sburke

I just want to know who designed the MEFP to make smiley faces. That is just sick.. Funny, but sick.

Looks a bit like Najaf 2004

Funny thing is I use iron mode exclusively because it gives me MORE info. I get a better perspective on my unit’s sense of isolation at a glance.

Seems the Iranians did have a hand in Kirkuk if this article is accurate. https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/iranian-general-helped-iraqis-seize-kirkuk-from-us-allies/ar-AAtHmaG?li=AA4Zpp&ocid=spartanntp

Google it, yes it is real. It comes up periodically on the forum hmm wiki doesn’t have much but one of the grogs here will know.

The black cat was only one part of the incantation. Incomplete ingredients lead to poor results. I don’t need unit icons, I want unit patches on my grunts and in the UI. Now go get some more hairs from Emery’s ears.

It is my normal state admittedly

I am betting your dismounts were in a pretty foul mood for the warp factor 9 in reverse mr sulu! Did they eliminate the tank by chopping it into little tiny pieces and defecating on it?

I’m confused. Everything about this thread is not for your average customer. What is the point you are making? I assume your objection is to self imposed rules. If that is the case I am afraid you won’t get much traction for an actual “super iron” mode. By your own standard we are talking a minority of a minority for something that likely requires significant programming time.

Candle - check skull - check eye of newt - check skin of a diseased black cat -check blood of a rabid 6 toed possum- check 5 hairs from Emrys ear precisely 3 inches long.... - ugh check Okay I think I am ready to begin the incantation. Spirits hear me, I call on you to bring forth @Mord and @Darknight (DC) to prepare the creation of Unit icons for CMSF 2. You bastards got me hooked now get to work!! I want the Marine Btn insignia, Stryker units etc etc. You know the drill.

@Peregrine had a set of rules to make single player mode more interesting.

This is a solemn occasion, don your doody cap

Oh I wasn't trying to deny that just to be clear. I was just using a basic math item to show an easily explainable reason for better situational awareness. I am not in any way shape or form qualified to comment on any other aspect.

But once the shooting starts the whole spotting equation has changed right? and frankly the loader would seem to have more time to actually look all around as opposed to the gunner who is looking at the target. So still given a 3 man crew versus a 4 man crew. Once the shooting starts the gunner in both tanks will be more focused meaning the impact of the loader might be more profound. The reality is I have no experience that qualifies me to weigh in - I think it is time for panzer sauerkraut mortar to chime in! paging @panzersaurkrautwerfer Please report to the armor tactics briefing room please.

But the US does have a flat out spotting advantage from the simple fact that there are more eyes on. Russian tank - 3 guys, one of which is focused on driving. NATO tank 4 guys with one dedicated to driving so you have 50% more eyes from people in a position to be dedicated observers, not to even begin with the optics available. As to Russian/Ukrainian issue I can't say I have had that much experience either and honestly I am much more into the infantry aspect. TFSR is one I mess with a lot, right up my alley.

The testing I did indicated on map would do it as well. I did use an FO to call it so it was not direct fire by the mortar team, It was indirect fire by an on board asset. I would caution against what is known and what is the fix. I helped submit some of the info in tickets. Whether there is agreement as to what the behavior is or should be I don't honestly know other than to say that current behavior is .. well less then desirable.

not necessarily. The goal of a serious wargame should be to present the antagonists as accurately as possible, not artificially distort it for "balance". Balance comes into Scenario design in trying to create a battle whose victory conditions allow for both sides to have a chance to win. What constitutes winning may be completely different for the forces involved. You know that as well as anyone - your Mosul scenario is a great example. A lot of the pieces of what makes NATO more powerful actually aren't part of CMBS as they are beyond scope. They can be reflected, but aren't inherently shown. Better logistics for example. BF has explicitly stated they will not include Nationality specific items. If you want to reflect NATO troops being better trained you have to invoke that in the soft factors yourself. The actual capabilities of the equipment included is a whole different issue. Exactly

Fixed that for ya. You are welcome, don't mention it. Really it was no trouble at all.

You can still make them panic and run, but if you want prisoners you gotta make em surrender. There are pros and cons to both, but I like the newer behavior myself.

I don’t entirely disagree but I think the mindset that somehow we can fix this was wrong when we invaded Iraq and it is still wrong Just because the basis of your reasoning is more compassionate than the Bush administration doesn’t mean you’ll be any more successful A sad truth And as much as I opposed the invasion, long term I can’t say it is any worse for the Iraqis than if we hadn’t Anyone who thinks they know for sure is kidding themselves Saddam would not have tried to evacuate Fallujah if he’d faced a revolt he’d have done the same thing as Assad did to Hama maybe worse. He’d already gassed the Kurds Not saying this to excuse western govt actions, but am trying to keep things in perspective yeah we screwed up, royally Did we make it worse than it could have been? Maybe, maybe not. Can we fix it? Probably not, never could and still can’t in our hubris we think we have the ability to impose some kind of order humanity is not that easy to deal with though Our mindset on solving the problem starts generally from the wrong place because we don’t understand the complexity of the issue and in our arrogance we feel we don’t need to so we come stomping in with our size 52 size boots like a bull in a china shop thrashing around and generally creating chaos till we finally say how the f**k do I get out of here

Basically if you use the same map in a campaign that the damage to terrain incurrred in each battle carry through to the next battle.

Actually if you are gonna slash the VP, skip the BP as well as some of it requires the VP i would argue to not skip either though. The battle pack is pretty awesome.

Straying into politics here and the issue is far more complicated. The divisions in the region go back centuries. The west hasn’t helped matters, but I wouldn’t sat the west owns the Shi’a/Sunni divide which is frankly the biggest problem they face in the Mid East. Speaking strictly to the current fighting near Kirkuk, the Kurdish people have faced this fight in Iraq since the late 1960s. At best you could say the the west eliminated the unified power of the Iraqi regime to wage war on the Kurds. We certainly did not create the Kurdish issue in Iraq. You can’t even blame it on Sykes Picot. The Ottoman Empire only had direct control for some 85 years. Rule of the area had been constantly fought over by the Iranians, Arabs and mongols for hundreds of years before that. Strangely enough their current situation is not vastly different from 300 years ago with once again Turkey, Iran and an Arab state (s) all opposed to an independent Kurdistan.

I think the Iraqis may be biting off more than they can chew here. The fight against ISIS may have been tough, but that was only because they were dug in to urban settings. As a force the peshmerga are gonna be a different league. I expect a lot of this is Iranian driven. The Iraqis are gonna have to fight this without US support. I expect to see a lot of recently desceased Shiite militia before things calm down.

hey you better get working on the battle for Kirkuk - Peshmerga versus Iraqi CTS units. Nobody gets US support unless the Iranians jump in.