TheVulture

Well they have an list of which modules / games get worked on in which order.  But one of the immutable laws of software development is that things always take twice as long as you expect (even after you take this law into account).

Well they have an list of which modules / games get worked on in which order.  But one of the immutable laws of software development is that things always take twice as long as you expect (even after you take this law into account).

I usually use 2-3 rounds (depending on battery size) against AFVs since the chance of a direct hit is something like 50/50. It's a trade off though between how many targets there are that you might want to use PGM rounds against (if you have more than you need, then wasting a few isn't a big deal) vs firing them one at a time and potentially taking 2-3 times as long to get a round on target - if the AFV isn't going anwhere and you can afford to tie up the spotter and battery for several repeat missions until you get a hit.
 
It's a trade off. in my limited experience, I usually got for a 2-3 round salvo, and haven't yet found myself stuck due to a lack of precision rounds later.
 
I think there may be a difference in accuracy between 120mm and 155mm PGM rounds too, but not sure about that.
 
It is very satisfying to combine drones with PGMs and take out enemy vehicles long before they are even in LoS though
 

If you mean a replay of the whole battle, that is one of the most often requested features and so far hasn't turned up - and probably won't for the forseeable future.
 
If you mean replaying the last minute, that is there in WeGo but not in realtime play. Real time has no possibility to rewind and view stuff again at all.

I think Obama has a policy, and it is illustrated by the Russian-Georgian war (which was before Obama was elected, just to avoid confusion). Whether the US would have been prepared to fight to help Georgia or not was a moot point (although I'm pretty sure the US wouldn't have) - the facts at the time was that the US had too many military commitments ongoing to have the forces available to do anything to counter Russia at that point. With large commitments in Iraq and Afghanistan, and a supply train in Afghanistan that depended on Russian co-operation (Pakistan not being the most secure or reliable way of moving supplies into Afghanistan) Russia was basically in a position where the US couldn't do anything to oppose it.
 
So for all the supposed commitments to an ally - Georgia - the US basically sat by and did nothing (a fact that I'm sure the Russians were quite happy to point out to Poland, the Baltic states and other neighbours).
 
Obama's policy was simply to reduce the committed forces so that the US had the spare capacity to respond to threats that actually posed a meaningful threat. Libya and Syria never did. ISIS still doesn't - they have been contained and are being pushed back slowly by the Kurds and Iraqis, neither of which are awe-inspiring military machines. The only things that pose a serious strategic threat to the US are Russia and China. So Obama is simply refusing to get involved in wars that the US can afford to ignore without existential consequences, to be able to contain the threats that matter should the need arise.
 
Whether the diplomatic efforts to back that up have been up to scratch is probably more debatable.

I think Obama has a policy, and it is illustrated by the Russian-Georgian war (which was before Obama was elected, just to avoid confusion). Whether the US would have been prepared to fight to help Georgia or not was a moot point (although I'm pretty sure the US wouldn't have) - the facts at the time was that the US had too many military commitments ongoing to have the forces available to do anything to counter Russia at that point. With large commitments in Iraq and Afghanistan, and a supply train in Afghanistan that depended on Russian co-operation (Pakistan not being the most secure or reliable way of moving supplies into Afghanistan) Russia was basically in a position where the US couldn't do anything to oppose it.
 
So for all the supposed commitments to an ally - Georgia - the US basically sat by and did nothing (a fact that I'm sure the Russians were quite happy to point out to Poland, the Baltic states and other neighbours).
 
Obama's policy was simply to reduce the committed forces so that the US had the spare capacity to respond to threats that actually posed a meaningful threat. Libya and Syria never did. ISIS still doesn't - they have been contained and are being pushed back slowly by the Kurds and Iraqis, neither of which are awe-inspiring military machines. The only things that pose a serious strategic threat to the US are Russia and China. So Obama is simply refusing to get involved in wars that the US can afford to ignore without existential consequences, to be able to contain the threats that matter should the need arise.
 
Whether the diplomatic efforts to back that up have been up to scratch is probably more debatable.

I can't see why it would be changed from CMBN, CMFI or CMRT. BFC had always had a policy of having e.g. regular troops having the same morale behaviour regardless of nationality. I doubt they'd change it for different time frames. A WW2 'regular' level troop is about the same level of training in CM terms as a modern 'regular' troop. It is up to scenario designers (for the most part) to set the experience levels of the troops to reflect the level of training and experience they have. If modern soldiers should all be well trained professionals, they should probably all be veteran or above, where 'typical' WW2 troops might well be green (or worse on some fronts).
 
Also, don't forget that the incoming firepower troops are facing is considerably higher too. A modern platoon, with assault rifles and other goodies can probably put out more fire than a WW2 company, which has a somewhat higher suppressive effect.

Then you really need to change the way you write your posts, because they all come across as petulant whining rather than an attempt to have a constructive discussion.

Just a quick though, but I'd say one of the most important lessons is patience. It's not like most RTS games. Take things slowly. Don't be afraid to have guys sitting around doing nothing for extended periods: the temptation to get them doing something rather than sitting there like lemons will often get them killed. Use small scout teams, let them wait in cover for a few minutes to spot stuff. Have the rest of your troops a minute or two further back, not just 10 yards behind. Make good and plentiful use of artillery and aircraft: in modern war, infantry will account for a tiny amount of casualties you cause. HE explosions do most of the work: artillery, mortars, tank rounds, 30mm guns on troop carrier vehicles. In some ways, your infantry aremostly a screen to stop the enemy infantry getting too close to your main weapons.
 
Shoot the hell out of places before you move your infantry in. Recon by fire and suppression.
 
You might do better playing a few quick battles rather than scenarios. A lot of the players of these games are pretty experienced, and the scenarios tend to be designed to be a challenge for them, which can make them rather formidable for a new players. Try some smaller quick battles at first to get used to the way things work.

Just a quick though, but I'd say one of the most important lessons is patience. It's not like most RTS games. Take things slowly. Don't be afraid to have guys sitting around doing nothing for extended periods: the temptation to get them doing something rather than sitting there like lemons will often get them killed. Use small scout teams, let them wait in cover for a few minutes to spot stuff. Have the rest of your troops a minute or two further back, not just 10 yards behind. Make good and plentiful use of artillery and aircraft: in modern war, infantry will account for a tiny amount of casualties you cause. HE explosions do most of the work: artillery, mortars, tank rounds, 30mm guns on troop carrier vehicles. In some ways, your infantry aremostly a screen to stop the enemy infantry getting too close to your main weapons.
 
Shoot the hell out of places before you move your infantry in. Recon by fire and suppression.
 
You might do better playing a few quick battles rather than scenarios. A lot of the players of these games are pretty experienced, and the scenarios tend to be designed to be a challenge for them, which can make them rather formidable for a new players. Try some smaller quick battles at first to get used to the way things work.