A Canadian Cat

The Blitz is running four scenarios this month. Sign up for the April Scenario of the Month has started over at the Blitz. This month the scenarios are: CMBN: MG Drive on the Dreijenseweg CMFI: Palma di Montechiaro CMRT: Augustow Plague Boil CMBS: Going To Town The form post on theBlitz for sign up.

The Blitz is running four scenarios this month. Sign up for the April Scenario of the Month has started over at the Blitz. This month the scenarios are: CMBN: MG Drive on the Dreijenseweg CMFI: Palma di Montechiaro CMRT: Augustow Plague Boil CMBS: Going To Town The form post on theBlitz for sign up.

The Blitz is running four scenarios this month. Sign up for the April Scenario of the Month has started over at the Blitz. This month the scenarios are: CMBN: MG Drive on the Dreijenseweg CMFI: Palma di Montechiaro CMRT: Augustow Plague Boil CMBS: Going To Town The form post on theBlitz for sign up.

Just as counter data point I'll report here about a H2H mirror match I am currently playing with the original version that shipped with the game. It is not over yet and the US forces have not all arrived yet but so far both US sides are taking a massive beating. Just brutal. Not as bad as when I played as the Russians vs the AI during play testing but so far this is really hard as the US side. Both of us are have had our US forces more than decimated and are bottled up with very little progress to show. I'll tell you how it goes once the US gets their additional forces.

But doesn't that mean you don't really benefit from that extra immersion if you are watching the turn with no unit selected. Mind you it really doesn't matter: you should play the game the way that you like and I don't have any desire to try to convert anyone that would be silly. Not an important question.

Thank you Alexey - cross posting with you again...

How many tanks was that from?

Well nija'ed by Alexey with some of that data even - cool - shooda refreshed before hitting the post button. Left here to preserve the record in case various people are tearing me a new one even as I edit this Actually, it might be more efficient to answer some of Steve's questions about your data and find some additional data sources. After all given two AFVs that have the same crew casualty rate but are being destroyed by varying amounts of force you can still make an assessment on which vehicle has better crew protection features. For example (I am using a deliberately exaggerated scenario to illustrate my point not to asses any named, existing or fantasy tank's capabilities), if we have data for Tank Type A and Tank Type B from two separate hypothetical conflicts that show the same crew casualty rate but Tank A suffered, on average, a destruction of much larger force we could conclude that Tank type A does in fact offer better crew protection. So lets say that Tank type A was equally likely to be destroyed by a modern RPG or a large calibre main tank round while the Tank type B (in the other conflict) was equally likely to be destroyed by an improvised gasoline based molatov cocktail or a small hand grenade the conclusion would be obvious. Then there would be no need to wax on philosophically about points #1 and #2.

How about along the lines of @Wiggum15's house rule (which I think is pretty good actually - going to try that out). The TacAI will: If a team is under fire from the enemy the other nearby friendly teams that have ? contacts from the rough direction of the enemy fire they will area fire at the strongest of those ? contacts. No changes to their current shoot at known enemy contacts in fact the area fire should be done if they do not have a higher priority solid contact.

Yeah, @Vanir Ausf B is correct I totally screwed up the way I wrote it. Sorry - correcting someone else and making as big a mistake = not a good day for me. oops. I should have said:

Sure why not. From their point of view the correct files would show up in the right place in drop box and form CMH's point of view their files would show up as expected too. As long as the copied the right file to the right place CMH would be none the wiser. I use my own turn manager (see sig) and most of the people I play are using CMH it all works. Except chat but I'm working on that...

LOL see I cannot even spell made up word correctly - nice one. This is what I meant:

No this is absolutely incorrect. I play on Iron mode every day (I wish I did not but I have one long time PBEM partner that loves it so I follow along). I'll make no comment on C2 differences as @Thewood1 has tested it and I never have but you can still issue orders to anyone not shaken or paniced or surrendering just like in all the other modes. The difference is that when you have one of your units selected the view is as that unit sees things for all units friendly and enemy. That is the difference. And that difference is why I personally don't like it - because I have to click all over the place to figure out what is going on and find everyone to be able to give orders to. I see the benefit of immersion - I get that. I just find the cost way higher than I am happy to pay.

Yes, it is a harsh turn of events for sure. And just after it looked like you had things turn around in your favour.

