sburke

I don't think you will see any adjustments. It is going to be enough work to get CMSF to V4. Anything beyond that is just asking for them to cancel. Better to have a thread on things to fix in v4 and then hope that it makes it into a patch that would then be applied to CMSF. It is the same result but you hide behind v4 so they don't see you sneak up with CMSF2

good plan. There are additional features in CM 4 you don't get in CM 3 so it isn't quite as simple saying one aspect determines what is better. There are trade offs.

I am not sure why you think he is justifying their stance. Understanding an enemies position is important to project your actions. It doesn't mean you agree. As to actions, right now S Korea is going to pay the price for any action we take. Unilateral action by the US ignoring the risk to S Korea is not exactly behaving like an ally.

the long way of saying no.

no

Why you sniveling goat faced pimple on a ... oh wait, I thought I was on the forum for "the division". My bad.

I have never played a quick battle.... but I would also never consider myself "the average player". I love tinkering in the editor, I have actually created a few scenarios and have messed around with many more just fiddling with ideas. Personally I love a well crafted scenario that has multiple AI plans to leave me guessing and the prospect of messing with triggers is enticing. I do prefer though a good HTH match. The AI will never give you the same experience and interaction that a human will. On the other hand you can cruise through 30 turns in a night against the AI. The point is, BF has to account for the entire community. The representation on this forum is I expect an exceedingly small portion of their client base. Better be or they will be next after Toys R Us filing chapt 11. I am wary of anyone telling me what the average player does, frets about the shrinking community or decides that the issue with scenario creation is they are too hard especially if they have never bothered to try doing one. As to all this continuing argument that only in a campaign do you care about force preservation etc I understand the point, but disagree. If your orders are such and the VC set correctly, then force preservation is very much an issue. Whether there is a following battle or not, if the scenario is designed correctly you still work off the same set of parameters. A campaign does not have to use the same units in every battle, it isn't even required to use the same units in any battle so it is not an automatic assumption that because you are playing a campaign you have to worry about things you needn't concern yourself with in a scenario. I've been in plenty of battles having to worry about where my AT assets are and preserving some to hold of potential enemy movements. A well crafted scenario is immersive, with the right victory conditions it can make you deal with issues like force preservation. A well crafted campaign gives you a sense that you are affecting a larger mission. The reality is it is simply a linked set of scenarios, they may not in fact have much of anything to do with one another. One of my favorite campaigns is TF Panther (CMSF). I don't like every scenario in it, but I love "the snitch". One of my all time favorite scenarios. It loosely fits into the campaign, but only loosely. It is conceptually something I intend to use at some point in a campaign that is a series of missions in CMSF. The idea is to have a series of missions for a unit's deployment, but there isn't necessarily a tying element between them, just the freakin grind of trying to survive in an ongoing insurgency. BF's standards for making a scenario are pretty high and rightly so, the player has paid for the product and it should be held to a different standard. That makes scenario creation a bit more stressful. However a user community scenario should not be held to that standard. (though many are far better than my paltry contributions- I am looking at you @Sgt.Squarehead

The number of dead and the scale of destruction isn't even close to comparable. A NY Times analysis from July of various possibilities. It is difficult to assess when for example you also have to factor in the number of duds in N Korean arty - a significant percentage- and what they would actually target. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/05/world/asia/north-korea-south-us-nuclear-war.html?_r=0 another article on one more issue - the fule for N Korean rockets thought to be coming from China http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/a-potent-fuel-flows-to-north-korea-it-may-be-too-late-to-halt-it/ar-AAs693X?ocid=spartanntp

exactly. If only Kim were a puppet - we'd know who to pressure....

I could probably send you a dozen links, but the reality is nobody really knows. China's influence is a lot less than the US govt seems to think. Relations between China and n Korea have deteriorated a lot since little boy with the goofy haircut came to sit on the throne. He put his own uncle in front of a firing squad consisting of an AA gun, killed off most of that uncle's family for being too close to China and assassinated his own step brother who had been living for a while in Beijing. Not exactly something to foster cordial relations. So we pressure China to pressure a regime that doesn't care and the source of the technology that is the threat seems to be a combo of Pakistan and Russia. there is no military option that does not risk the destruction of Seoul. Best option might simply be to offer a billion dollar bounty and a house on the getaway island of your choice to whomever takes him out. Be cheap anyway compared to other options.

