Dietrich

Except, perhaps, Danica McKellar. Not only is she a math geek (and the prettiest I've ever seen), she -- unlike the posers in the above-linked video -- has written math-learning books which have become bestsellers.

"...when haters come around, I pull my knife..." Which is a butter knife. Not a Bowie, not a switchblade, not even a pocket knife. A butter knife. Oh. Brother. And those lines aren't parallel. Never before have I so hated people who don't hate geometry.

Fare thee well, ColumbusOHGamer. CMMODS is dead! Long live CMMODS!

Both of these are mistakes borne of foreign words -- Hebrew ("Satan") and Chinese ("gung ho") -- incorporated into English. In the above-quoted (mis)use of "Satin", because of the context it isn't hard to deduce what was actually meant. Conversely, seeing/reading "satin" without such context would lead the typical English-speaking person to pronounce it "SÄ-tihn". Yet "Satan", the word actually meant in the above sentence is pronounced "SAY-ten". Go figure. The student had probably never heard "gung ho" pronounced carefully enough to notice the "ng" ending of the first word. In light of the US of A's gun-mongering image (in the eyes of much of the rest of the world), it's no surprise that the student rendered "gung ho" as "gun hoe".

I would dig it if "turret down" positioning were feasible. This would allow for making the most of one's MBTs and turret-ed IFVs -- they could reconnoiter at least some of the terrain ahead without exposing more than the topmost part of the turret.

As far as it applies to CMSF, I had been operating under the assumption that razing a building would leave anyone inside WIA/KIA. Experience, though, has shown that evidently there's some abstraction going on, so as often as not at least one guy survives amid the rubble. The last time I remember that happening was in playing the first mission of George MC's "Forging Steel" campaign -- I levelled three adjoining buildings with a medium-length linear impact-fuzed Paladin (155mm) fire mission, but as I moved a rifle squad in to reconnoiter the area, they took effective fire from the rubble. Reviewing the map at mission's end showed that a couple of "Threat" infantry had survived amid the rubble of those artillery-demolished buildings. As it applies to the "house from hell", according to the TV show I saw about it, one of the insurgents who was on the roof of the building when the Marines demolished it survived long enough to toss a grenade at them when they moved in to make sure the area was secured.

Looks real good, M1A1TC. Back when I heard the news about the Pakistani government basically letting the Taliban have control of the Swat valley (thus in effect giving them free reign to continue blowing up schools, flinging acid onto girls' faces, and murdering whomever they please), that conjured up in my mind visions of a Pakistani-Reserve-Army-versus-Taliban CMSF scenario in which a Pakistani battalion goes rogue, gathers a company's worth of loyal troops, then attacks the Taliban headquarters in the Swat valley and trounces them. The sad irony is that now the Pakistani army is attacking the Taliban, and it's resulting in far too many civilian casualties. (Yet more hypocrisy from the we're-the-truest-Muslims-in-the-world Taliban: back when they were in power, they drove around in trucks, beating up and even killing any man they encountered who did not have a beard, but now they shave their own beards in hopes of blending in with the fleeing civilians!)

How about this one:

Could I be forgiven for thinking that this looks not much more quality than the filming of a few dozen reenactors who were willing to get their uniforms dirty? To my eye, "Tali-Ihantala" looks much more like a movie than the "Forgotten Soldier" linked above. As far as I know, documentary-style films have been conspicuously absent among WW2 motion pictures. What is a "total lack of dramatic plot" to one person is a "realistic absence of Hollywood-ization" to another. And an airworthy Fw-190!

De Savage - Thanks for the link; looks like some rather detailed pages there. JP76er - I was referring to real-world incidents I have heard/read about in which Javelins were used against snipers and/or non-AFV targets. The Javelin may not be designed for use against infantry which are relatively in the open, but it still doesn't make sense to me that three Javelins hitting a rooftop would only cause one casualty.

Instead of arguing hypotheticals and such, how about we narrow this discussion (now that it is in its second page) to a specific scenario. To wit: "USMC 3:10 to Yuma". This scenario features Humvees. The Humvees are key to getting Blue's infantry to the location they must defend. The scaredy-gunner behavior this thread is discussing is key to the survival of the Humvees on the way to the "Alamo". True, the tactical situation of "3:10 to Yuma" may be inherently unrealistic; I don't know. But as far as CMSF is concerned, I think it provides a pretty good frame of reference which is pertinent to this discussion. I have only played this scenario post v1.11. My experiences have been mixed. The first several times I played through it, I sent the Humvees along the road all the way to the police station. Most of those times, at least one Humvee would get knocked out before negotiating that more-than-90 degree bend and at least one Humvees gunners would get WIA/KIA. The next several times I played the scenario, I sent my Humvees down the road at full speed until they reached that little house, whereupon I had them do a 45-degree left turn into the field to zoom across the open and over the ditch before barrelling into town. This shortcut yielded fewer casualties that going along the road. I got the best results when taking the shortcut and buttoning up the gunners from the get-go, but it was still definitely running a gauntlet. And all the US troops in this scenario are Elite (they're supposed to represent Delta Force operators). If even Elite gunners are buttoning up at the first 7.62mm round that snaps past their ears, they're of little use. The thing is... if a Humvee gunner is buttoned up, isn't it that not only is the Humvee unable to use its firepower to defend itself but its spotting capability suffers as well? In light of that, all the more reason for Humvee gunners remain unbuttoned either until they actually get hit or until a lot of bullets are snapping past their ears.

