Erwin

Well, yes, when you are desperate etc. I was simply making the point that we have to understand the consequences and be prepared for the blowback.

Don't forget that the interface and terrain mods are good for the later modules like NATO, so it's not quite that simple. However, the Brits are a very fun outfit.

"Our only other option, is to find our own young, meanest, baddest, knuckle dragging Pastun MFer and give him all the butter, guns and gold treasure he desires as long as he brings us scalps from this region..." Unfortunately, that's how we get a Saddam H.

http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htmurph/articles/20110114.aspx Fear Of Learning How To Fight January 14, 2011: Generals and admirals have lots of skills, but knowing how to actually command troops in combat is often not one of them. Warfare is a competitive exercise, and the losers often die. Given the stakes, you would think that military commanders would put a lot of emphasis on learning and practicing "battle command" skills. It doesn't work that way. For example, the U.S. Army has dozens of electronic wargaming facilities ("Constructive Training Systems" in milspeak.) These wargames allow commanders, subordinates and their staffs to play a computer simulation that accurately uses military equipment to carry out a military operation. The army has many different versions of these wargames, many of them portable, for units from battalion to theater level. Basically, these wargames are networked computers equipped to plug into the networks commanders would use in combat. The simulation software either uses artificial intelligence to provide an "enemy", or human "Red Force" commanders. While this appears similar to some commercial wargames (where it's mainly about winning), the army versions are actually quite different. While a commander (and his staff) can "win" or "lose" a battle, that is not the main point of these exercises. The primary purpose of these Constructive Training Exercises is to make sure all the people in the headquarters know their jobs, and can carry out those jobs efficiently with the many other people they will have to work with in combat. Thus these wargames are a simulation process, more than actual combat. Actually, some of the things headquarters people will be doing, like coordinating air or artillery strikes, or planning attacks by infantry or tank units, will involve actual combat. But to bring off any of these operations successfully requires that communications, maintenance, supply and other specialists do their jobs as well. In the navy, training all the parts of the crew to do their jobs well, and in coordination with everyone else, is considered far more important (and often to the exclusion of) than competitive wargames. The Constructive Training Systems allow brigade staffs to test themselves several times a year, and smaller units, or groups of troops, as often as they like. This is particularly useful with there are new procedures, new equipment, new enemies or new tactics involved. Best to practice with the computer version of the battlefield, before you do it with real people and ammunition. But the big problem is an institutional reluctance to, well, compete. Part of this is the fear that some officers, thought to be very promising, will crash and burn if confronted with a determined opponent in a simulated battle. This has happened, and the military custom is to avoid this sort of thing. Save failure for actual combat. This is a hard habit to lose. Typically there are a lot of people killed in the first battles of a war, because commanders had little experience running an actual battle. But there has been growing pressure to change. Partly it's a generational thing. Since the 1970s, there have been more and more commercial wargames on contemporary situations, and these have been very popular with junior officers (and a lot of the troops), but less so with the senior folks. Moreover, not all junior officers cared for wargaming out battles they might actually encounter in the future. The manual (and difficult to use) wargames of the 1970s have given way to computerized ones, which are much easier to use, and more officers use them. The military, as an institution, is under pressure to let commanders officially use wargames competitively, with another officer commanding the enemy forces, with both of them under orders to win at any cost. Another problem area is the search for a wargame that will combine those used by the army, navy, and air force. The army and marines often use the same sims, at least while dealing with ground combat. But the navy and air force operate in a different environment, and when they have to account for what the army is up to, often use sims that have a different take on land warfare. This causes problems when all the services have to operate together, and efforts to resolve these differences continue.

Amazing. And how much is spent on satellite surveillance and counter-espionage...? All you need are some trainspotters.

Last I heard, it aint happening until (maybe) CMSF2. Yes, it makes those units with telescopic vision useless deathtraps. The other item that bugs me is that mines can't be located or destroyed. At least you can smoke an IED and (in the game) the triggerman won't detonate it if he can't see it. But, hey... it's just a game. So much else is great.

If you have airpower, helicopters especially, they are great for recon, spotting and killing enemy units that are not in LOS... esp ATGM's.

Yes, as I said above: http://cmmods.greenasjade.net

The original CMSF has a printer-friendly manual, so that is odd about the Marines.

