Misereor

Probably much the same outrage Lug the Happy Neanderthal was subjected to, when somone first used his invention of fire to burn down a hut.

I remember the same kind of outcry about Grand Theft Auto when it first came out. Didn't exactly seem to hurt sales...

Did it use radar-directed fire? If so, I would tend to think the two barrels would fit nicely into German late war large caliber AA doctrine.

Check Norris?</font>

Royal Opponent. Tanks with invincible front armor and a high number of mechanized infantry. You can use it as pre-training for CM:SF with it's Abrams' and Strykers.

Are those muzzle-brakes?

As you have already seen, the game is about content and not graphics. You are unlikely to appreciate just how detailed the game is, if you've only played a couple of scenarios, but it will come to you as you play more. All the while, the user interface is deliciously simple and easy to use. (Don't forget to check out the hotbuttons.) Even without any mods whatsoever, I would recommend this game. If you take any kind of liking to it, there are many, many hours of enjoyment to be had playing the AI, and when you get tired of that, there is a vibrant community of people who design scenarios and campaigns, and will be happy to kick your butt in Play-By-E-Mail.

Didn't think much about it. But I did start catching on when "background shading" was mentioned a few posts later

It's pretty obvious that they have been forced into a kind of warfare that they weren't designed for. An attack helicopter like the Apache is a standoff weapon, and I can imagine that supressing insurgents don't always allow it to fight the kind of combat it's supposed to. As for losses being unexpectedly high, I actually don't think so. I think a calculated risk is being taken with them. Some of the military guys who hang around here are probably able to give a more comprehensive analysis...

Me too. Was a bit unsettled about the "Man, that was so cool!" comments.

There will also be a boss-fight at the end of each mission. "What's that Lassie? Timmy has been abducted by by Osama Bin Laden, who wants us to meet him on Main Street at high noon?"

Paraphrasing Bruce Lee: "If circumstance warrants it, don't be afraid to bite. But if you start a fight with the intention of making bite attacks, don't be surprised when you get all your teeth knocked out." Seems appropriate to the HT assaults discussion

Very useful for people who haven't got all that much insight in Russian WW2 modus operandi (i.e. me).

Post Airstrike Whooping is put in the game. Unfortunately due to some rushed coding, whooping is enabled whenever anything is hit, including friendly troops, stray dogs, or the town orphanage.

There are no arguments, only a series of poorly phrased rants about college professors taking golden showers. Axel (the original poster) said: "but when it comes to an attack i have no clue what to do no difference if im playing against the CPU or a friend my attacks always seem to fall short.. does anyone have a good "attack tactic" to share?" In reply he received a series of tactical doctrines, but in the area of overall planning, only such vagueries as "have a decent strategy" or "just kill the enemy". I added: "To win convincingly, you must "control" the battle. That means keeping the enemy from doing what he wants to do, while doing what you want to do. The tactics mentioned above are merely a means to that end." You then said: "I think Misereor is oversimplifying things with the whole "just control the battle and you'll win" dictum. There are some basic tactics or rules a player should know if he is going to use armor effectively" But note that I do not claim that tactical doctrine is unimportant, but that it must be used with some overall purpose in mind to have any meaning. I do believe we were talking past each other on that. (Any perceived "huffyness" on my part was purely unintentional, but then the flamefest began.) I later elaborated, after being asked to do so. It is my opinion that for a novice to attain battle control in an advance/assault scenario, he should focus on where he wants to go and what areas he must control (whether by fire, occupation, or smoke) to do so without taking too many casualties. He must do this in order to decide WHERE he wants to apply the tactical doctrines he has been innundated with if he has been reading this thread. (I also believe that it is unlikely that a novice player will remember more than a few of them anyway, so until he's had a chance to properly integrate them, he should focus on purpose more than form.) Furthermore I also believe that when facing a skilled human opponent, being able to control the battle distinguishes the master player. (Though "battle control" is implicitly not limited to the above idea in such a case. If I may point again to the Sunken Lane AAR posted earlier to make an example.) I guess a summary is warranted for those who haven't microread the thread, as it contains a lot of junk data. I am of course obliged to correct honest misunderstandings, but I have no intention of being held accountable for things I have not said. I have nothing but ridicule for strawmen arguments made by... well, you know what I mean. Hope that clarifies things a bit, but certainly no hard feelings on my part.