sburke

I am apparently not doing enough drugs.

No I see a conversation between the two about how the various factions are moving and how the US is going to work with them, mostly confused. The whole conversation is about where the various Ukrainians stand and how they could possibly facilitate a meeting to get them to work together. The point is it is about getting the Ukrainians to work together. I have yet to see where the US "installed" their guy. I did however see the Russian bribe to Yanukovych and the pressure to go against the Ukrainian nation's desire to open relations to the west.Not to mention the Russian troops invading the sovereign territory of Ukraine. I can see how you would be confused though considering how you are completely oblivious to Russian behavior before and after these events. Nowhere in this explosive conversation do I see a single instance of the US offering anything to anyone. Just what exactly was our leverage to "install" our guy?

Just exactly what are you saying is the dangerous info there? That the US would support a particular faction of the gov't? Expressing their opinion on how to work with whom within the factions opposing the Russian backed guy? Umm sure that is how we overthrew the Ukrainian gov't And the Russian military invasion, how does that level of intervention fit compared to this.......... Sorry Baneman you are just totally wrong! - 2 Americans having a phone conversation trying to figure out how the dice are falling in Ukraine is certainly far superior data to Russia's infiltration of every aspect of Ukrainian gov't, massive bribes and outright military intervention. Nasty Amerikanski!!!

It should have and was headed that way until Putin has shown that in fact NATO is still relevant. And Russia has not been involved in any "bloodbaths"? We'll just kindly ignore Russia's military actions against it's neighbors, that will make your line of thought easier to follow. I guess this is another thread headed to closure as the Russia apologist brigade is out in full force.

My avatar is Alfred e Neumann, any resemblance to czar Putin is purely coincidental.

Uh no, that has been proven patently false including by the likes of Gorbachev.

CM still needs Marines (in WW2).

somebody seems to be off his meds... maybe me!

Well I just hit a tank with a Bazooka round in the turret last night that had the skirt- result- 1 dead bazooka team. My impressions is they do work at least some of the time- like when it is MY bazooka guy

yes and no- the way CM works from what I have seen from Steve's statements (that originate form Charles programming) they can not simply pass off much of it to other cores. Some they can (and have). Also BF isn't exactly overflowing with programmers- to say there has been no progress is way over blown - compare CMSF to CMFB. Is it as much as you'd like (or any of us would like) no, but there has absolutely been huge progress.

Not to offend, but you didn't come here for a conversation. You came here to vent your frustration. I can appreciate that and am sorry your enjoyment of the game is impaired, but your perceptions on many things as IanL noted are just completely wrong. I don't know how to convince you of something that is absolutely true and Steve can confirm, but you don't want to believe. You've convinced yourself the game has different rules for the AI (suppression etc) which it absolutely does not. That tells me that you are allowing your frustrations to alter your perceptions. I quoted the above because I have heard it fairly frequently. It never goes anywhere positive because you have two polar opposites. Those who realize there is only so much that can be packed into the code and those who don't. If you don't you will expect BF to create crawling under a barbed wire fence. If you do you realize it isn't a "barbed wire fence" It is a "wall object" with it's own specific characteristics. Adding crawling under it isn't just a matter of telling your guys to crawl, it means coding the "wall object" to allow that behavior. I'd also like guys to climb into ground floor windows. I'd like them to not come out onto a balcony and leave the protection of a building just because there is a balcony. I'd really love the TAC AI to be smarter about some stuff, but TAC AI is incredibly difficult. That the game performs as well as it does is a minor miracle. You already know it is a computer game which is bound to have limitations because well it is a computer game. If you aren't going to accept that it is gonna have limitations I'd suggest shelving and not coming back. You are only going to end up getting frustrated again. That is not meant to be insulting. I have played games that hit me the same way. I just never go back to them. I was testing a scenario for JonS for the battlepack one day. The Germans were occupying a group of houses facing out over a field. I had a group of men (British Paras) in separate teams approach the row from a blind side. I then had a unit open fire on the houses from the field. All the Germans ran to the front of the houses. I breached the first house and had my other teams roll up the houses from the rear eliminating some 18 Germans without a loss. It was probably my best single turn ever in CM. The execution by my pixeltruppen was perfect and the cinema moment was so cool I just watched it over and over. I'll probably never be able to repeat it. To Pak40's point that is why I play CM, there simply isn't anything else like it. I'm older than when I started playing CMBO . . . a lot older. There isn't anything wrong with changes in behavior due to age. Interests change, patience levels change. You have to get up to go to the bathroom more often. However I have more money and a more comfortable place to play CM and I can afford Depends. . It all evens out. Now get off my lawn hippy.

