General Jack Ripper

It's the privilege you get from living for so long. I can't wait until my 60's, then I can be like Emrys.

I read that, well spotted.

That's why I was wondering about the differences between game settings, because I do recall specific discussion regarding how Syrian buildings seemed bulletproof, and then people posting photos and videos showing how solid that type of brick and concrete construction really is. Like little fortresses.

I think the abstracted generic 'building' type tends to change slightly depending on which title you're playing. Your middle eastern concrete and brick constructed house is a bit more sturdy than your wooden framed normandy house. But then again, you're shooting 5.56mm in syria, and .30-06 in normandy, sooo... I think the approximations are okay, maybe a little conservative, but one thing you don't seem to need to worry about is secondary frag and projectiles. I've seen rpg rounds impact a wall directly opposite a few guys, and not even a scratch was inflicted. There is simulation based on round size, weight and velocity, but there is approximation based on building materiel and construction. So I would say the performance is reliably predictable, but abstracted. You'll see hundreds of rounds go skipping off a wall, but then that one lucky bastard gets through and kills your platoon hq. Um, it actually is the case. I've placed .30 cal fire onto a target effectively suppressing it by shooting THROUGH one house to hit the one behind it. I've seen .50cal go through several walls in a row before being stopped. One time during the road to montebourg I had to cease fire from an M1917 Water Cooled specifically because he was shooting through three houses in a row and suppressing my own guys sneaking up behind the third house. It does exist man, just depends on the type of building.

One thing you should always keep in mind is that 5.56x45mm doesn't pierce walls very well, while 7.62x39mm does a little bit better. If both sides are in buildings, you'll probably come off second best unless you leverage additional firepower or engage in some heavy suppression. Thus, passing out 500 to 1000 extra rounds during the setup phase can be recommended. Also, Strykers are not tanks, they are bulletproof, but not proof against anything else. Once upon a time there was a thread in the old Shock Force Forum called 'Taking Down Buildings Quick and Agile" which told people to roll their vehicle up to the target building to dismount their infantry and assault the building. Then, there was a smattering of complaints about destroyed Strykers and full squads getting killed before the word got out: it was all nonsense. Stryker infantry should be considered light infantry who can drive around in tin-plated trucks. That's pretty much it. Other than that, domfluff and The_MonkeyKing have got you started nicely.

I used to mirror upload to vid.me before it disappeared, but no one ever watched them, so I stopped.

That's a fair assessment. I'm going to watch because I've placed a wager with myself about how the show will end, and I want to see if the writing has become trite and boring enough to be that predictable. Agreed. It's one of those book series everyone who has even a passing interest in sci-fi should read. As much as I desperately wanted to see more of Rome, it didn't feel right to have it continue. Definitely one for the all-time top ten list.

Good book. I spent all night reading it when I should have been sleeping. I was zombified at work the next day, but it was worth it. My favorite part of Adrian Goldsworthy's writing is his ability to place ancient concepts in modern vernacular. So you spend more time reading and understanding than having to infer concepts through context. As you say, very readable. Right now I've got 'The Complete Works of Thomas Hobbes' on my kindle reader, and the NASA publication: SP-446 Pioneer I found at my local book dumpster. I know. I'm boring.

Indeed. Also, VERY Russian.

It's not your fault, it's the Marines fault for not understanding what a "Platoon" is, and valuing "leg room" over "discretion" for some strange reason.

Just because you CAN cram an entire infantry company into a platoon of aav's like sardines in a can, doesn't mean you WANT to, or even NEED to. You certainly don't HAVE to either...

They dug her out of storage for that one. Here's one of those television documentaries:

Airframes have a limited life span, just like any other machine.

