BletchleyGeek

I don't know the technical workings behind it, but having used the replay feature and being a video editor myself while maintaining an active presence in the discord community of over 200+ people who have bought at least one of your titles throughout the years you've been in business I have to disagree with your assessment. 

Regardless of all the miniscule little complaints that are petty themself, the community as a whole would appreciate this one specific feature more than anything else. Enough to probably pay an additional fee (albeit small, $10-$15) to have this. It's not only useful for your marketing, but the community itself to bring people closer together / create content. 

Not a single user of Combat Mission: Professional that obtained their license through UK: Fight Club has complained about anything regarding the replay feature. Sure, it's not all sunshine and rainbows and the feature is surely not polished to the standard that you would like to release a finished product in, but as it stands it is more than useable. 

If there is a contract stipulation on deliverable features that cannot be released to the public, that's one thing. Telling the community on multiple occasions that we think we know what we want, but we really don't is a little rash in my opinion and I mean this with all due respect. 

My final point, is that if the community is going to find things to complain about year after year, regardless of what you do sir, then why not give them this one thing that they've been asking for so you can either; 1) Prove your point that we don't know what we want, or 2) Throw the community a bone that is appreciated. 

Either way, I respect your judgement but as a user of both the Pro and Commercial titles I do not think your assessment of the usage in regards to Replay Feature is accurate. 

Hi Steve,
Maybe you have noticed some of the folks playing with Blender and messing about with mdr's.
Question 1: We adjusted some tank commander positions in the turrets. It "looked better" and some folks are swearing that their tests seem to show better TC survival rates. Are we smoking crack to think that?
Question 2: Can these mdr bugs such as Cold War sprockets not turning be fixed by a system of "official BFC mods" where the new replacement BFC approved mdr is posted for download versus waiting on a patch?
Question 3: Will CMX3 use the same mdr files or will it use a "next generation 3D model"...?
Thank you.

I think the CMAutoEditor will improve through the normal process of making it better. @Butschi For example, the first version took inspiration from the movie Aliens and Nico had you sealed in a pipe and you had to crawl 188m to get to the remote terminal to do the Python code. We have come a long way since that version of his tool.

https://i.imgur.com/xwQA5S2.jpg
 

BOAR
Wild boar - Wikipedia
BAOR
British Army of the Rhine - Wikipedia
Not sure whether people are asking for a flavour object that is not a dead cow or horse or the Brits for the Cold War module.

I hope that this is taken in the spirit in which it is meant - CM may just need a reasonable competitor in order to push the series forward.
We all enjoy and appreciate the effort that is put in by BF. We would not be here otherwise. It is unfortunate however that CM is resigned to years of semi-releases and updates rather than the great leaps forward that I think we would all appreciate.
The gulf in the trajectory between OpenGL and DirectX have been there for all to see for decades now. Unfortunately it doesn't really hold water to say that it's a surprise that development is limited by not taking a decision to re-engineer the engine in DirectX years ago.
The new modules, battle packs etc are all well and good, as are the steam releases, but I can't think that I am in a minority who would sacrifice significant releases for a period for the knowledge that a new engine was being created, with current technology, which would allow an even more realistic experience. Much less talented game designers are out there creating games which, given the 'CM Treatment' would solve a lot of the on-going issues which cause issues with the current experience.  I realise BF aren't a tripe A developer, but it's not as though we see a new release every year anyway. And they have moved to a different engine before.
At the moment the competition is either too 'gamey' such a Regiments for example; or like Mius Front, has a UI which is totally unintuitive. Both things which CM excels at. Then we have Squad Battles by John Tiller for example which are great games but very abstracted given they are trying to emulate Squad Leader. Even Second Front which I had high hopes for looks like a cartoon and I can't take it seriously. 
Anyway - I'm going to keep playing the games because there's nothing better, and therefore little incentive to update the system. Perhaps I'm part of the problem.

For the life of me I can’t figure out who this is.  I mean we all know who the caustic Kiwi gunner is…

Ah, well zero-for-zero then but I am all about anonymity.  Leave them wondering and let the myths grow.  I heard The Capt was a naval officer who lost an eye in a bar fight in Manila, and now runs guns and rum under the cover of a travelling manatee show.  His insights on military affairs come entirely from MASH reruns and RoW tournaments.