That was perfect. Freakin hysterical. More!

Or simply deals with their population surplus by sending all the malcontents in a surge. ? It is faster than trying to re equip your artillery park.

All I can say is as far as I understand it you can't drop RT and still have CM. More than that Steve would have to say.

You missed my point. I never said there wasn't a difference. What I said was you can't have one without the other. Therefore the argument that they could get rid of RT is senseless. There would be no CM then at all.

just a thought - are there more than 9 items that can be listed and therefore overrun the UI? I have never really paid attention for anything other than what is actually damaged.

Nothing specific, but much is reusable. I haven't tried yet, but I am pretty certain CMBN ones would work just fine.

It is brand new. I think we are all still learning

I think you guys are arguing over nothing. My understanding (and I could be totally wrong) is wego and RT are intertwined. You can't have wego without the game running RT in increments. The wego folks just forego our ability to issue commands for a minute and in return we get unlimited playback. Steve is not a big fan of zero sum arguments ?

Steve plays real time so you needn't worry ?

Civilians per se will likely never be in, but in CMSF you can (and folks have) simulated scenarios using spies. The only other item you cited that I think might actually show up at some time is fire. All depends if BF figures out a way to do so that doesn't become totally gamey and doesn't kill frame rates.

post a link to the save and someone will take a look. If you don't have a save but at least know the Qb map and buildings in question that might still work. Other than that I have not had any "transparent" building issues and haven't heard of any others. I have gone so far as to delete two sides of a building to try and create tank ambushes and have found even with exterior walls deleted the building still blocked LOS.

Agreed we can stop saying the Russians are coming, as the Ukrainians have noted "the Russians are here". Kind of hard to portray yourself as not the aggressor when your tanks are cruising across an international border and you have trucks going the other way carrying the bodies of soldiers you have lost . Yeah that all makes sense. You think Putin has considered hiring Kelly Anne Conway? This is right up her alley.

Unless that large number of mediocre tanks is up against a large number of really good tanks with a better logistical train, training and experience... and you are on the attack... at least initially. At that point it probably doesn't matter if you have a small amount of good tanks, or a lot of mediocre ones. You picked the wrong fight. Anyone watch Vikings? See Aelle's face when he realized what army he was now facing when Ragner's sons arrived?

If Russia's GDP were higher than South Korea and the military actually met the lofty goals it keeps announcing and never meets, maybe we would take the Russian military seriously. But considering Russia barely takes it's own military seriously - per your own statement " The Russian MOD is often divided over what to do and always has been. In fact, it is not monolitic in his thinking and there is power struggles on the inside about what to do. Even Putin is not the all powerful supervillain you think he is. He must deal with bureaucratic opposition, friction and yes, corruption. So plans change, are being modified to placate a certain faction, compromises are made. It's not : you do as I say or else... He may wish it so, but there were many instances where he was blocked and frustrated on the inside for good reasons or less noble ones (like corruption)." One example of why we don't take your statements seriously is you don't recognize that Putin is part of the corruption- it doesn't happen despite him, but is part and parcel. If the military organization is corrupted from the top, how can you ever hope to achieve the reforms needed to make the military a truly efficient fighting force? It isn't that folks are denigrating the Russian soldier. The soldier can only be as good as the organization he is a part of. The production of war materials can only be as good as the state and industrial organization that builds them. In Russia's case even by your own statement, those have serious flaws. Every country faces issue of conflicting priorities, commercial relationships and inter-service rivalries, but those are exacerbated in a phenomenally corrupt state organization. http://www.transparency.org/news/feature/corruption_perceptions_index_2016#table So yeah we get skeptical of promises and statements about the capabilities projected. For example " A T-90M as described here would be a very serious threat to an Abrams in the GAME and in a tactical setting. Gee, well employed the actual russian tanks are useful. You guys seem to think i'm talking on strategic level here. That new gun with the new ammo would ensure frontal kills against the Abrams in the game under (let be conservative here) 1500 meters and the Malackit ERA would help the tank survive the first hit more often than relikt. I dont care about Operational numbers or what would happen on a strategic level" Excuse us if we are skeptical, but that is based on a track record of failed projections. Yes you can always create a scenario if you like that tries to level the playing field, but operational events influence the tactical battles that will occur. Most players from what I have seen like to understand what might happen on an actual battlefield and enjoy campaigns as they can sort of feel the operational tempo in the tactical level. You want scenarios that weight things to support Russian success, fine. IMHO that makes you at about the same level as folks who always want to play the Germans with the uber kitties. There is nothing wrong with it and it can be fun, but don't pretend there is any realism there.