Erwin

Yes, get well soon, chum.

Very interesting. Thanks...

All uncon forces have figured out the principles of asymmetric war at this point. I can't recall the last time uncon forces stood around in the open allowing themselves to be slaughtered (Zulus maybe?). So, imo your 2nd proposition makes more sense. (That could involve holding territory but only if it would be very nasty for Blue to take it - like MOUT/Mosul etc ops.)

Am I the only one - many of the above pics and videos are blacked out on my system... (Am currently traveling outside US if that makes a difference.)

I think he means is the skirt merely eye-candy in the game?

You seem to miss the point: "...USAF pilots predominantly flying drones these days)." ie: The majority of USAF pilots these days are drone pilots. That is accurate and easily researched and has little to do with the current actual number of drones. That's a clear indication of where things are going. Next will be drone AFV's (and I predict, ships). No reason to waste energy debating this now. Let's simply revisit this thread in about 10 years.

You need to stay up to date, mate: "Carlisle, commander of Air Combat Command, called the drones "One of the most valuable battlefield assets" and said that drone operations had increased fivefold since 2006, with 8,000 airmen supporting these flights." http://edition.cnn.com/2016/03/17/politics/air-force-pilot-shortage/ "...used to be the airmen controlling drones were considered “pilot-wannabes” in the Air Force, but the Air Force is currently looking to fill 300 military jobs for drone pilots, making the position more desirable." https://www.usmilitary.com/29254/air-force-military-jobs-drone-pilots/ https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/06/us/air-force-drones-terrorism-isis.html?_r=0 https://www.airforcetimes.com/articles/air-force-offers-bonuses-up-to-175-000-for-drone-pilots Tons more info you can Google easily. The point is that they need a lot more pilots than aircraft. Where I live, Uber has saturated the place with testing self-drive vehicles. If that becomes common in the next ten years, am certain that autonomous/remote control AFV's will be very close. As with aircraft, once you remove the life-support and AFV armor, you could build many for the same price as current AFV. And performance can increase dramatically once you remove human crew. Also, friendly casualties will no longer be the huge issue it is today. And major ships like aircraft carriers can radically change once most aircraft are autonomous or remote piloted. Just think it through. The changes that are coming could be enormous.

Reading many of the forums here, one gets the sense that people are still trying to fight the last war with mass tanks akin to how the world entered WW1 with romantic images of horse cavalry charges. Also, given that when buttoned up the crew may as well be playing a computer game, that has to be the next step (as with USAF pilots predominantly flying drones these days). Amazing that this next innovation isn't mentioned. (You read it here first?)

"... there's no way in coming up with a universal pattern for all the conditions." I appreciate that. But, I have been commenting that if you are in the same or similar terrain, one would think that there would be an ideal camo design and that everyone would tend to have the same or similar camo.

Blimey! I thought instant commands like EVADE were only for RT play. in all these CM2 years, had no idea EVADE could be used on pinned troops. Thank you! (Ummm... what other instant commands work in WEGO??)

My 2 cents worth is to make all specialized troops (recon, snipers, engineers etc.) at least one experience higher than everyone else. In the case of Elite troops, they should be Elite + everything. Otherwise wherever else would one use Elites with +2 attributes in a RL scenario??? (To me, Fanatic means they are "happy" to die for their cause and looking for martyrdom - not a desirable attribute for any sort of teammate IIRC.)

Does look beautiful... Thanks...

But then, people might complain that they didn't get that there is a serious question in there (about the camo). Understanding exactly which emoticon or serious of Emoticons are appropriate can be very complex to learn. But, just for you:

I wuz being half humorous. I had a serious point however, that by now have we not researched the very best camo? Isn't that more important than depicting "national identity" like we're fighting a Napoleonic war with colorful national costumes/uniforms?? One would have thought that all camo would be very similar by now.

I have to agree with Sgt S on this one...

"...SAS were using Diemacos." Am surprised - the Brits can't make their own decent assault rifles???

Just curious, how many tries did that take or was that a first well-thought out attack (or blind luck)? (Personally, am not a fan of scenarios where you have to make very move a perfect one in order to crack the one way to win.)

Doesn't everyone in Europe fight in more or less the same type of terrain. Amazed at the uniform variety. It's like a fashion show... And they are still having to hit their helmets with the magazine like they're back in Vietnam. Really??? Around 1:10 they don't seem to have grasped the concept of reverse slope defense. Ah, well they're Polish... (I have Polish dad so can say these things btw.)

Given the RL circumstances, cowering in cover for the entire mission is quite sensible from a survival POV. It's likely one of those low probability random outcomes programmed into the game for added realism.

Again... ?!

Thank you, Hilts.

"Also, why jump over a barbed wire fence when all militaries educate their recruits, exhaustively, in the correct, how-to, procedure for sliding underneath it?" Definitely a deal breaker for most of us as well! " Side note, I don't know why the game can't place a temporary "TRP" marker after every "FO" or "HQ" unit called "fire for effect", that way, if he wants to hit the same target area again he wouldn't waste precious rounds re-registering the same target. Provided, that is, that it's the same "FO" or "HQ" unit that called in the original mission with the original artillery battery and number of guns and the battery and number of guns have not been fired after the original mission. " Actually, that's an interesting idea.

Another attempt at humor is crushed mercilessly beneath Mike's treads. Sorry all...

I understand. My point was (as you first said) that the result should be a big victory for the Red forces - despite them being massacred otherwise. ie: in these scenarios, Red casualties are immaterial, significant Western casualties however are a disaster.