That's a common misunderstanding, the Chinese military has actually been trying to remake itself using the Western model as a guide, see:  China's Desert Storm Education. Though they have a long way to go to be in the same league as the US military they are getting there... need I say that I have a professional interest in the PLA?   
Bil

Bryan often nails it:
https://thehill.com/opinion/national-security/3818412-ukraines-decision-centric-military-needs-more-than-armor-to-win/
Longer-range missiles including ATACMS, drones such as the MQ-9 Reaper, and F-16 fighter aircraft would not just help Ukraine fight like NATO would but also could help Kyiv’s defenders pioneer the next era in military operations. While the creaking Pentagon bureaucracy trundles toward all-domain command and control and a new warfighting concept, Ukrainian troops are putting them into action. The U.S. government should enable Ukraine’s innovation and then learn from it. 
Again, the Boyd cycle comes up in the form of increasing your options while eliminating the enemy's. But there is a temporal component to the cycle and it's key to identify when the time is right to strike where the enemy is weakest. So the total number and type of new NATO systems is not important in themselves, it's about combining them into all knowing synergistic packages that present Russia with unsolvable dilemmas everyday. 

This right here is where the wheels come off the theory of success.  First off, the UA already has AFVs and tanks - if some of the charts being tossed up here are accurate, the UA already has a large fleet of each, in the thousands....so why have they not been able to "actually fight for and hold ground w minimum of casualties" already?  How are a couple hundred western tanks going to fundamentally allow the UA to do more than what they are already doing?  None of the numbers being thrown around are going to equate to numerical advantage nor a shift in force ratios.  How is a Leo2 going to succeed where a T72 has failed in this war? 
This has been the deep flaw in the "send them all the tanks" argument...there is no argument.  No one has been able to articulate what and how these vehicles are going to create competitive advantage on the battlefield.  We have articulated a lot of risks and opportunity costs but the other side of the argument is pretty much "Leo2s = win!!"  This is not thinking...this is a bandwagon.  What we have seen on the RA side is that it doesn't freakin matter what tank you show up in; T90s to T62s, you are spotted and made dead before you can get into direct fire range in order to support the infantry.  Most of these western tanks excel at the one thing we have seen the least of in this war - killing other tanks.  We have seen some such actions but they are in the marginal minority.  This much steel rolling around the battlefield and we have not seen one major amour clash or decisive action, yet somehow we are doubling down all over this capability.  "But infantry support!"  Well the UA looks damn well like it has figured out infantry support, that much is obvious.  Those poor shivering HUMMVs and MRAPs took back half of what Russia tried to grab in less than a year, which according to almost every western military doctrine should be impossible.
Now there is an argument that the Soviet-model fleets are drying up, so a deliberate conversion to western systems would make sense in that regard, but then pick a single fleet and buy in bulk and expect a long integration, and not this jumbled nightmare forming up.
"But the UA asked for them!!"  Well dare we speak heresy and push back on the UA?  What evidence do they have that more tanks will actually work?  A lot of the UA higher ups are western trained, are they falling into the same trap as us?  Is the UA thinking post-war?  
Well they are getting exactly what should not have happened, a hodge-podge grab bag of western tanks in various states of readiness.  The UA are not stupid and we will see some western tank somewhere shooting (they did the same with the arty), but when the RA is not swept away by 12 Challenger 2s, the blow back from the pro-Russian crowd is going to get very loud.  
 

But in order to realize all this, the enemy must first of all solve several urgent current "problems" that have names:
- Lyman (preferably in a compartment with Kupyansk)
 
- Belogorovka (upper) - Razdolovka
 
- Bahmut
- Avdeevka (hereinafter Pokrovsk - Selidovo)
- Vugledar...
 
