Ultradave

This fixed my problem completely. All units are now named correctly. Thanks for the efforts in resolving this. 

I had a section chief who, after a phone call with Naval Reactors told us, "10 years from now he won't remember you were late, but he WILL remember if you were wrong, forever." 
My favorite boss I had in 38 years at EB. Of course we always tried our best to hit the deadlines, but not at the expense of being correct. It was nuclear submarine reactor plant design, after all. Incorrect is not an option.
Dave

It's not. HE rounds don't get converted to Smoke in real life. And there *should* be enough fuzes for all the rounds, regardless of what types. We usually had extra fuzes. I think this is on the list of things to fix somewhere. I'll try to search for it.
Dave

Both Jeff Smith and I tested this. I checked several scenarios and so did he, and it fixed the problem. Also, the "new" 1.07 .brz really isn't new and untested. It's just the one from the Windows version and that has been working fine. There was just something corrupted about the Mac installer. I wouldn't worry. If it doesn't work, well, it didn't work before. 🙂
If you are still on 1.06, then do this:
Relabel the CW directory to "Combat Mission Cold War - 1.06" or something like that , just so it's not the default installation name.
Download a fresh 1.07 CW full installer
Install using defaults. 
Don't even try to run it yet, but replace the 1.07 .brz file with the new one.
Now you can run it.
If it doesn't work, just delete that whole installation and go back to using 1.06 (it will work).
Dave
 

Yes, to 1-4. Entries are categorized by game, by severity, (like game-breaking down to minor graphics or QOL). There's also a way to indicate it applies to all games. And the "by game" is broken down by version, so that when a new patch is being tested, bugs can be categorized specifically to the new version. 
I don't think anyone posts an issue that would apply to number 5. Usually, in the beta forum there is some discussion if it's an oddball or potentially either non-fixable or working as designed prior to posting, but pretty much the beta testers know when they reproduce something that they just go post it without a bunch of back and forth discussion, maybe just a heads up that "I found these 5 issues and posted a Mantis report for each", so there isn't duplication. 
Then there is a robust search tool, to go look at status, or use keywords and choices to see if something is already posted. 
Hope that helps.
Dave

It's not. HE rounds don't get converted to Smoke in real life. And there *should* be enough fuzes for all the rounds, regardless of what types. We usually had extra fuzes. I think this is on the list of things to fix somewhere. I'll try to search for it.
Dave

In other news, I owe you a turn. I'll get right on it!!
Dave

Yes, to 1-4. Entries are categorized by game, by severity, (like game-breaking down to minor graphics or QOL). There's also a way to indicate it applies to all games. And the "by game" is broken down by version, so that when a new patch is being tested, bugs can be categorized specifically to the new version. 
I don't think anyone posts an issue that would apply to number 5. Usually, in the beta forum there is some discussion if it's an oddball or potentially either non-fixable or working as designed prior to posting, but pretty much the beta testers know when they reproduce something that they just go post it without a bunch of back and forth discussion, maybe just a heads up that "I found these 5 issues and posted a Mantis report for each", so there isn't duplication. 
Then there is a robust search tool, to go look at status, or use keywords and choices to see if something is already posted. 
Hope that helps.
Dave

Any large scale paradrop these days requires much more complete local air superiority than used to be the case to have a chance of success. And the term local is much broader than say, 30 years ago during the Cold War. 
1) You have to have enough fighter support to prevent enemy fighters from breaking through to your transport planes.
2) You have to suppress local AA defenses. Even in the Cold War period extensive deployment of MANPADS was just beginning. 
3) You have to suppress long range AA missile systems. That means a *huge* effort at SEAD in advance of the airdrop, due to the long range of many of today's AA missiles. 
Neither Ukraine or Russia have the assets to do this right now, especially Ukraine, but I seriously doubt Russia can do it either. My opinion is that the US would have a very difficult time of it if we were fighting in that theatre. 
Dave

