Bulletpoint

If I understood you right, you said that the minus 2 leader made the gun perform better - shoot back despite being fully suppressed?

Please note that it's a minus 2 leader. The real leader (+0) was killed about 15 seconds earlier.

Yes, they had just taken casualties from a StuG. Then the Vierling took over and started blasting their position. The gun crew then 'woke up' from suppression, turned the gun around and fired.

Yeah I feel a bit sorry for my opponent too. I guess he believed his Flakvierling would at least suppress my AT gun...

In a PBEM game I noticed my AT gun being fully suppressed and "pinned", yet turning the gun around and firing accurately at the enemy AFV, taking it out. Is that the way it's supposed to be? Are AT guns supposed to be impossible to suppress? Gun: US 57mm, in a light wood tile with a single pine tree. Crew: regular, +0 soft factors (but -2 leadership). Rattled. Distance: 431m

I don't understand the question. Does it mean "would anyone like proximity fuses in trucks?" or "Does anyone know what proximity fuses are?" Or something else ?

Sorry, my friend. I was trying to be funny but that was kind of snarky. A thin line between the two sometimes. Don't worry. I may be pretty liberal, but I'm not offended that easily And it's always interesting with some critical questions. Lots of those can be asked about the EU for sure.

Now you're being snarky, but it's all good I don't think there will ever be an EU army. At least not in any foreseeable future. But I could imagine NATO morphing into a more European force and the US going their own ways. As I understand it, establishing an EU army could not be done through the normal legislative process of the EU directives. It would be a case where the member states give up sovereignty, and in DK at least, those need to pass with a large majority in the DK parliament or by a referendum. In Denmark, we have several opt-out deals with the EU, but that's a story for another time The thing about bureaucracies needing to grow or die - I think that's just a saying. Same with "power corrupts and ultimate power corrupts absolutely". I think it's just that corrupt people tend to seek power, and we tend to notice them more when they get it because they make a huge mess of things.

Good question, and I think that's going to be the first thing every European country would consider before agreeing to make such an army. "Could that thing be used against us?" I strongly assume any future EU army would not have mandate to be deployed inside the EU unless there's an attack from the outside. You might say such mandates are easily forgotten in times of crisis, but then again, why didn't France and Germany agree to send a "peacekeeping force" to Greece last time around? Because the Greek riot police handled the situation just fine, even after the Greeks elected the rebellious socialist government... that eventually agreed to the EU bailout deals. Deep down, the Greeks knew they would be screwed without the EU, and vice versa. Also, because that kind of escalation often leads to the situation getting out of hand. If you reach the point where you have to deploy the army against protesters, either you refuse and watch your nation fall apart (as in the USSR) or you go all in on the oppression and leave no doubt that you're now a brutal dictatorship. As recently seen in Syria.

I'm often critical of the EU, but it's not Tiananmen Square over here The EU works in a pretty complicated manner, and I'm no expert. But we do have direct elections to decide who gets to sit in the EU Parliament. As I understand it, if the little old Italian lady has to recycle, it's because the Italian parliament voted to approve a directive that has already been voted through EU parliament. So her vote has actually been heard twice. And believe it or not, but many people like to recycle The approval in the national parliament is mostly to decide exactly how that particular country wants to implement the directive so that it is suited to the local situation. For all its faults, the EU is not some Communist empire. If a country wants to leave, they can leave. Look at Britain. Out of curiosity, what would happen if California voted to leave the USA?

Wasn't it Roosevelt who said "speak softly and carry a big stick"? Maybe the words have to be louder now that the stick has become smaller.

I think that's a quite superficial analysis. The US spends more on military and NATO contributions, but the EU spends more on humanitarian aid and global development (as share of GNI). Or to stay in your metaphor, you're pushing down on the lid of the pot to prevent it boiling over, while the EU is trying to douse the fire below. This arrangement actually benefits the USA, because you are able to translate your military investment directly into geopolitical influence, whereas the benefits of global development are more widely distributed and don't always return directly to the donor countries. Also, by keeping the EU military small, you're neutering a potential future military rival and keeping EU countries dependant on the USA.

-

This is a bit ironic since we're waiting for a patch to fix problems introduced in a patch... There's a middle ground between not testing things at all and then on the other hand testing things for more than two years. Also, nobody is demanding they release a flawed patch. But maybe releasing the patch that's has been done for a while and already is in CMSF2 would be nice.

Thanks, was getting worried it might bother you Now I feel better

I'm not sure Steve has ever said this. I'm pretty sure he did:

Sure, but it's 4 extra clicks to read something that I could read on the forum without any extra clicks before. Also, even ith those extra clicks, there's still JPG compression of the text.

I find it difficult to read. The image gets downscaled

How many average gamers are playing Combat Mission? How much is being done to attract average gamers? I think the answer to both questions is pretty close to zero...

The model position *does* effect the simulation - its not everything but it is how the hit testing is done. Do not for get the choice of animations for guys getting hit is coded to think the starting point for reloading is standing or kneeling. So, if the "reloading modded as prone" model gets hit and becomes a casualty the code will animate the death using the appropriate animation - which will be from kneeling or standing. My point wasn't that he jumped up in the air when hit, but that he was spotted and shot at while prone in the building, which I suppose would make him out of sight under the window. The mod made him reload while prone, but the enemy soldier shot at him (and hit him) as if he were standing or kneeling as normal.

Or could it be that this actually shows that your mod to make troops reload while prone only affects the graphics, not the actual simulation? Also, how can he lose his helmet when it has a chinstrap

We disagree on this. Putting away the rifle to fire a faust against an enemy 10 metres away on an open field is not appropriate. In my opinion, they should only use fausts against troops in hard cover. Possibly in forests too.