Oh man. Very dramatic stuff here.

As for the source I cannot figure it out. I have no idea if it is an official Russian Army site or just something else. No idea.

Google translated: RPO-M / RPO PDM-A Bee-M Author: Dimmi Created: 12/12/2010 2:59:20 Changed: 05.03.2011 19:39:03 Comments: 0 Category: EARTH / firepower melee / RPO-M / PDM-A Bee-M (2004) / DATA FOR 2010 (standard completion) "Bee-M" RPO-M / RPO PDM-A Jet infantry flame-thrower with a one-time shot with TPK and reusable starter. Designed Instrument Design Bureau (KBP Tula) on the basis of the flamethrower RPO-A . Adopted in 2004. The media just found the name of the RPO-2 "Prize". Jet infantry flamethrower RPO-M "Bumblebee-M" (installation on the basis of a photo Mike1979, http://ru.wikipedia.org ) Calculation - 1 person (probably pack of 2 RPO) Shooting from the RPO-M "Bumblebee-M" ( http://www.kbptula.ru ). Guidance - diopter sight. Can be used optical sight, including night. The starter - TPK disposable to reusable starter. RPO-M "Bumblebee-M", shot and reusable starter ( http://www.kbptula.ru ). Rocket (shot) - equipped with starting RDTT integrated with ammunition. The charge of solid propellant burns completely when moving projectile down the barrel RPO. Caliber - 90 mm ​​Length - 940 mm Weight flamethrower - 8.8 kg Maximum firing range - 1700 m Firing range sighting - 800 m Blank range to the target height of 3.5 m - 300 m Warhead types : - RPO PDM-A - explosive fuel-air mixture (thermobaric shot / fuel-air explosives), burns without detonation, power equivalent to high-explosive shells 152 mm (according to CPP). In the fore part of the charge a small shaped charge to destroy obstacles. Compared with the RPO-A warhead power increased by 2 times. Weight mixture - 3.2 kg Status: Russia - 2004 - flamethrower adopted for the Russian Armed Forces. - 2011 - in the framework of the purchase of arms for 2011-2020 yy . planned to supply the troops RPO PDM-A. Export - no data (2010). Sources : SUE Instrument Design Bureau. Site http://www.kbptula.ru/ , 2010 to Lenta.ru. Site http://lenta.ru , 2011 World Guns. Site http://world.guns.ru/ , 2010

Link worked for me - Russian: РПО-М / РПО ПДМ-А Шмель-М Автор: DIMMI Создана: 12.12.2010 02:59:20 Изменена: 05.03.2011 19:39:03 Комментариев: 0 Категории: ЗЕМЛЯ / Огневые средства ближнего боя / РПО-М / ПДМ-А Шмель-М (2004 г.) / ДАННЫЕ НА 2010 г. (стандартное пополнение)"Шмель-М" РПО-М / РПО ПДМ-А Реактивный пехотный огнемет с одноразовым ТПК с выстрелом и многоразовым пусковым устройством. Разработан КБ Приборостроения (КБП, г.Тула) на базе огнемета РПО-А. Принят на вооружение в 2004 г. В СМИ так же встречается название РПО-2 "Приз". Реактивный пехотный огнемет РПО-М "Шмель-М" (монтаж на базе фото Mike1979, http://ru.wikipedia.org) Расчет - 1 чел (вероятно, вьюк из 2 РПО) Стрельба из огнемета РПО-М "Шмель-М" (http://www.kbptula.ru). Наведение - диоптрический прицел. Может применяться оптический прицел, в т.ч. ночной. Пусковое устройство - ТПК одноразового применения с многоразовым пусковым устройством. Огнемет РПО-М "Шмель-М", выстрел и многоразовое пусковое устройство (http://www.kbptula.ru). Ракета (выстрел) - оснащена стартовым РДТТ, скрепленным с боеприпасом. Заряд РДТТ сгорает полностью при движении снаряда по стволу РПО. Калибр - 90 мм Длина - 940 мм Масса огнемета - 8.8 кг Дальность стрельбы максимальная - 1700 м Дальность стрельбы прицельная - 800 м Дальность прямого выстрела по цели высотой 3.5 м - 300 м Типы БЧ: - РПО ПДМ-А - взрывчатая топливно-воздушная смесь (термобарический выстрел / боеприпас объемного взрыва), сгорает без детонации, мощность эквивалентна осколочно-фугасному снаряду 152 мм (по данным КБП). В носовой части заряда небольшой кумулятивный заряд для разрушения преград. По сравнению с РПО-А могущество БЧ повышено в 2 раза. Масса смеси - 3.2 кг Статус: Россия - 2004 г. - огнемет принят на вооружение ВС России. - 2011 г. - в рамках программы закупки вооружений на 2011-2020 г.г. планируются поставки в войска огнеметов РПО ПДМ-А. Экспорт - данных нет (2010 г.). Источники: ГУП Конструкторское Бюро Приборостроения. Сайт http://www.kbptula.ru/, 2010 г. Лента.ру. Сайт http://lenta.ru, 2011 г. World Guns. Сайт http://world.guns.ru/, 2010 г.