Apple is eventually eliminating support for OpenGL. My guess would be there is no further work going on at Apple to do anything to better accommodate OpenGL graphics, so what's there is all there will be. I will say my new-ish M2 MacBook Pro with all its graphics processors does pretty well. The difference to my old one (2018 i5) is staggering. The map is rendered much farther out and camera movement is nice and smooth. Even the initial setup of "The Citadel" in CW is useable (couldn't move the camera before with the old MacBook Pro.
Dave

Note the pictures lower in the article of the NON burned out vehicles with MSF in large red letters on the hoods and the MsF logo and name along the side. Plenty large enough to see. These are recognized worldwide, never change, and the burned out vehicles at the top are that way BECAUSE the IDF came back after the fact and destroyed them... at the clinic MsF runs, which is a known location. 
So no. No passes. No excuses. Note also that MsF took 2 weeks to make sure their accusations were accurate.
Dave

Quoting myself because I finally remembered to go look again for the account, detailed here in a statement by MsF. There seems no doubt here that they were deliberately targeted, on more than one occasion, and their mission and also evacuation obstructed. 
I'm surprised this did not get more press than it did at the time. Perhaps because when they issued this statement they had carefully investigated it themselves for 2 weeks so it was "old news". 
I'd be very surprised if anyone accused MsF of having any agenda, or harbouring any Hamas sympathizers. They do good work all over the world, often in danger to themselves, and they are CLEARLY recognizable. Everyone knows who they are without ambiguity. 
Well, I'm giving it press, I guess, for what that's worth. Again it falls in the category of making things worse, not better.
https://www.doctorswithoutborders.org/latest/msf-convoy-attack-gaza-all-elements-point-israeli-army-responsibility
Dave

I did see those vehicles lower down when I was reading. They look like they were the ones tore up by a bulldozer.
That's horrible and an attempted cover up makes it worse.  I want to hear what the IDF has to say for itself.  War is bad but attacking doctors on purpose... That's just horrible. Why??? And I just don't see the motive.  What could possibly cause them to do that?  That makes Israel look like Hamas, the ones they are supposed to be fighting against.

Note the pictures lower in the article of the NON burned out vehicles with MSF in large red letters on the hoods and the MsF logo and name along the side. Plenty large enough to see. These are recognized worldwide, never change, and the burned out vehicles at the top are that way BECAUSE the IDF came back after the fact and destroyed them... at the clinic MsF runs, which is a known location. 
So no. No passes. No excuses. Note also that MsF took 2 weeks to make sure their accusations were accurate.
Dave

Quoting myself because I finally remembered to go look again for the account, detailed here in a statement by MsF. There seems no doubt here that they were deliberately targeted, on more than one occasion, and their mission and also evacuation obstructed. 
I'm surprised this did not get more press than it did at the time. Perhaps because when they issued this statement they had carefully investigated it themselves for 2 weeks so it was "old news". 
I'd be very surprised if anyone accused MsF of having any agenda, or harbouring any Hamas sympathizers. They do good work all over the world, often in danger to themselves, and they are CLEARLY recognizable. Everyone knows who they are without ambiguity. 
Well, I'm giving it press, I guess, for what that's worth. Again it falls in the category of making things worse, not better.
https://www.doctorswithoutborders.org/latest/msf-convoy-attack-gaza-all-elements-point-israeli-army-responsibility
Dave

Note the pictures lower in the article of the NON burned out vehicles with MSF in large red letters on the hoods and the MsF logo and name along the side. Plenty large enough to see. These are recognized worldwide, never change, and the burned out vehicles at the top are that way BECAUSE the IDF came back after the fact and destroyed them... at the clinic MsF runs, which is a known location. 
So no. No passes. No excuses. Note also that MsF took 2 weeks to make sure their accusations were accurate.
Dave

