A Canadian Cat
-
Posts
16,500 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
55
Posts posted by A Canadian Cat
-
-
I believe this is a problem of compatibility. The old version of the code doesn't run in Win 8 (or maybe 10 I forget). One of the updates fixed this issue. I recommend contacting support - they know exactly which version works with what and can help you figure out what upgrades you might already be entitled to.
-
12 minutes ago, The_Capt said:
The Kerch Bridge does little to support any of that beyond making us feel better.
But, but, but I want to feel better :-<
I say use the new ammo and missiles to mess up as many attacks as possible and hit as many logistics and HQ targets as you can find. Rinse and repeat.
-
1 hour ago, Vacillator said:
In my mind I thought I'd done that, but I suppose I might have been a bit sloppy about it.
Yeah, I have had occasion where my method did not work as expected too. I usually figure I messed up but now you are making me want to test it
-
My understanding is that the low and high bocage blocks movement in CMBN. CMRT and CMFB both have low bocage (but not high) except it does not block armour. Having said that if you want your armour to cross it you need to place a order way point just on one side and the next one just on the other. Otherwise the pathing system might decide to go around or through a gap some distance away.
When i am trying to get vehicles to cross any obstacle I always place a way point around 5m away from the obstacle and another way point 5m or so on the other side. That tells the TacAI "I want you to drive through / over this". I do this for streams, hedges, walls, bocage etc. So, also for jeeps, trucks etc. not just tanks.
-
1 hour ago, Centurian52 said:
which has unfortunately created some new unrealistic edge cases
Exactly.
-
20 hours ago, weapon2010 said:
well that actually makes some sense , the hypothetical field wire , but it makes zero sense for a tank crew 100m from their destroyed tank
Yeah, its an abstraction that covers field phones. It, clearly, looks goofy in your situation though.
-
4 minutes ago, weapon2010 said:
like you don't know
-
2 hours ago, Centurian52 said:
I think there is value in having a thread dedicated to discussing what we'd like some of the scenario designers out there to tackle.
Sure but will they come here for that based on this thread title?
-
22 minutes ago, Bil Hardenberger said:
I've heard that's a great blog.
LOL you heard right
-
10 minutes ago, sburke said:
whoa! 40 years! Don't make em go by faster than they already do!
LOL. I don't think your link pointing to a digital scan of an actual news paper (remember those, me neither) article makes it feel more recent.
-
21 minutes ago, omae2 said:
Drones could just identify landmarks, or have integrated satellite pictures or other type of maps that help it with navigation.
Which landmarks are those again?
To be fair, you are correct, for sure landmarks are a way to go etc. My point is its not a solved problem yet and how well it works will govern how people ultimately feel about it. Both those in the armed forces - who's opinion counts and those in the civilian population - who's opinion counts in a different way.
-
15 minutes ago, The_Capt said:
I think these problems are definitely going to have problems, some unintended and some very much intended. Some bad actors will gleefully employ them on civilians to terrorize and as part of an overall genocidal campaign.
Yep.
15 minutes ago, The_Capt said:In reality there is no real difference between a cruise missile striking a civilian housing complex and a cruise missile carrying a bunch of assassination drones. The drones will be far more effective and vicious but are basically doing the same job.
Oh I agree. I think your bundle of assassination drones are way scarier for the civilian population and media even though X number of civilians targeted and killed is not really different. The bad actors are going to like the extra scare feature.
-
8 minutes ago, hcrof said:
The way I see it is that if you bombard and area with artillery then everything in an ellipse of hundreds of meters is at risk of dying. I don't see much difference in designating a killbox for drones and letting them go for it. In fact a killbox is better since it can be defined more precisely and the stroke can be closer to your own troops.
My point is you cannot do that. How do you define the kill box - remember it needs to work when GPS is denied by EW systems. Yes, artillery are using maps and can make mistakes. I realize that. Like I said though statements like "my friend died in an artillery strike" and "my friend died after being hunted by AI drone" land very differently.
We can argue that it shouldn't but no one else cares
-
Also there is nothing special about meeting engagements having touch objectives. Any type of objective can be used in any type of battle.
-
There are various types of VP locations - some can be seen by both players, others only one. Touch objectives are your side only so there is no such thing as "both of you touching it". Now having said that you can also make a player side only touch objective for both players and place them in the exact same location so you can get the same effect as both touching it but really it is two separate objectives.
I was recently playing a battle that had a bunch of touch objectives and those closest to me where worth 50 points, some further away were worth 100 and others deep on the map near where the enemy started where worth 150 points. My opponent had a similar set with the exact opposite points spread. The ones worth 50 for me had one worth 150 placed in the same location for them. In all cases there were two touch objectives in the same location - one for me and one for my opponent.