Without this, any "dreams" about breakthroughs towards Kramatorsk - Druzhkovka and Slavyansk will remain only "wet dreams" ...
Moreover, it should be noted right away that the implementation of this plan, especially in the context of "pressing current problems", is accompanied by a number of, let's say, difficulties for the enemy, the overcoming of which, today, cannot be called especially close to implementation ... For example, somehow to get rid of the obvious threat of the fall of Kreminnaya, which can generally "confuse all plans", or even "something unpleasant" near Bolshaya Novoselka ..
Thus, certain conclusions can be drawn as to what we should expect in the short term of enemy actions ...
- It is obvious that the bold and even more ambitious plan of a POSSIBLE strategic offensive operation, in order to intercept the strategic initiative, is associated with the encirclement of the entire Eastern Group of Forces of the Armed Forces of Ukraine by means of two operational strikes brought down in its rear, approximately in the Kremenchug-Dnepr-Pavlograd region was YET was sacrificed by the enemy command for the sake of a banal gradual gnaw through of the defense of the Armed Forces of Ukraine in the Donbass and ousting them from there ... As I understand it, Gerasim and mu-mu now believe that this is more "reliable and guaranteed" than an operation for a deep breakthrough and encirclement strategic scale...
- It is obvious that the very real prospect of inflicting the Armed Forces of Ukraine, in turn, a strike towards Melitopol and Berdyansk or in the northern part of the Lugansk region (or even simultaneous such actions) also makes certain adjustments to the implementation of this plan to "gnaw through" ... with quite obvious hypothetically - catastrophic consequences for the enemy, especially the herd that is now dug in "in the corner" along the left bank of the Dnieper in the Kherson region.And it is quite possible that it is precisely for this reason that the Russian command, instead of the aggressively bold plan of a "deep operation", chose such a "gradually cautious" method ... And so, the activity in the Zaporozhye direction, the enemy in this context, is clearly not accidental .. and, apparently, is stipulated precisely by these considerations
- It is obvious that the stretched south-eastern "horseshoe", which is currently occupied by the Russian occupation forces on the territory of Ukraine, let's say, is not very convenient for conducting any kind of strategic defense, especially in relation to its south-western flank. For in order to ensure its more or less permanent stability in this sense, it is necessary in any case to ensure the retention of its central part and one of the flanks, at a time when the enemy (Ukraine) can choose any operational-strategic direction in order to start break this "horseshoe", sawing off the extreme, flank parts from it in any sequence convenient for you.
And this, in turn, leaves a certain imprint on the entire Russian strategy of waging this war ... because according to the classical norms of the "Soviet-Russian military school", this "horseshoe" should just push the Russian command precisely towards planning and conducting deep operations " on the environment"... everything that finds inside this "horseshoe"... That is, ATTACK... moreover, actively, aggressively and trying to "surround and defeat", instead, the pigdogs are forced to carefully try to "force out" this way. .. almost in the very center of this "horseshoe", because if they are substituted somewhere (as was the case between Izyum and Kharkov), then Zaluzhny clearly "will not miss" this ...
 
– I think the key issue in the implementation of the entire strategy of the Kremlin in this war at this stage is the solution of the dilemma – what has a greater and real chance for successful practical implementation? Or the ability of the Russians to "successfully advance in the Donbas" or "more deeply" the ability of the Ukrainians to "successfully break through to the northern coast of Azov"...?

I have raised this point a couple times but it is worth re-stating, we are victims of our own “history” - and by this we are talking about 30 years, Steve does have a point on short human attention spans.
Since ‘91 all of our “real wars” have been measured in weeks.  All those grubby unsportsmanlike and messy COIN things do not count.  So when we hit an actual peer-level conventional war and it isn’t over in a month..well clearly things have gone terribly wrong.  In short if all war is certainty, we in the western world have become very uncertain and jumpy as this war looks and feels very strange.  So we start jumping to all sorts of conclusions in order to try and regain certainty, it is human nature.
First we fear that our side is not winning/cannot win or some disaster is looming.  Then we start the “they are doing it wrong” narratives because clearly we would be done by now.  And this leads us down all sorts of weird back alleys - which frankly we are in one now as we celebrate Spain dumping 20 year old tanks in need “of some maintenance” along with a hodgepodge and logistical nightmare of military hardware that is starting to resemble the family “spare charger” drawer.  I am sure those won’t be the last time this happens, recall the scrap drives during WW2, which as I recall made everyone feel better but had little impact on the outcome of the war.
The reality is that this war has been very fast paced for one of this intensity and relative symmetry.  This looks and feels like a historical conventional war - long periods of brutal grinding punctuated by intense high intensity operations, this much has not changed.  The western wars of the last 30 years have been the anomalies, not this one.

In certain circumstances, twenty minutes is all that is needed:
 

Found the source, Zelensky gave a speech to a meeting of the National Association of State Chambers, a organization to promote cooperation among state Chambers of Commerce. Half of the speech is going over the destruction of Ukraine by Russia, emphasizing U.S cooperation towards victory, the other half, urging U.S companies to invest and help rebuild Ukraine. 
https://www.ukrinform.net/rubric-economy/3657831-zelensky-calls-on-american-businesses-to-cooperate-with-ukraine-now.html
https://www.president.gov.ua/en/videos/pislya-zavershennya-vijni-amerikanskij-biznes-mozhe-stati-lo-4077
https://www.statechambers.org/winter-meeting
Sounds fine to me, viewed in total context, just a appeal to U.S businesses to invest in Ukraine, mentioning those big businesses to advance that Ukraine is worth investing in. Tracey's framing is misleading to say the least, and the Abrams is mentioned as always, with a focus towards arming Ukraine. 