Quoting myself because I finally remembered to go look again for the account, detailed here in a statement by MsF. There seems no doubt here that they were deliberately targeted, on more than one occasion, and their mission and also evacuation obstructed. 
I'm surprised this did not get more press than it did at the time. Perhaps because when they issued this statement they had carefully investigated it themselves for 2 weeks so it was "old news". 
I'd be very surprised if anyone accused MsF of having any agenda, or harbouring any Hamas sympathizers. They do good work all over the world, often in danger to themselves, and they are CLEARLY recognizable. Everyone knows who they are without ambiguity. 
Well, I'm giving it press, I guess, for what that's worth. Again it falls in the category of making things worse, not better.
https://www.doctorswithoutborders.org/latest/msf-convoy-attack-gaza-all-elements-point-israeli-army-responsibility
Dave

No, that's the standard way of referring to riverbanks BECAUSE rivers meander all over the place, and different rivers flow in different directions. The Left refers to the left side of the river if you were standing in it looking downstream. In the case of the Dnepr that's generally - but not always - to the north and east. The right refers to the right side of the river if you were standing in it looking downstream. For the Dnepr that is generally - but not always - to the south and west.
Where ever you are on the river, regardless of which way it twists and turns, the left is always the left and therefore always refers the same side of the river.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bank_(geography)

It's pretty useful for your blood pressure. There are are number of unnamed individuals on my list, and for very good reason as I'm pretty tolerant.

Dave

That argument is akin to what we heard here in the US when some people, both within government and without, defended the use of torture (kindly described as "enhanced interrogation techniques").
The "feeling of reality" is that should Ukraine decide to not adhere to conventions on warfare, despite Russia spitting on them, you'd see public support for Ukraine evaporate. And quickly. Also evaporating would be any hope of Ukraine being admitted to the EU and NATO in the future. 
We had lots of debate about things like this during Iraq and Afghanistan. We are (or at least try hard to be) the "good guys." You *cannot* lower yourselves into the gutter of the opposition. Is it going to cost you to do that? Yes, it most certainly is, in money, time and lives. And I fully acknowledge that in Iraq and Afghanistan we were not fighting for the survival of our country, and I sympathize and support the fact that you are. A better example might be WW2. We (the Allies) for the most part, behaved, knowing full well the Germans and Japanese did not (I'm excepting Russian behavior as part of the Allies here, because after all, that's who we are talking about and some things don't change much).
You'll no doubt be aware that soldiers accused of war crimes in Iraq and Afghanistan were highly publicized, and many put on trial. And the reason we know about it is that it was by FAR, the exception, and the fact that mostly we police our own. We're not perfect - far from it. But we do try. And it starts at the top with the communicated expectation of what won't be tolerated.
Dave

That argument is akin to what we heard here in the US when some people, both within government and without, defended the use of torture (kindly described as "enhanced interrogation techniques").
The "feeling of reality" is that should Ukraine decide to not adhere to conventions on warfare, despite Russia spitting on them, you'd see public support for Ukraine evaporate. And quickly. Also evaporating would be any hope of Ukraine being admitted to the EU and NATO in the future. 
We had lots of debate about things like this during Iraq and Afghanistan. We are (or at least try hard to be) the "good guys." You *cannot* lower yourselves into the gutter of the opposition. Is it going to cost you to do that? Yes, it most certainly is, in money, time and lives. And I fully acknowledge that in Iraq and Afghanistan we were not fighting for the survival of our country, and I sympathize and support the fact that you are. A better example might be WW2. We (the Allies) for the most part, behaved, knowing full well the Germans and Japanese did not (I'm excepting Russian behavior as part of the Allies here, because after all, that's who we are talking about and some things don't change much).
You'll no doubt be aware that soldiers accused of war crimes in Iraq and Afghanistan were highly publicized, and many put on trial. And the reason we know about it is that it was by FAR, the exception, and the fact that mostly we police our own. We're not perfect - far from it. But we do try. And it starts at the top with the communicated expectation of what won't be tolerated.
Dave

