Vanir Ausf B

No problem It could be. Depends on the context. I do not consider the fact (and I will treat it as a given for the sake of argument) that the US made a mistake in invading Iraq as a blanket justification for anything anyone does against the US in general, or against any individual US citizen. Some may disagree. Speaking for myself, I will readily admit the US has made mistakes. What country hasn't? But that doesn't mean I turn against them. I recognize others don't owe any such loyalty. But I'm open about what side I'm on.

I already said I was pleased to see OBL get whacked. I can't very well be in favor of that, but opposed to what you say.

The question is, are the people Wikileaks punishing the ones who have committed a wrong? In some cases yes, but in others no.

That's right. And it was a poor justification for a stupid war. But there was, and is, another war in a different country. It's called Afghanistan. You may have heard about it. It was people involved in that war that were affected by the Wikileaks publication of 75,000 Afghan war documents last year. You can't just keep dredging up Iraq as justification for whatever action suits your fancy in perpetuity. I have said no such thing.

So the Iraq war justifies "payback" as you put it? I don't know who's formulation it was, but I have heard that two wrongs don't make a right.

Well, Bigduke you've done a fine job cherry picking out a few turds to hold up in the air, but I don't think even you would claim they are representative of the majority, and the exceptions to not prove the rule. The problem here, as always, is that Wikileaks does not discriminate between the worthy and unworthy. It is true that those who join any organization voluntarily assume the risks inherent with that profession, but IMO there is no reason to believe that the majority of people working at the State Department, or any other government agency, are engaged in betraying the public trust. I will also reiterate my point that most of the people put at risk are not US government employees, but people in the host nations who have been working with them.

Clearly they have caused some short-term embarrassment, some of it well-justified, some of it not. The long term effect, I feel, will not be towards the voluntary publication of internal diplomatic communication and intelligence sources. Rather, I think it will lead to the greater compartmentalizing of information, i.e. less communication and more secrecy.

My Google-foo must be weak. With regards to Wikileaks my search didn't bring up anything more salacious than the size of Blair's speaking fee since he left office. Pretty much no one reads the cables US diplomats write? That has the smell of an invented fact. If the cables had been full of the public relations-friendly talking points you suggest no one would have cared if they were leaked. If you had actually read them you would know there is a lot of candid assessment contained therein. It is the very lack of diplo-speak that has made it impossible for some of the authors to continue on in that capacity, NOT malfeasance. Let me make sure I have your train of logic understood: The US State Department is working against the interests of the US public. We would therefore be better off if there was no US State Department. The people working there know this or should know this so whatever happens to them is no more than what they deserve. Assuming for the moment that my reading is more-or-less correct, would it be the case that this is not only true of the State Department, but much of if not all the rest of the US Government? It seems a logical deduction from your premise, unless we were to assume the State Department is somehow much different in it's purpose than the rest of the US government (it would also lead to the conclusion that we would be better off without the US government, period). What about the Department of Defense and its employees, otherwise known as the US armed forces. Are they also engaged in a betrayal of the public trust and therefore deserving of whatever fate their bad karma leads them to? Of course, all of this ignores the fact that with regard to the State Department, it is not it's employees who are the most at risk. It's the people in the host countries they have been in contact with. The day Wikileaks becomes the unelected, unsupervised arbiter of right and wrong in the world is the day we are truly screwed. Fortunately, I suspect this may be their last hurrah.

Not any foreign citizen, but I was pleased when OBL got whacked. I am pleased when those who share his cause, or something close to it, meet their end, e.g. the Taliban. I have no problem admitting which side I am on.

You one of those people who gets a little smile on his face when he hears of some US soldiers killed by an IED, eh.

So the logic is that all information should be public? There is no such thing as legitimate secrets? The issue is that people who have done nothing wrong are being punished, or at least are being put at risk.

That's as whitewashed a view of Wikileaks as I've ever seen. If Wikileaks was only about exposing governments lying to their own people I think a lot more people would be supportive. But they are not nearly so discriminating. Rather, their true mission appears to be to expose nearly every bit of non-public information they get their hands on, most of which does not appear to represent illegal or immoral action. I call bullsh1t. How many of Blair's lies has Wikileaks exposed? A lot of the people named in these cables are guilty of nothing more than doing their job. The same is true of their exposure of Afghans working with NATO. What good came of that? The fact is Wikileaks is reckless and unworthy of the faith some persist in having in them.

I read something regarding the files containing the name of an Australian intelligence officer. If true it could open Assange up to prosecution in his home country.

