, asking a question like "how many Americans are you willing to see die" is like asking someone if they've stopped beating their wife. No answer is going to be satisfactory. I think that if the US wants to lay claim to the term "superpower," we absolutely do have to be active in maintaining peace in other parts of the world. Strict isolationism - tend to your own farm, ignore everything else - simply wouldn't work now. ...the US will need to remain involved in world politics if for no other reason than pure self-interest. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> chupacabra, i snipped the quote to bits relevant to my comments. not trying to change the substance of your statement! not arguing for isolationism. that's economically impossible and arguably assumes a too-optimistic worldview i am arguing against being the world's cop - not quite the role i see the US filling right now, BTW if you put people in dangerous places SOME WILL DIE. too bad if that's not a nice answer. it's true, almost as inevitably as gravity. deal with it or -do not send them- world has several conflicts which won't stop unless the cultures change in those areas. to keep the peace in such places, be prepared to post troops in them for at -least- a generation, even longer if you don't use the time to transform the culture. this means be prepared for a steady dribble of troops killed for at -least- a generation if you want to be altruist, fine. will you personally stand guard when -all- sides shoot at you when they're not stealing from and cursing you instead?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Croda: This has lead us to today, where it is impossible to not be aware of what happens around the world, and cold-hearted not to help when the chips are down for another country <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> hmm. i think CM's moderators have been pretty liberal about going off-topic. just to abuse the privilege, i'll add my bit here oh, it's quite possible to be ignorant of current events. meet my roommates. IMHO unless you look beyond mainstream news sources, in the US it's quite possible to not know about current events in most of the world, or to only see a distorted view as for coldhearted, sure, i'd gladly be guilty as charged. IMHO the US is NOT the world's cop. it should protect its interests, -period- being humanitarian sounds great, sure. however, try looking at it this way: how many americans are you willing to see die? how much american money should be spent on an area which may well not matter to US interests? that's the equation, like it or not if you haven't lived outside the US, or at least tried other news sources than network news/cnn/mainstream newspapers, please consider your answer carefully. the world is decidedly different than what mainstream US news shows

FWIW - i suggested the following in several threads. see 10595 or 10611 in this forum. IMHO it would do what you want however, the suggestion apparently faded into the ether. i never heard whether any BTS people or beta testers even read the suggestion. oh well oh yeah - my suggested command's poorly named, i just wrote the first thing i thought of. any better names are welcome! --------- watch direction/watch area. aim at and observe that direction, plus an arc to each side. works much like rotate. click is watch direction, control-click is watch the area control-clicked. the length of the bar from the unit to the pointer tells how much arc to watch or how large an area. shorter bar, more arc/larger area. longer bar, less arc/smaller area

ok, german optics may not have a measurable effect on gun accuracy however, they may have some measurable effect on spotting distant targets. if there's evidence for this, is it modeled in CMBO?

see http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/Forum1/HTML/006772.html how about this in targeting: let a unit fire through smoke, fog, or night with the accuracy of area fire/unobserved fire. if a weapon hasn't moved since scenario start, its accuracy goes up. this is mostly for suppressing fire and automatic weapon grazing fire IMHO the advantage of absolute spotting telling someone too much about where to fire is balanced by less accuracy and the greater realism in being able to fire through at all

jeez people, give him some hope of course there's an escape crepitis, you'll just barely manage to break away...when CM2 ships