dixon_el

Asking about Vista again? Asimov is a lot more interesting, and probably, more to the point. As least Asimov worked with something. Screw Vista, up with Foundation and Asimov!!!

CMBB doesn't work on Vista, Hammer?!?! Hell, that's no big deal, almost nothing works with Vista. I was thinking that canceling Vista might be more to the point. I check in every six months or so to see if there's progress. I see there has been, the number of posts are dwindling nicely. This forum needs to be turned over to Elvis sightings, at least people see HIM occasionally.

Why make it Vista compatible? Ever hear of Windows ME, Microsoft second biggest mistake? I expect Vista to follow in ME's footsteps shortly, for the same reasons ME was a bust. Vista is singlehandedly making Linix a very viable choice for the up and coming decade. Microsoft survived ME, but still it makes no sense to shoot yourself in the same foot twice, or once in each foot. As for Microsoft being too big for a single mistake to do much damage. Ever hear of Commodore, Atari, Apple, IBM, Radio Shack, etc. They were all big companies (some still are) that took it in the shorts by making that one big, stupid mistake that effectively took them out of personal computer leadership. Maybe Battlefront will make a Commodore 64 version or a Atari version, just it case. NOT!!

Hull down is a little different from multiple infantry. A fourth line would really be nice. Maybe you could add a modification for 'no lines' for people who really don't want to know what's going on when they try to target. Just a suggestion.

I agree with most of the above. I hope battlefront immediately stops fixing the game bugs, deploys everyone on their team to fixing this blog (for the six to eight months) and only then returns to development of the games, AFTER this huge, incapatitating BUG is FIXED in the forum. WAIT.... I have the solution!!!!!!!!! Get Battlefront to stop fixing the game bugs! Then there will be no problem!!!. No fixs, no need to search for them, problem solved. Damn, I'm a genius..... Gamers are the only people in the world that demand the non problems be fixed before the actual problems.

That is no graphics error. The bastard possessed an illegal weapon in a combat zone. I am personally going to try an have him court marshalled (post humorously, of course), to teach him a lesson he won't soon forget. Let one of them get away with it and the whole game will go to pot. Where is battlefront when we NEED them? Fixing some important error no doubt....duh!! I can't stand the irony of all this.

Ever notice, the benefit of replacing a weapon with a better one, decreases proportionaly with the chance that the person in question will be forced to use it. Buy new weapons!!!!! Hell no WE need new carpet!

I don't think you think you to worry about the effects of an exploding reactive panel, I think the incoming round will take care of the problem long before it becomes an issue.

The comparison would be firecracker vs. half a block of C4. Nothing replaces pure destructive power when it comes to reducing fortified strong points. The Sheridan would compare very poorly. The 152mm was abandoned because its lack of accuracy made it an ineffective anti-armor weapon. (Think infantry tank) The missles are several generations removed from eachother in range, killing power, accuracy and control. The comparison would be similar to comparing the M1SEP to an M48A5 and would be patiently unfair.

Duh! I think that if the game is well modeled on actual equipment, that both sides are going to be surprised. NOTHING, takes the place of good leadership. A good leader plays down the weak points of his force and accents the strong points. The US forces combat power is ,as much, a matter of its training, leadership and structure as its equipment. According to the arguments on both sides the German's would not have been able to take France in three years, instead of three weeks. (Personally, I can't take the French for ten minutes). Let Battlefront bring out the game and then we can solve the argument on the battlefield. My bet is Heavy will not always win, not because of the arguments, but because of the players directing the forces. If you meet me on the battlefield, with a heavy force against my medium or light force, look to your life, because your petty argument, that with heavier forces always win, will not stop me from grinding your heavy force to dust if you make a couple of tactical mistakes.

Nvida had problems with CM into one of its driver sets two years ago, but quicky resolved the problem in the next update. I've only seen the problem with that particular driver set, but I probably haven't tried every driver, but working in a computer store I've seen a large number of them. ATI and Fords.........who needs them

If you read the history of the striker there are a couple of pieces missing. When the original models came out one was taken down to a firing range and was repeatedly fired at with a 30.06. The 30.06 repeatedly penetrated the armor. The contractor then "patched" the armor to strengthen the penetrated points until the "finished" vehicle could withstand the 30.06 rounds. Consider it fiction if you like, this took place on Steel Range on Fort Knox, Ky. P.S. The vehicle had to be towed to the range because it wasn't operational, as usual.

In response to civdiv: Intel probably hasn't heard we're in Iraq yet. Intel never knows what's going on in the field. DUH..........

Reducing the speed of a round decreases the shoot-thru effect. If the round doesn't go thru the target all energy is expended on the target. That and size are what makes the low-speed 45cal round so damaging to the fleshy parts of the body. In Viet-Nam many soldiers quickly discovered that the small, high speed M16 round was not as effective at close rate as many of the older larger and slower rounds at stopping close range targets. A lesson the military looked at and discarded because NATO wanted a uniform round.

Duh!! the M1 variants are: XM1 - orginal protype M1 - orginal production model - 105mm main gun, supported idler M1IP - unsupported idler - 105mm main gun - increased top armor - improved battle override M1A1 - heavier top armor - 120 mm main gun M1A1 HA (Heavy Armor) - Increased overall armor - (post-Iraq 1) M1A2 - Digital control - hatbox M1A2 SEP - improved fire control - centralized electrical/data system M1A2 TUSK - protype Simplified list of the M1s

No FRH hydralic system, that would be a huge plus that the US needs to follow.