Your experiences, JP76er, are IMHO all the more ironic in light of the several incidences I've heard about where Javelins were used to take out snipers.

This reminds me of one of the more odd aspects of the North Hollywood shootout: in the immediate aftermath of the incident, after Larry Phillips had shot himself dead (he had been hit by bullets 10 times) and Emil Matasareanu had been subdued (he had been hit by bullets 29 times), law enforcement personnel were still operating under the impression that there was a third gunman in the area. The ambulance personnel dispatched to the scene thus followed standard procedure by refusing to enter the "hot zone". By the time LE personnel determined that there were no other armed suspects in the area and the ambulance personnel were given access to Matasareanu, he had already bled to death. A lawsuit filed against members of the LAPD on behalf of Matasareanu's family claimed that Matasareanu's civil rights were violated and that he was allowed to bleed to death. According to Wikipedia, quoting the website of the Law Offices of Goldberg and Gage, "the suit was later dropped when Matasareanu's family agreed to dismiss the action with a waiver of malicious prosecution." Could the subpoints of "2" be taken in total to mean that if even if a person performs "unlawful violence" (such as using multiple illegal weapons to shoot multiple police officers) and is shot and wounded in the course of a "lawful arrest" being effected upon him, any deprivation of [his] life resultant therefrom would not be regarded as being in contravention of the above-cited Article?

About three months ago, I started a thread presenting several questions I have about CM:Normandy. That thread got the least traffic of any of the CM:Normandy-related threads; it ended up so many pages back that I figured I might as well re-create it. Also, many of the questions I posed in that thread have been answered (at least partially) in subsequent threads, so I have pared down the questions to ones which have yet gone undiscussed. Thus, I say again... - How will artillery support be handled? Will calling for support be limited to forward observers? Will HQ units be able to call on and/or spot for artillery (presumably not as accurately or quickly as FOs)? Will units with C2 to their parent HQ be able to ask for artillery support (with perhaps an even greater accuracy/promptness penalty than the HQ itself requesting said support)? - Will on-map mortars need their own LOS to a given targeted area? (I suppose this would apply more to 81mm/3-inch "medium" mortars than 50mm/2-inch mortars.) Will mortars be able to fire indirectly (though presumably with relative inaccuracy)? Will HQs be able to spot for mortars within their command radius? - Will units which do not have radios or field telephones and which are out of visual/voice range of friendly units have some means of communication? TacAI-controlled signal flares, perhaps? (According to a post by Steve, inter-unit runners will be abstractly simulated.) - Will TO&Es and unit purchasing be CMx1-like or CMSF-like? Will we be able to give units particular names (and with an HQ's name reading "Lt. Murphy" instead of "Lt. Murphy HQ"*)? - Will tactical resupply include handgrenades? Will handgrenades always explode on impact (as they do in CMSF), or will they have realistic fuse delays, as in CMx1? Will infantry be able to pop smoke, whether for expedient concealment or for signalling? (I understand that infantry smoke-popping was omitted from CMx1 so as to obviate its gamey use/overuse.) Will smoke-popping be aim-able? Please understand, though, that I don't mean to imply "if the game lacks any of the above-mentioned things, I will consider it broken"; I ask these questions with a view inciting thoughtful (and respectful ) discussion. * I noticed that in the CMSF scenario "Bomber Takedown" (thumbs up to the scenario designer, by the way), several of the units had specific names like "Sgt. James Wheeler" and the unit leader's name (the name by the upper left box beside the unit portrait) was the same (i.e., "Wheeler"). I thought it wasn't really possible to make the unit leader's name a particular name; I thought it was more or less random. Could this be because the scenario is a "baked" scenario? (I don't remember if it actually is baked or not.) Any ideas?

Good points, silverstars. However, I don't think using the "M1A1 vis-a-vis M1A1/2 TUSK" comparison isn't quite what you had in mind. Whereas any two Shermans could be the exact same model but be festooned quite differently with sandbags, wood planks, and applique armor in various combinations, the tanks themselves are exactly the same -- take away the items they're festooned with, and there would be no appreciable difference. The M1A1/2 TUSK, on the other hand, when compared with the "standard" M1A1, has numerous different features -- ERA tiles on the hull sides, .50-cal. MG mounted coaxially above the cannon barrel, thermal sight for the loader, shield for the loader's pintle MG, etc. Thus it's not that the M1A1 TUSK is just an M1A1 with different "window dressing"; it's a different model. Also, the components of the M1A1 TUSK which distinguish it from the standard M1A1 are not random, unlike the sundry equipment external stowage on vehicles. That said, I like your idea(s) about random external items on vehicles, especially when it comes to camouflage.

