sburke

CMSF has a backstory that is the basis of it's campaigns as does CMBS. Granted I agree the likelihood of this actually becoming a campaign is slim. There have been a few threads like this, but one never knows where inspiration may come from. @Vet 0369 have you watched or read Generation Kill? It is funny as the Marines in it complain constantly that they are being mis-used for what they were trained to do.

The owners certainly were.

The are faking the snoring. One wouldn't be named Muttley would it?

Not necessarily. I don't want to play a scenario I am guaranteed to "lose" for sure. But fighting a campaign where the political aspect plays out alongside the fighting so that eventually US forces end up pulling out without having obtained "victory" is kind of mostly how things play out in RL. Rarely in historical terms is there a war with a clear cut winner/loser anymore. It may have been more a poor choice of words on his part about the backstory. So as an example if his back story is set in Black Sea. The US intervenes, NATO balks. Ukraine gov't starts waffling and looking for a compromise way out and the US doesn't feel it has the political backing or rationale to fight on it's own so US forces start a difficult retreat out of the war zone. That could be one way of doing it with some battles included that put US forces in a difficult position. Could even be fun. Reading Ed Ruggero's stuff for example Firefall that has a Ranger Bn isolated and fighting for it's life as things play out at a higher political level determining if they will be supported or not. The definition of winning and losing is a bit cloudy however the player should be able to fight and win the scenarios. "winning" in itself can mean simply avoiding being wiped out. I think the problem with designing this as a campaign is that people expect their actions to have an impact in the campaign. If the campaign simply ends with "you lose" then yeah that would suck. However if it ends with "US forces were successfully able to break an encirclement and withdraw to fight another day"... that's a win.

Good point! and kicking yourself never feels good!

https://battlefront.mojohelpdesk.com/help/article/127848

that is freakin hysterical.

Not sure what you mean. If it is “hey I own CMSF, will you be eliminating the price discount at some point?” I expect the answer is no. Steve has never suggested it was a limited time offer. What they did do is stop offering CMSF 1 sales. Question to you. Are you crazy? Buy it now! You want it, you know you do. You can’t live without it!

Wow. Damn Mord

Nope. My car has no anchors. It is not a schwimmwagen unfortunately.

I took a driver safety training course with At&t way back in the 80s and that was the intructors advice. You should always be looking as far ahead as visibility allows (while also constantly checking all your mirrors). It was an interesting class that also taught braking is the last thing to do to avoid an accident. When you brake you have given up control of the vehicle. It ended up saving my life in avoiding a head on collision on the GW parkway in Virginia a few years later.

Nope not eye candy. You’ll seem em using them occasionally and you’ll likely be screaming at them to use a damn rifle. Check your ammo supply. They also seem to use them instead of stopping to reload when under fire.

great. Another freakin cult

That much I agree with, but you are as bad as the media you trash in your statements reflecting your own bias with no evidence to show what actually happened. I know this much, I'd have hated to be put in the position this man was. I don't know that there is a right answer. You don't get to rewrite the law when you think it is wrong though. If you feel strongly enough you do what you feel is right knowing the probable consequences. Is it BS that this man may pay when the folks don't who decided to launch an attack on Iraq ignoring Shinseki's advice which might actually have prevented a lot of the bloodshed? Absolutely, but it doesn't in itself make someone innocent. It just sucks all the way around. As to this - "When you put people in an insane environment they can't help but do insane things, it's the only way to survive". It is an excuse and NOT true of everyone. Thousands of young men and women who served have been put into situations having to make split second decisions as to whether to shoot someone who was a possible threat or risk their lives to avoid killing an innocent. As an American it saddens me to see them so young having to make that call and yet immensely proud that overwhelmingly they accepted the risk. It is the behavior of our troops in the field that reassures me that despite the poor level of discourse in our society right now, the moral core of our values is still strong.

An assumption again let it go already man, we know your view. And what if this guy really did shoot a prisoner...gonna defend that? Is it okay because the policy was wrong? At what point do we hold ourselves accountable for our own actions? I have read plenty of accounts of concern from officers in Iraq worrying how their men would react under stress and the pride they took in their men when they maintained their discipline and didn't have to go home questioning their own actions. I don't know this man's full story, what other circumstances were involved etc, but the military certainly feels the issue was questionable and only let him off originally for the lack of physical evidence. His own statements are what are causing his problems now.

CMSF2 but I am biased....

It may have been taken from a scenario where the function of the building was meant to make sure no one entered or exited.

LOL okay fair enough

good lord you are quite stubborn adhering to something just for the sake of it.

There was nothing of the sort in that article. Getting a bit tired of media bashing any time they report on something that someone may not like. it is their job. My only suggestion is the media can only report on the info they have. I would go to the NBC report embedded in the article. It has more detail including responses from the Major. it is still a bit vague and to be clear it is not the media but rather the Military that is pursuing the case. The initial investigation started from his responses to a lie detector test. It was dropped for lack of physical evidence, but he was still punished by the Army Secretary. The latest charges are a result of comments on his part during a Fox news interview. The media is not crucifying him.

Agreed, it is not for us here to judge him, but I would say your "understanding" isn't quite how I read the man's comments. "He told the anchor he shot the man because he was concerned he would kill Afghan informants if released." Then again we are looking at a media report.

If he did what he said he did, premeditated execution of a prisoner..... what exactly are you defending? Why is it ridiculous to pursue the case? It is unfortunate yes, but if we are not committed to holding ourselves to a higher standard then what exactly are we? This seems conflicted with other positions you have taken.

Editor will allow you to do things you can not do in a scenario so save it and open as a battle and then test.

don't know, you'd have to test. Different vehicles seem to behave differently. It may have to do with if the vehicles has a "crew" or not.

This can get weird. There are some oddities at play in moving teams into vehicles. I have played around trying to mount troops in vehicles and dismounting the inherent crews. First off you have to worry about the team size versus vehicle capability, but in addition you run into weird stuff during a scenario example I mounted a 5 member team into a mk 19 hummv. At start of scenario it is fine. They drive to where I tell them to and then dismount. Then I find I want them to remount....and they can’t. There seems to a difference in mounting a team as part of the initial set up phase and commands later in the battle that can have unexpected consequences.