No tank is indestructible, there's no man that can't be killed. War isn't a cakewalk, its messy and dangerous on the frontline, even if the other guy is just armed with rocks.

I'd like see an Iraq vs. Iran game. Both of them had a wide range of equipment and tactics. Neither was able to bring closure to the war, so they were fairly well balanced (or unbalanced) militarily. Tanks, Itvs, Ifvs, missles, mass charges, all the good stuff with chemicals mixed in to add to the excitment.

Not very spoting of you guys to shoot at a fish in a barrel.

Generally using Sabot on thin skinned AFVs is a good waste of ammo. The penetration, except at very close range, blows thru, causing spaul damage but very little else. I personally know a couple of guys that were in light vehicles that were punched by Sabot. One of them was burned on the arm, neck and cheek by spaul and the other one escaped with only a ruptured ear drum. While a High quality Sabot is deadly, the type of Sabot used in Soviet-Bloc weapons thens to be of poorer quality. I talked to a Captain, whose company stumbled into a hulldown Iraqi company equiped with T72s. One of his tanks was hit 7 times at close range and after the battle (US 1 - Iraqi 0) the tank was battle rigged and limped away with the crew intact. Sabot on target doesn't mean a sure kill, particularily if you're using inferior equipment.

My vote is for a Pacific war game. Island hoping warfare complete with Naval bombardments, airstrikes, beach landing, naked hula girls and the works all ala Combat Mission. Japanese lite soldier banzi charges, small blue water engagements with landing craft, thick jungle fighting complete with civilians.

Do I sense bitterness in that post, Seanachai? Are you longing for the days when people actually thought about world affairs? When heros strolled the earth. MacArthur, Patton, Mikey Mouse. Sigh. The Arabs should be getting used to getting their heads slapped for being stupid. We only been doing it about 60 or 70 years. But, what do you expect? Hezbullah starts the trouble and they get mad at Israel for slapping Hezbullah back. You have to be an idiot to let somebody launch a rocket from your kids room, and expect the response (from say, thirty miles away) to only hit the guy that lit the fuse. Figure that?? :confused:

Wow!! that's a cool argument C'Roger. I'm hard pressed to contradict it. The US's stated objective was to stop the commies in South East Asia. Wait. Following that logic (a country's stated objective must be gained in toto to be a declared victory). The US, Britain and their European allies were clearly DEFEATED in WW2. Their stated ojectives were: 1) Defeat the enemy and secure world peace. The western allies failed to finish the war and defeat ALL their enemies. That failure plunged the world into the Cold War. Patton was really pissed about that one. :mad: 2) Britain stated that it would help defend France if the German's invaded France. The German's kicked the Brits out and overran France early in the war. That's a double defeat for Britain. 3) Defeat Germany and her allies and bring them to justice. After the Vichy French sided with the Germans most of the war, the French shared the spoils on the allies side after the war. Duh!! I've never been able to get that one. :confused: I could go on, but those three will do for my purposes. No crying when you argue the French were captives of the Germans. David, your argument about the South defending themselves for years with on help doesn't fit the facts. France occupied Viet-Nam immediately after WW2. When Uncle Ho kicked the French out, the US immediately jumped in faster than Peter Rabbit on the tar baby. When the US withdrew, it left the South the 5th largest arsenal in the world. Not pea shooters, but helicopters, heavy weapons, fix-wing aircraft, tanks, artillery, APCs, etc. I know what you're going to say "If the South had saved their milk money, they could have bought the weapons themselves." A few guys taking pot shots at advancing troops is hardly what I'd call a defense, but if it is to you, OK. If that's your point, then the South did defend Siagon. Personally, I think we should have left Viet-Nam as soon as we realized that there was nothing there to defend. If that's defeat,then victory must be the act casting aside common sense and ignoring reality. HEY!!! the US did that, THE US DID WIN!!!!!!! The two of you have to be military genuises. New argument, if Israel lets one Hesbullah escape then Israel will have suffered a crushing defeat, because even one guy can cause trouble. Israel's stated objective is to stop the trouble on their borders. Damn guys, you've opened my eyes to a new way of thinking, I can see defeat in everything. Wow! that's going to make me one cool dude (or is that DUD.) or does that make me a Democrat???? No matter. :cool: My new motto: "Cool, rules."

WOW JasonC!!!! I'm impressed. Someone who learned about the Viet-Nam war by looking at the historical facts, rather than, getting their "facts" from a Jane Fonda workout video. You know, In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is King. The Viet-Nam myth should have ran its course long ago, but everybody hangs on to it like its actual fact. Face it, Elvis IS DEAD, Castro wasn't able to shoot Kennedy from Havana, it was just too far away.................. I have to go, a BLACK, unmarked helicopter just landed in my yard.

I always find it funny that so many people that "claim" to know history get their "Viet-Nam facts" from a Jane Fonda workout video. The US didn't lose the Viet-Nam war, the South Viet-Nam Army did. In 1969, the US broke the enemy's back. For the next three years there was almost no fighting, because the enemy forces were unable to field an effective force. Seeing that inspite of this, the South would never be a viable force, the US withdrew. Only with huge assistance from China and the Soviet Union was the North able to limp into Saigon. (Duh, no notable resistance was offered by the South, even though the US had left the 5th greatest military stockpile in the world for the South's use.) The moral should actually be: You can win the fight if your fighter refuses to leave his corner. The US didn't lose the war, it backed the side that had no stomach for winning. A small point, obviously lost on high-speed, low-drag history gurus.