Fanatic (the highest motivation level) means, among other things, that a unit will not retreat. This is appropriate for a thoroughly indoctrinated and ideologically motivated insurgent, who might be reasoning that, rather than retreat, he might as well die fighting so as to sooner attain the reward he believes is awaiting him after death. Assigning Fanatic motivation to an SOF operator would be inappropriate because, for one thing, this would short-circuit his wisdom about when it's better to flee than to stand and fight. Extreme (the second-highest motivation setting) would, in my view, be much more appropriate, since this would make the unit as highly motivated as possible while still having judgment enough to know when he should retreat. As per Clavicula Nox's input, I suppose this discussion can be opened up to encompass what the USMC calls "special operations capable" forces. This would include true SOF units (Green Berets, SEALs, MARSOC, etc.) but also units which fall under the USSOCOM umbrella (such as Rangers, 160th SOAR, etc.) and perhaps even Airborne... and the British Army's various SOC forces (SAS, Royal Marines, Parachute Regiment, Pathfinders, etc.).

"Holy high-explosive, Batman!"

"Not much else", eh? An interesting assessment. I find that cover arcs are useful in a range of situations. For example, if I'm infiltrating my troops under cover of darkness (like in the opening mission of the USMC campaign), applying short-range 360-degree cover arcs to my infantry enhances their stealthiness -- instead of opening fire as soon as they spot enemy units and thus giving away their own position, they just report such contacts. Also, cover arcs help scout units keep as low a profile as possible and thus remain unspotted (even if enemy units are relatively close, since there are few better ways to get spotted than to open fire) so they can continue providing valuable tactical reconnaissance. When defending, at the beginning of a scenario I apply cover arcs to all units with LOS/LOF to the area(s) the enemy will be approaching or attacking from, so that they don't open fire prematurely and give away their position so the enemy can just pulverize them with artillery. I wouldn't call this ambushing per se -- it's more a matter of opening fire at a time and at an area of one's choosing rather than letting the TacAI do whatever it thinks is best. Cover arcs are also handy when applied to turreted vehicles, as when you want an IFV's or an MBT's turret facing a different direction than its hull. (Though it's generally best to have the hull pointed in the direction of the enemy, which is usually the same direction one will need to shoot.)

With what I've read about OFP 2 and ArmA 2, I figure I'll end up getting both, since each one has features I've been looking forward to. (Then again, almost all the FPS games I've played have been of the MoH or CoD franchises.) I suppose the non-very-realistic modelling of vehicles in games like OFP 2 and ArmA 2 is because such games are shooters first and foremost, where the lion's share of the work in modelling with a view to realism has been invested in the infantry side of it, which represents the bulk of the gameplay. Also, I'm inclined to suspect that most gamers, being more knowledgeable about the infantry side of things, might cry foul if when manning a tank they got knocked out by a single round from an enemy tank at 1600 meters. The prevalence of health bars and such have ignorantized people with regards to the true vulnerabilities of even state-of-the-art MBTs. Were a game to have such realistic infantry modelling as OFP or ArmA and vehicle modelling on par with, say, tank simulators... that would be a game long in development.

Is it reasonable to reckon that in CM:Normandy and CM:SF 2 wooden picket fences will be like thin walls with many small windows, in that rounds will either pass between the pickets or punch through them fairly easily? Will picket fences be destructable in some way similar to how trees and bushes in CM:SF get "de-foliaged" by fire? If an RPG round hits a chain-link fence, will that blow a hole in it? If a bazooka/Panzerschreck round his a wooden picket fence, with that blast a gap in it? Will tanks be able to crush or drive over/through fencing?

I find that the smoke Syrian AFVs put out is minimally effective. As I understand it, the denser and broader the smoke cloud and the closer said smoke cloud is to the vehicle it is intended to screen, the better. With a BMP launcing smoke mortars 150 meters to its front -- and on a relatively narrow frontage, an enemy unit need only be a bit to one side of the BMP's facing to be able to see past or partially through the BMP's smoke screen. But, as has been pointed out in another thread, this is more a matter of doctrine than of wonky coding, so I guess I'll just have to be even more careful in deploying and maneuvering my BMPs than I am with my Strykers.

I can get into the Repistory just fine, but when I click "Download" and then check the License Agreement box, the screen changes to an error message.

But isn't the boy-"initiated"-by-prostitute thing kind of old hat? Of course, that was before the days of systematic anti-prostitution campaigns and of only being able to do anything (so to speak) after you reach 18 years old. What I do find surprising is that this "Sarah" was an actual policewoman, rather than some woman working with/for the local police. But, then, maybe I just haven't watched enough "Cops". I wonder what decision the judge would have made (all else being equal) if this incident had gone down in the US.

Each link says "this video is not available in your country". But since I've seen "The Producers", I do understand that the premiere of said show in Berlin is indeed a red-letter date. Which theater is it being played in?

Oooh! I like this idea, since I almost always play as Blue. Thanks for the suggestion, akd.