Jump to content

A Canadian Cat

Members
  • Posts

    16,490
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    55

A Canadian Cat last won the day on July 6 2021

A Canadian Cat had the most liked content!

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://www.lesliesoftware.com/mods

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location:
    Ontario, Canada
  • Interests
    Photography, programming

Converted

  • Location
    Ontario, Canada
  • Interests
    Photography
  • Occupation
    Software Development

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

A Canadian Cat's Achievements

Senior Member

Senior Member (3/3)

2.9k

Reputation

  1. Sure but will they come here for that based on this thread title?
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. Yep. 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.
  5. 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
  6. Also there is nothing special about meeting engagements having touch objectives. Any type of objective can be used in any type of battle.
  7. 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.
  8. 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
  9. 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?
  10. 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
  11. 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.
  12. 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.
×
×
  • Create New...