A Canadian Cat

LOL. I did know what it stood for. I was trying to ask: did you mean in real life? I can see how it could have been interpreted as what does IRL mean?

Minute 0:53: Orders Crawling to the edge of the forest. What the view will be like. Sending some scouts to the highground. Recon by fire. Moving the battalion HQ and supporting elements forward. Pioneers joining A Co and the mortar HQ joining B Co.

Minute 0:54-0:53: One more hit on the bunker... ...finishes the job. Tanks attached to A Co waiting on the road Tanks across the ford watching the town. First of the infantry from B Co are aross.

Minute 0:54: Orders Since there are known threats in the town the tanks on the other side of the ford position themselves to protect the flank of the scouts. Here moving into a hull down position relative to the area near the bunker. The armoured reconnaissance move up more elements. The scouting of the forest is complete – now we need to get eyes on the area behind the hill.

Minute 0:55-0:54: The bunker takes some hits. The tank crew can just see the top of a recoilless rifle behind a wall near the bunker. Infantry recon – with their tank support scout the forest.

Minute 0:55: Orders Finish off the bunker. Continue forming up along the road. Reposition the recon elements to get more visibility. Continue with reconnaissance of the woods overlooking the fords.

Minute 0:56-0:55: Now the 105 Sherman can see the bunker. And it opens fire. The first shot is long but you can see the bunker occupants are running away. The infantry recon continue to cross the ford... ...and scout the woods. The infantry from A Co and tanks are forming up in front of the fords. Once the way is clear they can cross. Meanwhile the infantry from B Co and thier tanks are forming up along the road.

I got a bit behind in my posting but I was playing turns and writing it up I just didn't have an easy time getting my act together to post. Time to fix that...

IRL? In game I am pretty sure it is faster than that. Mind you I have really only investigated it on M1s - if you fire at an M1 from a launcher capable of firing a volley of two ,the second missile either just makes it through or is just caught by the Trophy APS system. So the cycle times in game for the Trophy systems are a lot faster than 15s. I just assumed that all the APS systems in the game were pretty much the same. Having written this, I see that is not good. Has anyone tested firing volley missiles at various APS systems in the game?

LOL Ninja'ed by @Mord. Thanks man

It is modeled that way in the game. I actually don't know much about how it works IRL.

Agreed that a new engine that was able to take advantage of multiple cores would be useful and desirable. I don't see running additional processes on a different computer over some kind of network connection as being worth the effort though. Supporting multi threading and making good use of other cores does make sense for many things in newly designed game.

I think you are hitting the short comings of abstraction: you can end up with some cases that are not handled well even if the aggregate is pretty good. Sorry I think you are facing one of those cases where things have not worked out for the best. In case you have not already seen it you might like to read this: I don't think there is anything to be done. I typically set my expectations for trees that they likely will give me good blocking of LOS but I am aware that I cannot count on it. That puts me in a mind set to look for terrain features to hide behind or observer from when ever I can even if there are lots of woods around. That minimizes the number of times I am surprised. It is inevitable that surprises happen though.

I am familiar with XKCD (and rule 34 from that cartoon is spot on) - just having a little fun by mixing cultural references.

This rule 34? https://www.theodysseyonline.com/life-rules-nciss-leroy-jethro-gibbs Rule 34: "Sometimes you're wrong."

I don't think what you are seeing is the same as the one that got into the 4.01 patch. See below... Bag it and tag it. Which is to say if you have a save game send it along you can PM me if you like. This behaviour is obviously sub optimal but I have see this happen in urban fighting for a long time. Do you think it is more common now? Do you have stats to show that? Not that it really matters. If you have a poor behaviour example... ... you can do the same.

LOL if only it were true.

Next time get the voice actors to add one extra item that says that - would be a fun easter egg

Oh yeah good point. Which quickly relegates this to worse than hot seat

Short for TCP/IP. In this context it is the game mode where you can nearly play hot seat mode with some one over the internet. Nearly referring to the features @BFCElvis mentions are missing.

Well in balance perhaps. Not fully examined - true. Any hope that I'll buy any silly conspiracy claims - not likely. Well that is highly likely.

Care to share where you got that information?

Well I think you are wrong about nearly everything you posted again but this is way OT already and probably inappropriate. Let's just leave it at I didn't think you should be able to assert something untrue and you got some rude in back at me so we are even and let this thread go back to talking about the state of the representation of Ukrainian forces in the game Black Sea. Yeah, exactly that is the question. I don't think they do. The fact that you think I do speaks volumes. Don't forget to also ask what gave the Assad regime the right to murder its own citizens who were protesting (that's how this started - I mean before the defections of the Syrian Army and the following civil war) and since when does Iran and Saudi Arabia have any right to insert their own actors in there to mess around. And then why is it OK for Russia to support a murderous dictatorship when it is not OK for the US to do it. Your question while worded in a lopsided way is actually *the* root question.

Why would you think that? Patches fix know bugs that are recognized by BFC. They do not fix undefined issues that any random player may or may not feel is in the game. Not to mention that spotting is not meant to be easy and there is no insta-spotting feature in CM. So, you are meant to be unhappy with the imperfections of your men's spotting abilities. It is a feature not a bug. You don't really specify what the spotting issue you are feeling upset about so I no one can tell if you have encountered something that might be a bug. I can only speculate about it based on the comment below. You can tell us if that might be in the ball park of your feelings on the issue: The most important thing that we all have to remember is that darkness and fog are not nearly as dark and dense for us players as it is for the pixel troops. This is for game play-ability reasons. So, we have to temper our expectations for our units ability to spot. Also the LOS tool shows you the maximum effective range that a unit can see. It does not show the distance at which the enemy will be insta-spotted. There is no insta-spot feature in the game.

I am hoping you are joking but I fear not. Russia today is a state owned propaganda machine. Fox and CNN are clearly not (hint do they both tow the Trump White House line - yeah I didn't think so). I wonder - are you wilfully misleading us? The very article you quote: Clearly sending arms to a place as chaotic as Syria is not a safe way to act. You will not hear me defending supplying arms to groups that are not clearly friends of the people of Syria but that is a far cry from supporting ISIS. So ISIS got some weapons by capturing them in Iraq and Syria and those weapons got to Syria via clandestine means - the US at least was trying to supply anti regime forces not ISIS directly. I have no idea what the hell the Saudis were doing because they frequently appear to act against their own interests so who knows about them. Even the Saudis did declare they were not supplying ISIS - but I question if the groups they were supplying were actually any better than ISIS. None of this is the US selling arms to ISIS. None of this Ukraine selling arms to ISIS. So, yeah it sounds more like Russian Today total BS that you are falling for without even thinking for just a few moments. What it is though is the exposing of the folly of thinking that supplying arms to anti Syrian regime forces when it was way to late for those forces to actually be effective against ISIS or Assad.