I did some tests on the killing efficiency of US rocket artillery a couple of months ago. I put a company of German infantry in a 200m diameter circle of heavy forest terrain type without trees, spreading them out semi-evenly within that area. I then dropped 81mm and T27E2 rockets on their heads 10 times for each. The number of 81mm mortar rounds that fell in each test varied from 74-114 using a short/heavy mission with 200m diameter area fire, but averaged 98.6, which was very close to the rockets' 96 (the rockets always fired exactly 96 rockets per test). 960 rockets inflicted 257 casualties. 986 81mm mortar rounds inflicted 351 casualties. That comes out to .268 casualties per rockets fired and .356 casualties per mortar round fired. The advantage the mortars enjoy is presumably due to the wide dispersion of the rockets, far more of which fell outside the 200m fire zone. But consider what you are paying. A battery of 2 off-board 81mm mortars costs 156 points. For that you get 100 HE rounds, 10 HE-heavy rounds and 8 smoke. That comes out to 1.32 purchase points per mortar round. A battery of T27E2 rockets costs 85 points, for which you get 384 HE rockets. That comes out to .221 purchase points per rocket. .221 x 960=212.5 pts worth of rockets expended. Divided the 257 casualties by that and we have 1.21 casualties inflicted per purchase point spent for rockets. 1.32 x 986=1303.5 pts worth of mortars expended. Divide the 351 casualties by that and we get .27 casualties inflicted per purchase point spent on 81mm mortars. So, rockets are indeed not particularly dangerous individually, but when you consider how cheap they are and how many of them you get they are extremely efficient with regard to cost. In fact, they are 4.5 times more efficient at killing that 81mm mortars. Of course there are other factors to consider. Rockets have a significantly longer response time, 8 minutes vs. 4-5 minutes for 81mm mortars. They also require an FO while the mortars do not. So there is that. But how much is that worth? Consider the German Nebelwerfer 41. It's has a bigger and presumably more powerful rocket at 159mm vs. the US rocket 114mm. But you only get 180 of them per battery, less than half as many as the T27E2. The Nebelwerfer 41 also requires an FO and has a delay time of 13 minutes. The Nebelwerfer 41 appears to be inferior to the T27E2 in all aspects except explosive power per round. And yet one batter costs 351 points, over 4 times that of the US T27E2. So I'm going to stick with my contention that US rockets are ridiculously under-priced. It is either that or German rockets are ridiculously over-priced. Or both.

Allied aircraft are only 60 points? I don't have the game in front of me but I don't recall them being that cheap. One thing that is ridiculously cheap is US rocket artillery. I think most players ban it's use in QBs.

According to the manual the speed at which C2 information spreads is the same at all difficulty levels except Basic training.

I don't have the game in front of me so I can't be sure of the unit points, but IIRC you could buy 2 Schrecks with 75 points, correct? It really depends on the map with regards to size and terrain and expected enemy force composition. Assuming it is a typical CMx2 QB, i.e. company-sized cage match fought on a tiny square of land with "Mixed" force-type, 2 Schrecks would likely be of more use than one 50mm gun. Even if you can only buy 1 Schreck it may be a better choice.

So far as we know, it is not a bug. It's one of those "engine limitation"-type thingies, in which case it should have been documented in the manual. It is very confusing for players who don't live on the forums. Highly recommended reading.

It may be instructive to separate QBs from scenarios. That would give you a better idea of scenario design vs. game mechanics.

There have been several good explanations put forth here, all of which I think are contributing factors. If I had to pick which are the largest factors, I would say smaller battle size + longer battle length. The fewer forces you have, the more significant each event becomes. Losing a tank or having an arty barrage land on a concentration of infantry is more difficult to recover from with fewer reserves. The snowball effect builds quicker. Longer game length allows time for the advantaged side to pummel the other side into the dirt.

My testing has been unable to find any such difference. The distance from a Pl. HQ at which a squad loses it's voice C2 contact icon is typically 7 action spots in both Warrior and Iron. The distance at which the visual icon changes from near to far is 13 action spots. This is on flat grass.

Response times for Warrior, Elite and Iron are identical.

German artillery delay times can be found here, courtesy of Gunnulf. A partial list of US artillery delay times from my own testing with normal quality units: 60mm mortar: 4 minutes via FO, 3 via TRP, HQ not tested 81mm mortar: 5 minutes via FO, 3 via TRP, HQ not tested 4.2 inch (107mm) mortar: 8 minutes via FO, 5 via TRP, HQ not tested 105mm towed: 7 minutes via FO, 3 via TRP, 11 via HQ 105mm SP Priest: 7 minutes via FO, 4 via TRP, 11 via HQ 155mm M1: 7 minutes via FO, 4 via TRP, 12 via HQ 203mm (8 inch): 10 minutes via FO, 6 via TRP, HQ denied 240mm Black Dragon: 16 minutes via FO, 12 via TRP, HQ denied Note: there is some random variation in response times from unit to unit even between units of identical quality, so your times in-game will not always match what I have here.

I don't think that is possible. Did you initially have access to the artillery and then later lose it? Are you certain the unit was an FO and not an HQ? If it happens again post the game file for people to look at. I think you have either overlooked some factor, or you have found a bug.

Unless there was something wrong with the FO, i.e. he was dead, I can't think of any reason it would not have access to an off-map artillery asset.