Baneman

Also I believe that the points costs of rockets were recently changed in Red Thunder
 
I mention this just to annoy Doug, of course

Meh, no, I disagree.
If the model is complex, but shows somewhat unrealistic results under extreme conditions ( Spotting is perhaps too difficult in mist, at night ), I'll still take that rather than a dumbing down of the complexity.
 
( I'm not even personally convinced that the result is off anyway - I've been out in the wilderness 200+km from any light pollution and at night it is very very dark. Add mist and I can buy that you wouldn't see a tank right in front of you. Just my opinion ).

Agree here, I've learned to advance with mild zig-zag movement orders - that way even if they do end up in single-file, it's not front-on to the enemy.
 
Not necessarily unrealistic either.

Meh, no, I disagree.
If the model is complex, but shows somewhat unrealistic results under extreme conditions ( Spotting is perhaps too difficult in mist, at night ), I'll still take that rather than a dumbing down of the complexity.
 
( I'm not even personally convinced that the result is off anyway - I've been out in the wilderness 200+km from any light pollution and at night it is very very dark. Add mist and I can buy that you wouldn't see a tank right in front of you. Just my opinion ).

Meh, no, I disagree.
If the model is complex, but shows somewhat unrealistic results under extreme conditions ( Spotting is perhaps too difficult in mist, at night ), I'll still take that rather than a dumbing down of the complexity.
 
( I'm not even personally convinced that the result is off anyway - I've been out in the wilderness 200+km from any light pollution and at night it is very very dark. Add mist and I can buy that you wouldn't see a tank right in front of you. Just my opinion ).

So, 75 years after WW2, we've come to "it would be irresponsible to help a weak nation being attacked because the aggressor will escalate".
 
Pretty sad summary.

Nice work Bud_B - that skull and crossbones looks like it came straight out of Asterix !

Granted I'm not adding any new information to this debate, I'm effectively calling you out on the fact that you raise issues/questions then if they are answered/addressed, you move on quickly.
 
eg. you've spent more text telling everyone that you're not going to address Steve's response to your question with the concept of "I have already explained my original point twice. I don’t feel like doing again" than it would have taken to say "ok, you've got me there, that's a valid response" ( because, y'know, he DID answer rather comprehensively ). Restating your point doesn't address the response.
 
But your debating style appears ( to me ) to be "move on rapidly as soon as any point is countered".
That's fine, but it does appear to be a waste of time debating with you.
No doubt, this post of mine will appear irrelevant to you.

Comes back to the "niche product" argument. It's just not likely to become diverse beyond the above since they/we are the ones who find the game interesting/absorbing/etc.
 
An analogy is me talking about the Cricket World Cup to the rest of my office. No matter how I extol it, explain it, sell it, talk it up, etc. those fools just don't appreciate it.

Comes back to the "niche product" argument. It's just not likely to become diverse beyond the above since they/we are the ones who find the game interesting/absorbing/etc.
 
An analogy is me talking about the Cricket World Cup to the rest of my office. No matter how I extol it, explain it, sell it, talk it up, etc. those fools just don't appreciate it.

I'm just curious as to whether you actually like the game ?

I did . . . . . once . . . . . . by accident.
Can we just call me a junior uberdouche and leave it at that.

It looks good in that concept picture - but in a Command & Conquer kind of way ie, without any consideration for things like ammunition stowage or feed.

Well, this is where I disagree ( again ).
 
As the thread went, you initially posted your idea
 
- Thewood1 agreed it might be interesting, but that it had been suggested before and gained no traction.
- agusto suggested a way to try it, but didn't think it would be interesting.
- Womble didn't think it would be interesting, maybe only good for a laugh.
- John thought it might be useful for testing.
- Apocal responded to John on that point.
- MikeyD pointed out that there had been something akin to this in CMSF and that it had gained little support and had fallen from the game engine.
- womble thought it would be a waste of resources based on the AI limitations.
 
Then you got your dander up.
 
I submit that if you reread the thread you will see that there was nothing obnoxious or hostile ( unless disagreeing = hostile ). Most contrary positions were accompanied with a justification of some sort. Seemed like a fairly normal discussion.

Well, this is where I disagree ( again ).
 