That argument is akin to what we heard here in the US when some people, both within government and without, defended the use of torture (kindly described as "enhanced interrogation techniques").
The "feeling of reality" is that should Ukraine decide to not adhere to conventions on warfare, despite Russia spitting on them, you'd see public support for Ukraine evaporate. And quickly. Also evaporating would be any hope of Ukraine being admitted to the EU and NATO in the future. 
We had lots of debate about things like this during Iraq and Afghanistan. We are (or at least try hard to be) the "good guys." You *cannot* lower yourselves into the gutter of the opposition. Is it going to cost you to do that? Yes, it most certainly is, in money, time and lives. And I fully acknowledge that in Iraq and Afghanistan we were not fighting for the survival of our country, and I sympathize and support the fact that you are. A better example might be WW2. We (the Allies) for the most part, behaved, knowing full well the Germans and Japanese did not (I'm excepting Russian behavior as part of the Allies here, because after all, that's who we are talking about and some things don't change much).
You'll no doubt be aware that soldiers accused of war crimes in Iraq and Afghanistan were highly publicized, and many put on trial. And the reason we know about it is that it was by FAR, the exception, and the fact that mostly we police our own. We're not perfect - far from it. But we do try. And it starts at the top with the communicated expectation of what won't be tolerated.
Dave

I think we are going to see a practical test of this, quite soon.I think that sometime this year public support for Ukraine in countries other than Ukraine will cool down to the point where it will be as good as evaporated. Yet I am moderately optimistic and think that the Ukraine will still be supported by the Western governments - because of the underlying political interests. Public opinion support is not everything and not every war is 100% a moral crusade. 

That argument is akin to what we heard here in the US when some people, both within government and without, defended the use of torture (kindly described as "enhanced interrogation techniques").
The "feeling of reality" is that should Ukraine decide to not adhere to conventions on warfare, despite Russia spitting on them, you'd see public support for Ukraine evaporate. And quickly. Also evaporating would be any hope of Ukraine being admitted to the EU and NATO in the future. 
We had lots of debate about things like this during Iraq and Afghanistan. We are (or at least try hard to be) the "good guys." You *cannot* lower yourselves into the gutter of the opposition. Is it going to cost you to do that? Yes, it most certainly is, in money, time and lives. And I fully acknowledge that in Iraq and Afghanistan we were not fighting for the survival of our country, and I sympathize and support the fact that you are. A better example might be WW2. We (the Allies) for the most part, behaved, knowing full well the Germans and Japanese did not (I'm excepting Russian behavior as part of the Allies here, because after all, that's who we are talking about and some things don't change much).
You'll no doubt be aware that soldiers accused of war crimes in Iraq and Afghanistan were highly publicized, and many put on trial. And the reason we know about it is that it was by FAR, the exception, and the fact that mostly we police our own. We're not perfect - far from it. But we do try. And it starts at the top with the communicated expectation of what won't be tolerated.
Dave

That argument is akin to what we heard here in the US when some people, both within government and without, defended the use of torture (kindly described as "enhanced interrogation techniques").
The "feeling of reality" is that should Ukraine decide to not adhere to conventions on warfare, despite Russia spitting on them, you'd see public support for Ukraine evaporate. And quickly. Also evaporating would be any hope of Ukraine being admitted to the EU and NATO in the future. 
We had lots of debate about things like this during Iraq and Afghanistan. We are (or at least try hard to be) the "good guys." You *cannot* lower yourselves into the gutter of the opposition. Is it going to cost you to do that? Yes, it most certainly is, in money, time and lives. And I fully acknowledge that in Iraq and Afghanistan we were not fighting for the survival of our country, and I sympathize and support the fact that you are. A better example might be WW2. We (the Allies) for the most part, behaved, knowing full well the Germans and Japanese did not (I'm excepting Russian behavior as part of the Allies here, because after all, that's who we are talking about and some things don't change much).
You'll no doubt be aware that soldiers accused of war crimes in Iraq and Afghanistan were highly publicized, and many put on trial. And the reason we know about it is that it was by FAR, the exception, and the fact that mostly we police our own. We're not perfect - far from it. But we do try. And it starts at the top with the communicated expectation of what won't be tolerated.
Dave