Erwin
-
Posts
17,463 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
32
Posts posted by Erwin
-
-
Brilliant if it can be done...
-
Ah... well plz put me on the waiting list.
-
Amazing. Looking forward to the release.
-
Great job Laurent. You have become the snow version champion akin to Aris.
-
That's terrific, Phil. Thank you!
-
3 hours ago, Centurian52 said:
One could argue that, I but think they'd be wrong. We called everyone who fought against us in Iraq and Afghanistan terrorists because it was fashionable at the time to call everyone we didn't like terrorists. Not because it actually made any sense to characterize their actions as terrorism. For the most part, when they were targeting US or coalition forces, I think it would be far more accurate, and far more consistent with how we treat pre-21st century wars, to characterize them as guerrilla fighters.
Fair comment... "Guerrilla warfare is violent action taken within the normally accepted rules and procedures of international diplomacy and laws of war. In contrast, the violence in terrorism is directed mainly against civilian targets, and the terrorist's goal is publicity."
But, another example closer to home is the terrorist actions of the colonies vs the British in 1776-83. To the Brits the revolutionaries were terrorists - until they got big and organized enuff to be recognized as an official army. It's a question of which side of the table one is on. One's side's "terrorists" is the other side's "freedom fighters".
The process of legitimization appears to be: Once a terrorist "organization" gets big and strong enuff it can become reclassified as a "guerrilla" conflict. Once it gets more recognition (esp internationally) the conflict can become recognized as an "Insurgency". If it continues to win and gain support, it becomes an "official" army. It's rather like how a cult, once it gets enough members, money and power, can evolve into an accepted "religion".
https://books.openedition.org/pulm/15688?lang=en
The only statement I was disagreeing about was that terrorism has "no realistic hope of achieving a political objective". I get the impression that when terrorism succeeds and they become a legitimate new political power or even a government, we witness the phenomenon of history being swiftly rewritten to ignore/eliminate the terroristic genesis and make it appear as if the struggle was always legitimate and fair.
-
If you expand a compressed folder and look at the uniform bmp's, you will probably see there are uniforms for airborne, mech, inf etc etc. All those mods will work together (ie: will not overwrite each other) but you will only see the mod in the game if there is a matching unit.
-
Best to create a folder for each mod that is in a zip/brz file. Name it the same as the brz folder so you know what it is in it. Expand that zip/brz and place all the files from that brz into the newly created folder. You can then delete the brz/zip folder. Do NOT expand all the files within several zip/brz folders into the same folder!
"Do i only place one uniform folder at a time in the game Z folder and the game will use that uniform ?" That depends on whether the mod names are the same for all the mods. First, per the above, expand all the brz/zip folders into separate folders that are named appropriately. So if you have 5 zip/brz folders, you should end up with 5 folders with the expanded files inside. (At that point you can delete the compressed folders.)
Take a look at the expanded file names in one folder with the names in the other folder(s). If they are named differently, the appropriate mod will appear when the matching unit appears in the game. However, if the names of the individual mod files are the same for both folders, then you can only have one mod appear in the game at any time. IN this case, the way one selects which mod will appear, is to add one or more "Z's" as a prefix to your newly created folder with all the files inside. Eg: If one has 4 mod folders (Mod name 1, Mod name 2, Mod name 3, Mod name 4) full of uniform files which are named the same s and one wants Mod 3 to appear. Rename Mod name 3 to "Z Mod name 3" and that ensures that Mod 3 is loaded last and therefore appear in the game. One can use as many "Z's" as one wants so for example, I have many mods named "ZZZ <Mod name> so that folder loads after "ZZ <Mod name>.
My explanation seems complex, but the process sounds more complex than it really is. Once you get the hang of handling mods it is very easy.
-
On 11/29/2023 at 3:29 PM, Centurian52 said:
Terrorist attacks are conducted without any realistic hope of achieving any tangible political objective.
Disagree there. One could argue that all attacks in Afghanistan were terroristic, but it got the US out (eventually). Ditto the bombing of the King David Hotel in 1946 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_David_Hotel_bombing) was part of the effort to create Israel and get the Brits out.
-
Mods (usually) go in My Documents/Battlefront/<Game Name>/User Data/Mods. It depends on how you installed the game. But that's where you should find your mods.
