c3k

Thanks!! Having enjoyed LAN play with CMBO/BB/AK with my sons AND having just returned an UNopened copy of Silent Hunter III due to its inclusion of Starforce copy protection, your games' licensing agreements are a huge boon to consumers. Thank you, Ken

Excellent!!

Hey Civdiv, Here's some gasoline for ya': Ask the NYT about their "right" to publish what they see as the truth. AND their "right" to go anywhere in the world as journalists which gives them automatic protection. Oh, and their "right" to access various arenas which the (ignorant) public are kept out of. (Have YOU ever been allowed into a press briefing? Why not?) Now try to explain to them that their "rights" are granted solely by the U.S. Constitution which is protected by (among others) the military. Sheeesh. Okay, I'm done fanning the flames.... Later, Ken

Gents, In "Thunder Run" there are various accounts of U.S. combat force reaction to being approached by various non-uniformed personnel. Force protection was paramount. Many vehicles were literally shredded by focused firepower. I would hope that any inclusion of non-uniformed combatants would be balanced by the different ROE of an invasion force in combat vice a police force trying to achieve social stability. Regards, Ken

Rollstoy, Ah, that's a very good question. The IED/suicide bomber is pretty ubiquitous (seemingly) in post-invasion Iraq. To what degree would an invasion force in Syria face these insurgent weapons? The Isreali experience in Lebonan versus Iranian Hezbollah would be a valid parallel. Regards, Ken

Michael, Nice article. Thanks for the link. Regards, Ken

Well, I'll disagree with all the fanboy "huzzahs" I'm reading. Why? Simply look at that road. C'mon: do the Syrians really paint double yellow lines (ala US style) down the middle of their roads? Hmmm, I thought not. If this is typical of the level of research, then I fear for this game. (Remove tongue from cheek) Cool. Thanks! Ken

Steve, Hmmm, first, yes, the game result of having the U.S. given a lot of fighter support should equate to the same effect as dedicated bomber support. So, no argument from me on that design perspective. The analogy you give regarding B-17's is a bit off. Perhaps you could come up with one using cars and/or beer? In WWII, CAS was in its infancy. The idea of a B-17 supporting a small infantry force is a great big apple. The idea of a B-52 on call to support modern U.S. ground forces is a huge orange. The mission exists, and is executed on a regular basis - especially in a non-insurgent open combat scenario. Hence YOUR analogy is apples to oranges. The AF has finally separated airframes from dedicated missions. You need to bomb a dam AND support a ground drive? Well, send the F-22/F-35 to hit the dam, and orbit a bomber with a loadout of 84 GPS guided (with real-time retargeting) bombs to support the ground pounders. The airframe and bomb loadout would be assigned based on priorities: if the ground attack is important, it WILL be supported by the best means available. Not by some preconcieved notion that bombers are too important to waste on ground support. In most modern combats, the deepstrike missions have been carried out to the exclusion of CAS, because the was little/no ground combat until AFTER the deepstrike operational goals had been achieved. The obvious example of "bomb trucks" being made available to ground units would be the campaign in Afghanistan. The above meant to fill in a possible misperception of modern USAF doctrine and capabilities, not to change the game vision. (Unless I can carpet bomb something!! Woot.) Regards, Ken

Hmmm, If memory serves, the B-2 just tested the ability to drop 84 bombs (SDB's I think), each independently targeted with significant slant range. I mention this to argue that there doesn't need to be repeated bombing runs, ala WWII, in order to have a single aircraft hit multiple targets, close or far from each other, nearly simultaneously. The "B" series aircraft have been heavily modified and trained to conduct tactical missions. Thanks, Ken

"No scenario...that would be any fun..."(with massed heavy bomber raids) WTF? Steve, sure you've made some good games, but are you out of your mind? C'mon. How much fun would it be to set up a friggin' bunch of Syrians - in a field - and then watch as the bombs rain out of the bellies of several squadrons of bombers? Sure, it's not balanced, but it would a cool demo... Do it: I dare you. Thanks, Ken

Bannon DC, well done! Thanks for the laugh. Regards, Ken

Obviously, the AC-130 fire will be visually simulated by a cone. If not, the ENTIRE immersion factor will be ruined. Ken

57.2 tons for the M1A1HC? What, is that without the engine, track, and gun? Sure, the bone is nice, but we can't let it go without picking a nit. Thanks, Ken