Yeah, I'm not finding any info about a U.S Chamber of Commerce meeting in Boca Raton, or that Zelensky was going to speak or has spoken to the U.S Chamber of Commerce. Unless another source can be uncovered, this is probably fake. 

Regarding the above, I agree with JonS's comments below...
These actions are too small and localized to really have a lasting impact on this war. I expect these types of actions to continue until the ground conditions and the new Brigades are both ready... in the meantime it makes sense for the Ukrainians to block, delay, and cause as many Russian casualties that they can... I only hope they are able to rotate units as this type of warfare has to be a dreary and thankless job.

Yeah, Michael Tracey seen better days for sure...

Some ex-general here has commented that UKR might be planning to use the Western MBTs as a mobile reserve to deal with any potential new Russian offensives. Not sure if that makes sense, he sometimes does and sometimes doesn't imho. 
Is the delta between capabilities that Abrams/Leo2 give versus the tanks UKR already have large enough to enable new type of operations we haven't really seen so far? 
But enough has been said already on the subject here by people more in the know so I'll just observe and draw conclusions when they are to be drawn.

I am curious if Ukraine can make (another) large move this winter. I had expected there to be some new developments. But the winter isn't over yet.

If SPIEGEL reports it, it is generally trustworthy. They usually have good and reliable sources and are not prone to spit out information just to be first.

Following the long discussions on tanks and modern warfare in the Ukraine thread, I have proposed a new vehicle concept as per these images. The idea borrows a lot from @The_Capt and others on that thread so thanks for the discussion. 
All of this can be done with todays technology. Some development would be required for some of the "harder" aspects such as shooting down ATGMs with a chain gun (it is similar to CWIS), but that is not central to the concept. 
The really radical part is the Hunter concept, but it is actually quite simple. Reduce the size/signature/expense of a vehicle by putting most of the crew in another vehicle, while optionally having one crew to pull it out of the mud/take over during heavy EW etc. This means the Hunter can be pushed aggressively towards the enemy to push back their ISR bubble and screen your own force. If you lose a few Hunters it is not a big deal since they are relatively cheap and you can use them uncrewed in more dangerous situations. 
The other emphasis is lots of drones (like 4 in the air per platoon, plus replacements) with operators in vehicles using big screens and reliable comms rather than squinting at a phone in a field. These drone operators can have a birds-eye view on one screen while commanding the Hunter on another for maximum situational awareness. I anticipate a lot of help from AI visual recognition to spot enemy signatures too. 
Given you now have borg-spotting and your enemy doesn't, the lack of heavy armour doesn't matter so much. I still see a use for modern MBTs as hyper-specialised breakthrough vehicles, but the Killer fills all the other roles of the tank on a much lower logistical/visual footprint. 
Let me know what you think!

Well thank you so much for tolerating us.
In fact, you ask 'simple' questions but don't really seem to give a rats about listening to answers or accepting feedback.  Every response is just to give yourself a springboard to post yet another wall of text, making very bold but highly debatable assertions.
...Plus, at last count, you've managed to ad hom about a dozen of us here already.
So let me ad hom you right back, you're coming across right now as a superbly intelligent, well read 18 year old. One of many who have graced this fine Forum over the years. (I have a 16 year old at home here).
...And while I think it's fine you are stirring the pot and challenging us, I predict a rage quit soon when we crusty groupthinkers fail to bow down before your high energy debating style.
TL:DR you are really going to need to give and take a little here, or this will get tiresome.
But of course, as Steve properly reminds me, it's his living room, he sets the rules for decorum. My views are my own alone.