Just add him to your ignore list guys - reading that stuff is a waste of your time. He made the second spot on my ignore list two days ago. I already have oodles of spare time to read more valuable posts.

Wholly smokes. Sounds like I need to call you guys a whambulance I am pretty sure they stated their intention to move all the games to the single always updated installer. But this stuff takes time. They started with CMBN because it had a totally insane install procedure there for a while. BFC have their priorities right and they will get there. In the mean time go play whatever game you got.

It would be nice to have I agree. I could be wrong about some details but it is probably a good enough explanation.

^^^ yeah that could work.

LOL those are pretty nice backgrounds. I cannot complain about using a movie background because my current background is from Band of Brothers - I should find a real picture to use.

And before you say "but not allowing close assaulting tanks would be a good thing cause they shouldn't be doing that now". I will vehemently disagree: Frankly speaking, having infantry close assault tanks is one of the most important things in this game. You may ask "is he nuts" (possibly) but it is about balance - regardless of how you feel about the accuracy of close assaulting you have to admit its presence in the game makes you want to avoid crashing around the enemy lines with your tanks. I was reminded of this recently when an opponent did just that. It was hair raising and scary and two tanks killed a lot of my men. It was brutal. But I managed to stop it eventually by close assaulting the tanks from the rear. And that was more a case of his tanks got ahead of his infantry rather than some gamey action. Can you imagine if tanks could not be close assaulted at all? And enemy troops ran away whenever one came near? I'll tell you what would happen people would drive tanks around with impunity all over the map. Yeah I realize not everyone would do that but hey there would be no disincentive. Or not a big enough one. Heck I just did it in another game: clock was running out one of the objectives was just ahead but out of reach to really take it over. But I had a Royal Tiger just out of PIAT range if I just moved him forward 100m or so ahead of my infantry I could deny him the objective. OK I'll do it. It is worth the risk. Gamey bastard I know. But guess what - close assaulted with a demo charge - scratch one Royal Tiger. Good I deserved that! Turns out there is extra time so I may yet get my infantry forward enough to get a toe hold on the objective.

My impression is the main reason for not doing that is there is no true collision detection in the code. This is very heavy speculation on my part and does not come from any place official. You will notice that your soldiers do try to go around tanks both operational and destroyed but they don't make it a life and death priority. They do a pretty good job of going around stationary tanks but a piss poor job on moving tanks (although they do try a bit). Tanks on the other hand don't care much about infantry and just go. They do make some effort to go around vehicle obstacles so some logic is in there for the avoidance part. But you will notice that there is plenty of merging and ghost like passing though other soldiers and vehicles. To make it so that vehicles try to not run over their own and soldiers and have soldiers avoid getting run over like their lives depended on it would probably take quite a bit of effort. All that would have to happen before driving over the enemy to kill them would be possible otherwise this place would be flooded with "those damn tanks kill my guys again" posts. Although I suppose they could do it like small arms friendly fire and have it only be fatal for the enemy troops. But even that would need the "soldiers avoid tanks like their lives depended on it" part of the work. As for enemy troops trying to get away form tanks - yeah I could see that being a good idea. Except they would have to be careful how they implemented that because if they are not careful then you could not close assault enemy tanks. So you can see the sweater unravelling there just to make it so tanks can crush the enemy. I think that the benefit to the game vs amount of work ratio is in favour of putting it on the nice to do list and not the priority list.