Best to extract files from the zip or brz folder into a folder with a similar name so you know what you have in that folder. That folder can then be placed into your Mods folder. You can extract all mods and place the files in separate folders that are named appropriately. How you name the folder will determine which is read last and therefore which mods will appear in the game. So, one can use the prefix "Z" before the folder name to ensure a folder is read last. One can use as many "ZZZ's" as you want to have folders loaded in a certain order.
-
Interesting WSJ short excerpt on "How to Avoid Defeat in Ukraine"
The German tabloid “Bild” said the quiet part out loud. President Biden and German Chancellor Olaf Scholz, the well-sourced newspaper reported, plan to force Ukraine into peace talks next year by denying it the weapons needed to win.This creates a dilemma for those who know that Ukraine’s fate matters deeply to the U.S., but who can also see that Team Biden is more interested in avoiding confrontation with Russia than in defeating it. To oppose aid to Ukraine is to ensure a Russian victory, but funding Mr. Biden’s approach will do little to prevent one—and will further erode public support for America’s global engagement.
Having failed to deter Vladimir Putin from invading Ukraine in the first place, the Biden administration badly overestimated the effect of Western sanctions on Russia. Once it was clear that sanctions wouldn’t force Russia to end the war, and after several failed efforts to tempt Russia with “off ramps,” Team Biden cooked up Plan Stalemate. The West would dribble out enough aid to help Ukraine survive, but not enough to help it win. Ultimately, the Ukrainians would lose hope of victory and offer Mr. Putin a compromise peace. The White House would spin this as a glorious triumph for democracy and the rule of law.
Some will criticize this as a cynical strategy, but the real problem is that it is naive. Mr. Biden seems to be clinging to the idea that Mr. Putin can be appeased—parked, if you prefer—by reasonable concessions. And so, the White House thinks, if Ukraine offers reasonable terms, Russia will gladly accept them.
But what if, when Mr. Putin senses weakness, he doubles down? What if a few thousand square miles of Ukrainian territory matter less to him than inflicting a humiliating defeat on the Biden administration and demonstrating the weakness of the West?
Mr. Putin has recovered from his early stumbles in Ukraine. Russia has more than doubled its forces there since the war began. Despite early setbacks, Russia has developed capabilities and tactics that have improved its troops’ effectiveness on the battlefield. The unconventional (if morally repugnant) decision to send released prisoners to fight in such places as Bakhmut and Avdiivka means that Russia was able to degrade some of Ukraine’s best combat units while preserving its own best units for battle elsewhere.
Russia has increased weapons production and is now manufacturing ammunition an estimated seven times faster than the West. It has mitigated the effect of Western sanctions. It is strengthening military and strategic links with Iran, and thanks to Iranian protégé Hamas, Western attention has shifted from Ukraine toward the Middle East.
Article continues:
-
If you haven't tried it yet, Paper Tiger's "Gung Ho" new version is xnt. for your next (USMC) campaign.
-
I can send you that (2011 version ok?) - drop me PM.
-
-
Good to know. Thanx for testing. I will try resupplying my sniper from an M2.
-
22 hours ago, PEB14 said:
...what are you expercting from CMFB's last module save for the "'last ditch' efforts on the West Front" ? I still don't understand why it's not a CMBN module, the same way R2V was to CMFI.
It certainly does feel like it would be a module for CMBN. But, they already have all the late war stuff for Germany and the US in CMFB.
22 hours ago, Vacillator said:All hail Phil. Early war Phil. Korean war Phil.
And save a few hails for North Afrika Phil, Greek Phil etc. etc.
Yeah, we love Phil, long time
.
+1 Phil is single-handedly giving us early war and N. Africa/DAK (and Korea) - and it's free. People should be jumping onto his mods. Maybe folks do not appreciate free stuff?
-
5 hours ago, Brille said:
I suppose those rounds are not loaded on any vehicle.
Yeah. Unfortunately CM2 does not seem to allow for the sniper 50 cal to have any way to resupply. Not sure why. What about the M2 Humvee with the 50 cal? Any idea why that ammo is also different from what is used in the AAV?
-
Unless something has changed due to an update: Units out of ammo will automatically SHARE one mag at a time from an adjacent unit with the same ammo. Re mortars, IIRC the mortars have to be from the same formation to share ammo. Am not sure if the same limitation exists for inf units.
..."ammo sharing between infantry doesnt need both parties to be alive." After 16 years of playing CM2, there is always something new to learn. Thanks!