-
On 4/12/2024 at 9:43 AM, The_Capt said:
The issue with fully autonomous is that it offers superiority for a deterministic system. That driver will pretty much ensure any attempts at regulation/proliferation are going to fall apart. Now if autonomous systems achieve the level of a WMD with a MAD component, perhaps. But the best counter to stop fully autonomous weapon systems...are other fully autonomous weapon systems. We already have this in maritime warfare with missiles and point defence systems. The CWIS is entirely autonomous once someone flips the switch. They can target and engage on their own. Why? Because a machine can react far faster than a manned gun.
This where I see an issue with autonomous drone usage - namely friendly fire and civilian casualties. I'm not sure how big the issue will be, that will be based on how these automatic targeting systems work. Friendly fire or killing of civilians could be a serious problem with autonomous drones if this isn't handled well / correctly.
The comparison to the Navy CWIS autonomous systems doesn't really work because there is a clear exclusion zone around fleets and warships to the point that if some civilian wondered inside that area they would get no sympathy when they get whacked. So, those systems can be weapons free and autonomous for certain ranges without risking civilian or friendly casualties. In other words humans have managed the space those autonomous systems work in so that they can target anything that comes with in them "safely".
Autonomous drones hunting enemy soldiers, tanks and other vehicles do not have that kind of space. They have to operate in a much messier and chaotic environment. Lots can be done, make the targeting smarter, geo-fencing, range cut offs etc. but the issue is none of that is as clear cut as "get within 100m of a destroyer you die".
All of those problems have solutions of varying degrees of effectiveness some of which can now be attacked (geo-fencing really should not be relied on for this) or have short comings that have unknown or known failure points (targeting only enemy AFVs is not actually easy and since these systems are actually trying to kill people that problem is more important to deal with).
I'm not saying there will not be autonomous drones or that we should try to ban them. I don't think we can do that. I am saying that these systems are going to have problems that human controlled systems don't. Or perhaps a better way of saying it would be they are going to have different failure issues and those failures are going to hit the public's ear differently and that needs to be managed.
Or not I suppose
-
On 4/15/2024 at 9:19 AM, bruno2016 said:
is there any turret mounted smoke mortar (eg the Shermans mod. 75) which can fire up to 150 yards in CM2? I cld only see the "pop up smoke" command which is basically a smoke discharger for very short distances.
Yes, you found the command. The way it is modeled is the smoke discharge goes off at a set distance. That distance can vary per vehicle but I am not sure it does much (one example is BMPs throw their smoke lots further than 20m). Do you have sources that show the smoke mortar discharge distances and if / how they were controlled for a Sherman?
-
Check out @Bil Hardenberger's blog:
This older thread has some good discussion too:
Here is a play list the includes the afore metioned Armchair General videos:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OZ6dDlqye9Q&list=PLmW_vcwM_qxukdDjpfUEerpICUzTrTKek&index=1
-
17 hours ago, Redwolf said:
No industrial or country factors.
Rarity accounts for that. More of how much of the equipment was delivered and available in the area the game occurs and if it was commonly used in large formations or not at the time set for the QB.
-
On 4/14/2024 at 10:42 AM, Halmbarte said:
Starship Troopers?
Or the long talked about Space Lobsters
-
Ooops I missed that Elvis already responded. Once you guys said the riders were positioned inside I figured they would get protection. Model placement matters. So, the oopsie is bigger than graphic.
-
19 hours ago, Vacillator said:
@A Canadian Cat - is the hidden Pioneer squad on a Flammpanzer something I should report?
Absolutely - go for it.
-
On 4/6/2024 at 1:45 PM, The_Capt said:
China is in a weird spot. <snip>
And then they do not want Russia to completely fail and fall apart - see access to cheap energy.
That one I am not so sure of. Setting aside the darkness surrounding a full Russian state collapse, that you have appropriately pointed out, it seems to me that China is actually the one in a position to benefit from that. At least in their near border area they are in a place that the could take over (directly or by proxy) and stabilize huge portions of the country to their exclusive benefit.
Then considering the darkness that may result form a full state collapse China is also the one least effected by those concerns. They have far better and more ruthless control over what nerdowells get up to inside their country and given they could likely stabilize a large portion of the country for their benefit they might skate on the downside of a state wide collapse.
-
Looks bad indeed. Do you have any mods installed? If so can you reproduce it without them? You can just move the mod folders to a temp location and open a saved game to check.
What battles were left out?
in Combat Mission Final Blitzkrieg
Posted
Other than the alternate history where you are still alive that is