I add very important thing, which wasn't told in this article. But first of all about some other tactical things.
Main tactical unit of Wagner is so-called "assault detachment" (rus. "shturmovoy otryad") - it approx equal to reinforced company in 120-150 men (though, other sources say this is battalion-level unit). Lower level is assault group. Groups are froming due to current task and can be from squad to platoon size.
In many cases assault groups attack in some different way, than was described above. For example if suprize attack is need or arty support is not available, than assault groups try sneak under cover of terrain or in the night, fog, rain etc as close to UKR position as possiable and wait command. Then they divide on subgroups of suppressive fire (MG, RPG, RPO, RShG) and attackers. Latter rash to the UKR positions on the distacnce of grenade throwing and just rained it with grenades, which they carry in big number. If they can shock opponents with grenades they burst into trenches and clean it. 
But main reason of Wagners effectiveness is not their human waves, which having huge losses eventually degerade opponents defense, but in their battlefield control system and experienced commaders, which unlike in Russian army feel free in achievment of goals. For control over the battle Wagners detachment commander use drones and special software on the any gadget. If Ukrainian soldiers use own small tactical drones like Mavic only for recon and arty/mortar targeting, but very rare for control over the battle (this do mostly special drone teams like TERRA and other), than Wagners widely use commercial drones for battlefield command. 
Here is screenshot from gadget of killed Wagner detachment or assault group commander. This is battlefield control software.

There was an opinion that these color dots on the screen are locations of each soldier in his detachment and we can see here two assault groups (green and purple), but other think (and this is more logical) - we can see here battlefield waypoint grid. Software allows to make plan of battle and merging it with picture from drones to command, for example, to one assault group - go by waypoints 1,2,3,4 - objective XXX. Assault group leader(s) has(-ve) this battle plan and via radio comms or maybe via gadgets can receive some corrections. Also important note - Wagners put tasks only based on combat capabilities and quality of units. Tasks for "zeks" small groups are primitive but not more complicated, than their training level. If they will be kileld in battle, other meat substitute them, until this primitive task is completed. There is no way back. Withdrawal is allowed only for wounded and if group obviously lost own attack capabilities. Else - a death penalty.
So, detachment commander actually plays some sort of CM game, contrloling situation with drone or several drones. This is really mixing of Soviet "human wave" and HiTech.  So, one way to disrupt Wagner plans is get down their eyes in the sky. 

I don't know him personally but intellectually speaking Luttvak is an absolute clown. His Coup D'Etat was a rip off of Malaparte and his 'Grand Strategy' books on the Byzantine and Roman Empires have no documentary or archaeological evidence.  Nobody who you would take seriously takes Luttvak seriously. 

Hi guys. I have been reading this forum multiple times a day since the 25th of February last year. This is the first time I have posted anything on here though. What brings me out of the shadows after all this time is some growing questions I am beginning to have.
There are almost 1900 pages showing Russian incompetence and brutalities and of course Ukrainian bravery. Those pages along with 1 working eyeball, 1 working ear, a thimble full of common sense, and a Tic Tak sized amount of human decency should be enough for anybody to know the righteous side of this war and who we all should be doing something big or small to help them win.
Here is the thing though, Why have not they won?  As much as I have read on here that Ukraine won this war in the first week, they still ain't done it yet. Large parts of their country is still occupied. Their soldiers and civilians die and get maimed everyday. God only knows what their civilians currently occupied suffer everyday and their p.o.w.s that for whatever reason the Russians decided a long time ago were not going home.
I think that this talk of a building Russian offensive should not be so flippantly dismissed. As much as we like to poke fun at the draftees that got scooped off the street handed a bolt action rifle and sent to soak up Ukrainian lead and gunpowder and bog down their offensives. They accomplished that mission and got Ukraine back in the trenches  It is clear Ukraine is winning... but they ain't won nothing yet. When you look at it from the other side, sometimes when your losing, you need to slow down the process drag it out see if circumstances change. 
Has much has we poke fun at those draftees all of them where not used has lead sponges. Those guys are coming up on what 3 months of some form of training. And to me it is impossible to think that that training has not vastly improved over what it was a year ago. Simply pulling a few vets out of the trenches and telling them how to survive and how to fight and maybe not worrying so much about if they can march a straight line. And poking fun at all those T62s and T64s being pulled out of storage to be sent into the fight. They are still tanks and there is still a lot of them. 
While I am happy Ukraine is getting 50 Bradleys and a few other modern I.F.V.s.. still though that is a Bradley battalion. Maybe add a Marder battalion to it... maybe not..... guys its gonna take lots more than that.
Before I ramble on anymore let me just ask it simply. After years of overestimating Russia, are we now underestimating them? Is that a dangerous path that this small echo chamber, like the larger western ones to be leading public opinions and expectations down? The Ukrainians have proven themselves to be as tough and brave has any army and are fighting for a righteous cause. This ain't a movie though and the good guys don't always win