I know I'm just not very entertaining. Sorry. I try my best, but I just don't have the "Hollywood movie director" gene. At some point to maintain momentum you might just have to throw some guys into enemy positions, and just hope they manage to shoot the bad guys in the face, preferably before the bad guys can do the same. Most of my casualties came from the last ten turns or so, as I simply threw bodies into the fire. I think Ithikial was the one with the answer to that, with his special project to simulate a battalion engagement as a full-fledged mini campaign. I dunno if he's still working on it or not. There's a big difference between steamrolling a largely unoccupied map, and fighting in the midst of a populated city. Civilian considerations are completely absent from Combat Mission, so I could carry out my operation without having to worry about public opinion, kicking down doors of private residences, or leaving dead bodies stacked up in the streets. I could also act completely disaffected by my own casualties. None of these considerations can be discounted in real life. Every casualty you suffer must be answered for, private property must be respected as a general rule (if you're the "good guys" anyway), and when you secure a location you typically have to spend time sanitizing it so the news media don't have a field day snapping photos of headshot wounds. I suppose if some completely ruthless and uncaring commander was told to achieve victory at all costs and with no expense spared, they could do what I did, but that would simply never happen in real life. Most likely, no. Not without some ruptured eardrums at the very least.

I usually cancel all movement orders and leave the crew to sort themselves out. I don't know if it makes a difference, but it makes me feel better.

Given the red crosses which have sprouted, I'd say following that guy is a mistake...

There we go. Strange how links sometimes don't embed properly. I think this battle is shaping up to be somewhat tougher than I have experienced before. Also, this is the point where I formally step off into the unknown (for me) part of the campaign. My previous playthrough ended here upon SF2's announcement.

Perhaps if I was an eloquent individual I might have arrived at this.

No worries: https://petapixel.com/2015/08/19/this-new-shotgun-shell-is-for-shooting-down-drones/

"Sergeant, where is your tank?" "Dunno sir, here and there, and there, and there, and there, and over there..."

Perhaps. I just get sick of people telling me my eyeballs do not function. I learned about the pitfalls of excessive use of the 'Hunt' command the hard way, by using it in every conceivable situation I could. I then learned to stop doing this because of a plethora of adverse effects. For example, if you have a platoon of tanks in line abreast all using the 'Hunt' command, and one tank gets shot at, only the tanks near enough to notice the shot will stop moving, meanwhile Tank #4 will continue rolling forward right into the sights of that 75mm gun and get blown up. As far as the 'Hide' command is concerned, let me be clear for the benefit of the audience: Once the Hide toggle is hit, it stays hit. Regardless of where it is placed in a movement string, it stays toggled. If the movement string is aborted, the team will hide. Most of the time you do not notice the toggle because the movement string is not aborted. CMx1 had a system that truly allowed you to string together commands like, 'Rotate To and Hide' and each would fire off in turn. In CMx2, 'Hide' is a behavior switch that is toggled, either the team is trying to hide, or it is not. If the team comes under fire, then they will REACT, regardless of whether or not they're trying to 'Hide'. Much the same is the 'Deploy Weapon' command. If you toggle 'Deploy Weapon' it stays toggled. If the team is forced to abort it's movement before it is completed, you will sit and scream invective at your monitor while a machinegun team laboriously sets up it's machine gun in an exposed position while under fire. You then learn to leave the 'Deploy Weapon' switch toggled OFF unless you know for a fact the team is on a safe path, or you are actually ready to deploy the gun. When you give a movement command, the toggle defaults to OFF, which is why you must toggle it ON again after plotting a move order. What we have here is someone refusing to learn their lessons. It's not that the TacAI is bugged, it's that the player's behavior and expectations are incorrect, and that's about as polite as I can be about that.

How about a test that actually mirrors what the original complaint was about, a team SPOTTING the enemy first, before the movement is completed.

You forgot: 4) People who think CMx2 games are the same as CMx1 games, and behave in similar ways.

So, you calling me a liar? I make a statement of fact, and you say "That's nonsense" which means my statement of fact is the opposite of a statement of fact, which would be a lie. That's called implication.

Yet you do not show the process you used to issue the orders, or show us the status of the teams before you record anything. The 'Hide' command is a toggle switch, it's either ON, or OFF. If your team is hiding BEFORE it reaches it's waypoint, then Hide is toggled ON at the start.