How dare you defame @IanL by equating him with some miscreant. Oh wait that is me. Well the point still stands! I've a bit more than 20 posts. I assume Roman numerals in Sweden are the same in English Why you decided to take a shot at me at this point considering I have been pretty diplomatic so far is odd. Well goes to show how much being diplomatic was worth. @Sgt.Squarehead you are wrong. His issue isn't trying to have a discussion in a non native language. He is quite successfully employing English in a belittling immature sarcastic manner. I'd say his English is quite proficient when it comes to being a jerk so I have to assume if he genuinely wanted to have a productive discussion he could. That he chooses not to is his choice. It is ours whether we continue to participate. I have better things to do, I just noticed some fresh belly button lint. burke out

So out of that very informative post that is all you got? I think I see the problem here.

You are displaying an extreme level of ignorance regarding US training and capabilities. No offense, you are in Sweden and it isn't likely high on your list of Saturday morning over coffee readings. However if you are going to toss out comments on US potential weaknesses in training it would reflect better on you if you did take the time to understand what actually is the US training program. The National Training Center is a unique training facility that is a key to understanding what the US actually does do regarding training.

was actually more intrigued by the Tannenberg article. Didn't realize it's potential impact on the Schlieffen plan.

Considering our budget I don't think it matters what type of war we may have been fighting, the R&D still goes on for a variety of threats. The folks in development labs pay little attention to current fighting and more about what kind of tech is being developed.

Source bias based on preconceived notions. If you are looking for sources to support your own preconceived notions rather than verifying if your notions are valid, it leads to interesting places. arguing with an experienced tanker over the merits of the engine in said tank is not a great idea, but it does lead to interesting posts from @panzersaurkrautwerfer So I guess I should say thank you? thank you @LUCASWILLEN05

lol that is a very funny and honest reply. As Cpt Miller noted, the Vehicle and Battle packs are more I think BF making clear that not all content releases will be a full module. It isn't that they see a regular stream of them coming out but they tested the waters to see if they were a viable alternative to release content financially. They know what we want (everything). How to release content becomes more the issue. They could have waited until they felt they had enough and included the CMBN VP and BP in a module. Problem is kind of two fold - what would the module focus have been and how long would it have taken to reach that point. So instead of a module they did two packs. What will future packs be, hard to say. With the exception of CMBN I think the goal is another module for CMFB, CMRT, CMBS and CMFI so I would be surprised to see a pack come out anytime soon. What I would hope for eventually is nationality packs for CMBS and CMRT. And of course once CMSF 2 is out they need to drop everything and expand that to a full mid east/war on terror game.

I am not sure I understand the point. You make it sound as if BF has released nothing in 3 years. In that time we have had CMBS and CMFB, 2 battle packs, and an across the board upgrade to the 4.0 engine. It isn't like the very small battlefront team is sitting on their arses.

heh the first time I tried this I named my file and somehow I ended up with special editor overlay.bmp.bmp it uhh didn't work very well.

AI improvement is costly so beware of what you wish for. Yeah I think somebody would be utterly bonkers to not want it, but AI is one of those things that just is not much in the cards and it seems every time we get a change in AI behavior for one issue it has worse unintended consequences. Just check the discussion about troops bugging out of foxholes.

Mock if you will sir, but I understand ISIS is fielding the favored contestant for Miss World Drag Queen! They were rated as a low probability contestant but that was before they started shaving their beards.

put another way. Reality bites

true to a degree, but I was seeing some similar behavior in MG in what I think was then 3.0. I watched squads of guys start bailing out of a building when 82mm mortars were dropping on the roof. They'd run outside and then start dropping like flies from mortar rounds.

The data that has been provided has nothing to do with tree bursts. The behavior is the same regardless of surrounding terrain. As AKD noted above the question is more about what should be the AI reaction. This isn't a new topic, just one that got tweaked recently based on suggestions/requests to deal with other situations where the AI just sits there and let's you plink them with a mortar. There are actually situations where you would want the AI to have this behavior. They just aren't getting the same attention as the impact overall seems to be more negative than positive. It also isn't entirely new. In developing the scenario Frosty Welcome for the MG module I was frustrated by how easy it was to cause the Brits holding the schoolhouse to just bail out into the street. (in reality was a heavily fortified position that held out for quite a while). That well predates 4.0. I think the tweaks just made it more apparent. I suspect there isn't an easy answer for the AI in single player mode to know what to do when. The more variables attached to an AI decision tree, the higher the likelihood we will always find something that really messes with your game. I have tested against on map mortars and the behavior is pretty much the same.

warning Will Robinson warning watch how far you go with this as it may end up with a thread lock