Dave: I play with highest/best everything and just about every mod available with no problems. I have 6 GB Ram and a good nVidia card (295 I think). I use an SSD for swap files, (but I should have put my whole OS on the SSD as that seems to really make things faster). I would have to see your onscreen movement to determine that maybe I just don't notice jerkiness or whatever you are experiencing. But, you seem well "over-powered" for CMSF, so not sure how you would diagnose other than hiring an expert. MY machine is a dedicated game machine so it has the min of other crap loading at start. May want to check what other crap is running if you have not already. I am sure you will get the cobwebs out eventually. Good luck, it sounds like a great system.

I am talking about the GAME and IF it reflects RL issues. And you are saying that it doesn't is all as you would clearly NOT act in RL as you would in the game. Plz let's not get confused between RL and the GAME. This is an entertainment product and some are taking it waaay too seriously.

Ok, thanks for the help. I may have to go back and reorganize my .bmp files.

The marine inf squad of 13 is by far the strongest in firepower and can be split into 3 teams, maybe what people mean. But, you can have AFV's with Marines like anyone.

Yes, us oldsters are just waiting for the day your Raspberry, iPanda and all your contacts go down with your bank accounts wiped out cos someone got your passwords. And us oldsters don't consider online virtual friends to be worth anything, heh. They going to drive you to the hospital when your spleen gives out? Ok, gotta go, getting a sponge bath from Helga now.

Thanks abneo... Unfortunately, with some folks here taking themselves SO seriously, that's not saying too much. I try to live up to my mantra: "This is just a game, etc."

Hmm... I didn't know inf (or any vehicles) could cross the marsh. I always got that "no waypoint" graphic. That would change it since I was able to leave my vehicles back for the majority of the game and support from across the river. But, I did lose a squad to a mine or IED on the bridge. Also, I can understand the desperate measures issue, guys locking themselves in a flooding compartment to save the ship/sub. But, in the campaign there was no sense that there was desperate need to sacrifice anyone - ie: "You must get to the objective to save the hostages." There have been xnt scenarios like that made, altho it's a long time since I played em, but there appeared to be no reason for sacrifice in this scenario. To me that's part of my definition of "realism" rather than merely technical "realism." No reason to get smarmy about it.

"it was easy enough to see the storm clouds brewing in Europe in 1910 and in 1935 -- many did. Not so today." Don't know if it was easy - harbingers of doom were ignored (eg: Churchill). Nobody wanted to hear about it. Also, the issue is what gets done about it. Nothing was done in 1910 or until the mid-thirties, and little is being done now cos we've brainwashed everyone (in the US) that we're such a supreme power that nothing can touch us. The truth is that our system is very fragile. The financial and economic crisis devastated millions and the real fallout has barely begun.

Lol..............

Ok, yes, I just tested and you can fire thru your own vehicles (as dan said). It's tricky when the system works in one way, but not another, no consistency etc.

Actually, I think the existing Campaign "game" feature is fine. I just was hoping that at some convenient time in the future some form of "experience gaining" element be added, (not necessarily with medals per Silent Service - but that would also be nice).

Yes, but in RL I am saying it seems inappropriate since it's sending guys and equipment to almost certain destruction is it not? Effectively there is no way to detect the mines in the GAME before they kill you, or did I miss something? In a GAME, I suppose all units are expendable. I guess I thought you were in the "CMSF as realistic" camp, and would be as concerned as I am re the RL implications. No worries. Just wanted to confirm this was a breakdown in the realism aspect.

I have noticed several times that Observers seem very reluctant to give aid to wounded colleagues - despite being on top of their buddy (a casualty) even with a restricted arc. Usually I have to rush over any other unit who will give aid immediately. Of course, I understand that this simulates the hatred within spotter teams. However, what is the basis? Why do they dislike each other so much and would prefer their partner to die? Is one having an affair with the other's wife? How is this coded, and is there anything we can do to bring these guys back together to work as a team?

I was sure that I had been happily having vehicles fire through vehicles like in good ol CM1 days. I will look more closely now.

Yes, this has been discussed/complained about for a long time. One camp says that snipers have had specialized training and therefore should be much more effective at hiding, observing and shooting. The other claims that snipers are like regular folks and if you want them to perform better you simply kick up their experience level to Crack or Elite. I believe in the first premise, but you can complain all you like...

Not sure if I am one of the "you people" but I was responding to Dave's statement: "But still, it's the only game that I cannot run on a comfortable framerate at max settings." To me, there is something wrong given his powerful system.