However, note that this method of ammo sharing only works so long as the units are close to each other. So, one cannot move an out of ammo unit away from the action to acquire ammo from another leg unit of WIA/KIA. As soon as the out of ammo unit moves away from a WIA/KIA unit it will be back to "out of ammo".
Have for years asked that units to be able to voluntarily acquire ammo from adjacent leg and vehicle units with no need to mount the vehicle. Often one has to split an inf unit in order to mount a vehicle. Then next turn one acquires. Then next turn one dismounts and joins the parent unit. Usually it takes another turn to recombine before one can use that unit. So, 4 turns/minutes and a lot of clicking and micro-management.
There should be limitations of how much can be acquired from an adjacent unit. But that already exists. Maybe a time delay before the unit can again to account for the time to share out the ammo. But, that shouldn't take mare than 1 minute, not the current 4 minutes..
-
Anyone had any success acquiring 50 cal from a Marine AAV? I figured it must be the same 50 cal as on the M114/M2. But, a mounted M2 team cannot acquire more ammo. Haven't tried a Mk 211 sniper team acquiring more 50 cal.
-
23 minutes ago, Vacillator said:
At the same time we'll release a new Module that will extend the timeframe through to the end of the war and introduce Commonwealth Forces plus the last ditch forces of the Third Reich.
Aside from CW forces I thought that was what the Berlin module was about. Not convinced that sort of late war rout of German forces will be that compelling. Early War and N. Africa is what many of us were hoping for. Koh has been doing sterling volunteer work making Early War a reality. But, it's sad that BF shows no interest. I suppose the next step will be CM3.
-
5 hours ago, Andrew Kulin said:
Maybe also allow soldiers from the same side speak freely with other troops from the same side. Seems to me that if I have infantry within 10 feet of a tank, and the infantry sees enemy tanks moving towards their position while their own tank does not (in my experience, a very high probability with Soviet Forces in CMCW for example), that information is not passed onto the tank. You would think there should be no problem hollering this out to the tank crew parked nearby.
Seems to me this does not happen because of chain of command things - information has to be passed up the chain and then back down again. Which is fine for information from a squad 500 m away from said tank reporting tank movement near their position and that this information then eventually makes it way to said tank as a contact in that area 500 m away as it gets passed up to the overall HQ and then back down to other units. But it just does not look like these same infantry units directly relay the information to other units within voice range of them, at least not to units under a differnt command chain.
One also experiences this in modern titles where a unit spots an enemy tank, and one moves an ATGM unit to the spotter's position. Even after a few minutes, the ATGM team may still be unable to see the same tank that the the spotter that they are literally sitting on top of can see. Just as you say... units immediately adjacent to each other should be able to communicate with each other regardless of what formation they are a part of.
-
My recollection from decades ago was being told that the Brits focused on training for carefully aimed shots rather than mass auto fire. Partly a money-saving strategy due to budget issues and also an attempt to reduce the logistical tail of ammo resupply. In WW2 it seems that in order to reduce casualties since Britain was literally running out of men, the Brit way of fighting depended on HMG's and lots of artillery. Not sure about today, but is this the same for Cold War era? In the CM game, the original limitations on map sizes means that most scenarios featured short range combat which gave everyone the impression that the SMG was the best weapon. These days, we are seeing much larger maps so perhaps rifles will regain their RL dominance. But, this still depends on designers creating situations for longer range firefights, and most CM designers still create situations where one is fighting with shorter range LOS - where the mass fire of SMG's are most useful.
-
1 hour ago, Anthony P. said:
tree branches and brush really shouldn't stop AP shells or APFSDS cold.
From your mouth to BF's ears. This has been complained about since CM2 was released in 2007. Ridiculous that a viable CM2 tactic to make your vehicle indestructible is to hide behind a tree.
Another big issue is that modern ATGM vehicles with telescopic optics and missile launchers are not modeled properly so that in order to fire (say) a TOW, one has to reveal the entire top of the vehicle - making that ATGM vehicle very vulnerable and hence we are unable to use them as in RL.
-
5 hours ago, PEB14 said:
The two versions might be VERY different if all troops were changed to green.
That's the main reason I tend to keep versions. But, some versions are designed to replace earlier ones and some are different enuff to be new scenarios. It would be appreciated if the designer made it clear.
How Hot is Israel Gonna Get?
in Combat Mission Shock Force 2
Posted · Edited by Erwin
It's good that this is coming out. Bizarre that Hamas is not concerned about the torture, beheading, burning alive etc. But, very upset of being accused of raping. Thank you for the links, Greg.