Cpl Steiner, Not to be pedantic, but why wouldn't a unit "exercising extreme caution" not actually increase its combat effectiveness? Sure, wild firing is reduced, therefore cool aimed fire increases which results in more effective downrange hits. Now, I'm not looking for a new thread on psychology under fire, but rather trying to show that the immediate in-game penalty/bonus may or may not be warranted without deeper research. I'm willing to bet that for every example you could give of reduced effectiveness due to friendly units, I could give a reasonable argument for why the effectiveness should increase. Nor do I doubt that you could do the same were I to argue my position as being the primary one. Regards, Ken

Hmmm, I've been browsing the site of a place called "Killernotebooks.com" . So far this little boutique maker has caught my interest. I haven't seen/heard a bad review - yet. You can pick and choose screen sizes, processors, gpus (within limits, of course). I'm also waiting for reviews on some more ASUS products. Any thoughts? Thanks, Ken

Oooh, ooooh, ooooh! How about one WITHOUT the glasses? Then, as you drive by, his eyes follow you? That'd be the mark of a REALLY good game. Ken

Hmmm, Fatigue penalty for transport. It sounds good, but I'd think there should be several variables which would play into the level of fatigue. - How "buttoned up" are you? A unit which can see out the top of an APC will be less prone to motion sickness. - How fast is the APC moving? A slow crawl by the transport vehicle should be far less enervating than a long-term, high-speed run. - How rough is the terrain? Highway is easy; cross country can be very hard. - As mentioned, some vehicles are worse than others. Just my two cents being thown into the wishing well. Carry on, Ken

Hey, Steve, Just to prove you don't harbor any antipathy towards LoneSyrian (and since he CAN browse these forums), I suggest you include beaucoup "LoneSyrian" graphics in CM:SF. You know, the odd billboard, a street sign, maybe a vehicle name painted on the barrel, a deserted OP, whatever. Put it up for a contest! Ken

Ah Ha! I found it! In Steve's second post in the "An example of Artillery in Action" thread he mentions, "...the other Paladin battery whack the trenches.."! That is why I presumed that CM:SF was using two gun sections as batteries. It would appear that I jumped on a simple error. If that is so, my apologies. Somehow, having read that sentence, I mentally assigned ALL references to the two gun section to being called a battery. That is not the case. The battery reference only appears once. I can once more enjoy life knowing that BF.C is NOT going to call two guns a battery. Whew, now I can purchase this game. Sorry for a tempest in a teacup. Carry on. Thanks, Ken

Tarkus, Exactly correct: that WAS the post I was thinking of. Fytinghellfish, Agreed, that seems to be occuring in Iraq right now, but CM:SF will be in Syria, in a different context than a counterinsurgency. Again, my question is, "Why are _batteries_ being portrayed in the CMSF artilley example as having only 2 guns?" Thanks, Ken

edit: EVERYTHING I posted below is apparently in error. BF.C only referenced a two gun section as a battery once (seemingly mistakenly). I presumed it was not a mistake, hence my post, below. None of it matters anymore, since I've now re-read the original thread. Thanks, Ken Gents, In the Arty AAR thread, BF.C uses A6 Paladins for their example. (Looks good, BTW!) My question: why are there only two guns in a unit labelled a "battery"? I thought it'd be 4 or 6, depending on timeframe and weapon. There was a response in that thread which touched on the subject, which intimated that the reason for Iraq deployed artillery to have fewer than standard guns these days was due to the lack of artillery usefulness in a counter-insurgency effort. Now, if I'm invading a country, I'm NOT going to start with a counterinsurgency mindset or force level. BF.C, why 2 guns per battery? If you stick with that, can it be modified in the editor? Thanks, Ken [ December 11, 2006, 05:40 PM: Message edited by: c3k ]

BF.C, Looks great! Thanks, Ken

BF.C, VERY nice! Thanks, Ken

Hmm, but will they set off RPG's? I see a forward thinking commander, such as myself <ahem>, cunningly affixing roadsigns and billboards to his Stryker platoon. Said platoon would then advance, slowly, and blend in with the urban environment. If spotted, the Syrian RPG's would harmlessly detonate on signs for wireless carriers, billboards for free dental exams by LoneSyrian - or somesuch. Ah, the possibilities..... Sounds good. Ken [ December 06, 2006, 04:06 AM: Message edited by: c3k ]

Schrullenhaft, Thank you. I figured it out... Not to get too technical, but it seems that it helps if you use the ACTUAL IP address of your networked machines, instead of using what you THOUGHT was their IP address. Also, I did not advance far enough into the CMBB menu to enable CMBB to be "receptive" to the incoming data packets. RTFM would apply. Thanks again! Regards, Ken