As the thread went, you initially posted your idea
 
- Thewood1 agreed it might be interesting, but that it had been suggested before and gained no traction.
- agusto suggested a way to try it, but didn't think it would be interesting.
- Womble didn't think it would be interesting, maybe only good for a laugh.
- John thought it might be useful for testing.
- Apocal responded to John on that point.
- MikeyD pointed out that there had been something akin to this in CMSF and that it had gained little support and had fallen from the game engine.
- womble thought it would be a waste of resources based on the AI limitations.
 
Then you got your dander up.
 
I submit that if you reread the thread you will see that there was nothing obnoxious or hostile ( unless disagreeing = hostile ). Most contrary positions were accompanied with a justification of some sort. Seemed like a fairly normal discussion.

Well, this is where I disagree ( again ).
 
As the thread went, you initially posted your idea
 
- Thewood1 agreed it might be interesting, but that it had been suggested before and gained no traction.
- agusto suggested a way to try it, but didn't think it would be interesting.
- Womble didn't think it would be interesting, maybe only good for a laugh.
- John thought it might be useful for testing.
- Apocal responded to John on that point.
- MikeyD pointed out that there had been something akin to this in CMSF and that it had gained little support and had fallen from the game engine.
- womble thought it would be a waste of resources based on the AI limitations.
 
Then you got your dander up.
 
I submit that if you reread the thread you will see that there was nothing obnoxious or hostile ( unless disagreeing = hostile ). Most contrary positions were accompanied with a justification of some sort. Seemed like a fairly normal discussion.

Well, this is where I disagree ( again ).
 
As the thread went, you initially posted your idea
 
- Thewood1 agreed it might be interesting, but that it had been suggested before and gained no traction.
- agusto suggested a way to try it, but didn't think it would be interesting.
- Womble didn't think it would be interesting, maybe only good for a laugh.
- John thought it might be useful for testing.
- Apocal responded to John on that point.
- MikeyD pointed out that there had been something akin to this in CMSF and that it had gained little support and had fallen from the game engine.
- womble thought it would be a waste of resources based on the AI limitations.
 
Then you got your dander up.
 
I submit that if you reread the thread you will see that there was nothing obnoxious or hostile ( unless disagreeing = hostile ). Most contrary positions were accompanied with a justification of some sort. Seemed like a fairly normal discussion.

You have a very strange way of participating in a discussion.
 
I assumed you'd have read his post and my statement was to the effect that I would have made those arguments/points myself except he had already done so ( quite possibly even more lucidly that I would have ).
Would it help if I cut and pasted his comments into my response to you ?

It tells me that the separatists were heavily reinforced with better units and equipment ( all of a sudden ). Gee, I wonder where they suddenly came from ?
 
Edit: On top of which, there was also a "ceasefire" - if one side tries to observe it and doesn't use its heavy weapons ( artillery etc. ) to prevent enemy massing for an attack ( which they successfully did for weeks if not months prior ), that's also going to adversely affect the outcome of an offensive.

It tells me that the separatists were heavily reinforced with better units and equipment ( all of a sudden ). Gee, I wonder where they suddenly came from ?
 
Edit: On top of which, there was also a "ceasefire" - if one side tries to observe it and doesn't use its heavy weapons ( artillery etc. ) to prevent enemy massing for an attack ( which they successfully did for weeks if not months prior ), that's also going to adversely affect the outcome of an offensive.

Well, you're here now and apparently, you're a guy from Canada. Don't worry, I won't hold BLSTK against you.  
Now that you've found yourself, happy Combat Missioning

That's correct, Bahger, using Dropbox replaces the need for email - and just as well, since large battle files can be a fair bit larger than most email systems like for attachments.
Dropbox will auto-synch for you as soon as it registers a new file in your local folder that isn't on the Cloud version - and vice-versa.
 
All you have to do is remember to run the CMH utility so that new turns are moved into or from the Dropbox folder.
 
The game folders could just be called "Outgoing Turn" and "Incoming Turn", but why mess with a standard

I must have missed when Russia was a submissive colony of the West in the past ... ?

I must have missed when Russia was a submissive colony of the West in the past ... ?

I must have missed when Russia was a submissive colony of the West in the past ... ?