Thewood1

You are making my point. As you said, you fight the war in front of you. The Stryker was in development before Iraq. It was forced into that role and did a good job. What am I not getting here? Is it me? Or is it him? I mean, its him, right? Now lets go back. Can you please read the posts above and respond with a coherent answer. Lets stop moving off the question each time its asked. Can you please respond to the multiple questions above I think that would help everyone to see what point you are making.

Just call me John Kettler... Here is a video of Stryker Dragoon firing. I have to say that the turret looks awkward from an engineering point of view.

I think I saw a picture that shows the commander with his head out of the turret hatch, so it might be manned. I'll see if I can find it. I would think if it was unmanned, it would look like most external mounts for small caliber cannons. This is what I saw. It was just a set of hatches open on top. Might just be maintenance hatches.

This is the prototype. Tell me that helps a Stryker brigade do its job. With the original Stryker, the RWS was relatively easily and partially disassembled to fit in smaller transports. Don't think that will be the case here.

Exactly...seems some people that are debating here are really lacking in being able to gather information. btw, just saw the first prototype of a turreted Stryker was out in January of this year. The main issue to me is that it kills a part of the strategic mobility piece because it will now only fit in a C-17. Anything smaller than a strategic lift transport will no longer be able to carry the Stryker. edit...So now, by the time you get a full Stryker unit in theater, you might as well have sent Bradleys. By adding that turret, you have killed a key capability of the Stryker units. That is called politics hurting capability.

Hold on a minute...where did MGS come from. Do you even read posts or just assume you know what they say? btw, this is beyond what I saw. Not sure where fundung is. http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/weapons/a19710/army-stryker-vehicle-weapons/

It has actually been proposed several times and I think there was a budget allocation for piloting Javelins on Strykers. Not sure where it is now.

Didn't you read above...the Stryker units were built for high intensity warfare, it was shoehorned into COIN. So let's start from the beginning...how would you design a cost-effective, high strategic mobility unit, with high tactical mobility.

As to now know what you might face, that is true for any unit and formation. The Stryker formation is built to get there quickly and hold the line until heavier stuff is needed, if needed. That is why the US Army has multiple formation types. Again, is it the Stryker you don't like or the concept of the faster deployability of a mobile infantry unit?

Stryker AT already exists, plus the Javelins are very well represented in every 1126. There is probably more AT firepower in a Stryker Company than in an Abrams company.

That is why I always wondered why BFC went to such lengths to incorporate recon units like Fenneks and Stryker recons. They have all the weaknesses of light armor and armament and none of the abilities of a what they should be used for...long range recon. Same with engineering units that can't perform basic engineering functions.

How long has it been since you played SB? There are a number of scenarios that have a huge number of units. And they aren't unrealistically crammed on a 2 km by 2 km map. If just play scenarios, there is no programming. You set a series of ways points. Set the SOP on none, one, or all. You can copy and paste orders. You can give general orders, like stay on roads. Even if you don't give orders, you can set SOP and units move forward to shoot, then back to reload, or even retreat on their own. I have yet to do any programming or play inside a tank. Have been playing that way for a couple years. If programming is what is turning you off SB, then you are doing something wrong. Granted, its not a jump in and start executing right away like CM, it does require a lot of planning up front. You can plan on individual units/teams, or give broader orders with SOPs. Its kind of what you make of it. If you are building scenarios, then that is different. There is some if-then-else scripting you might have to do, but again, only if you choose to.

Actually, it can lead to less micromanagement. Now, you have to do a lot of fiddling to time things around turn timing. In Steel Beasts, there a bunch of SOPs that give you bundled orders for how to react to enemy contact. Tanks automatically find hull down to fire from a spot, back up to turret down for reload, then go back to hull down. Recon units can be set to stop on contact and observe only or retreat back to a specific spot and call in arty. It is incredibly flexible and easy to use. I have always hoped that BFC would eventually put something like that in. We saw some of it in CM1 with hull down, shoot and scoot, move to contact, and hunt. Combining those could give you good flexibility in how units react. Alas, we have only recently seen some movement in bringing them back.

I am the rankest of rank amateurs, but this comment from above gets to the heart of it... "Personally I prefer Bradley" If logistics and speed to zone are of no consideration, then maybe we could all say that. The Bradley and the Stryker aren't built for the same job. Its like saying you prefer a Bradley over a HumVee. To me, a Stryker is a big HumVee that can provide a little more protection and carry more troops than a HumVee. One of the best comments I saw was that the Stryker was a modern equivalent of an M3 halftrack. I think for those stuck in a WW2 and "big battle" mindset, its the best way to look at it. Strykers were built to fill a perceived gap between the HumVee and the Bradley. Now you can easily argue that the money spent on Strykers could have bought more Bradleys. But the goal was to convert infantry units into highly mobile infantry units with vehicles that could provide some basic small arms and and shell splinter protection. And by highly mobile, it means "to theater mobile" and "in theater mobile". If you think that was a bad goal, then stop arguing about Stryker vs Bradley. Argue about policy and logistics. If someone is just into grog porn and always lusts for heavy iron, then the amateur starts to show through. As to the argument that you should always be prepared to face a T-90...does that mean every HumVee should have an AT weapon also? Should we load an AT weapon on every possible unit that might, even through poor planning and misuse, face a T-90? I don't think many military people would agree with that.

" The current US 5.56 round, the M855A1 (62 grain) is touted for how "environmentally friendly" it is. Yeah. "We're here to kill you. It's better that your blood seep into the ground than lead bullets." I'll stop there. " I am no environmental nutjob. In fact, I work in an industry that some would consider "non-sustainable". But I live near a former army base that is now a National Guard training facility. It has been in operation as a live fire training facility for over 100 years. Now they do range quals 3-4 times a year, but up until the late 60's, a lot of range shooting happened. After it was converted to an NG operation, they started selling houses around it. About 6-7 years ago, it was noticed that levels of lead in local water was increasing. It was the result of millions of lead rounds from the shooting range eventually leeching into the water table. Its getting worse and no one knows what the best way to resolve it is. I bet more of those rounds get fired here on US soil than any place else. I don't believe that the primary consideration for a bullet should be environmental, it should be to get the job done. But any round developed has to take the above issue into consideration.

Steel Beasts covers late 1970s into the mid-1990s. There are some modern units but its core is that earlier cold war-ish period. Though its built as a tank simulator/training tool, it can be played as a wargame. I play with a couple people now and then where we never go into the tanks, but play from the map and outside view of the units. There is an extended 3D view that lets you view units/maps like in CM-like perspective. We have played from smaller platoon vs platoon infantry heavy scenarios to large battalion-level and tank-heavy games. It have some advantage and disadvantages over CM. It is real-time and pause is pause. No orders can be issued in pause. But it has an incredible set of tools to plan out you units' activities in detail. It also has a great, what CM players would call, Tac AI. You just give general orders and postures and the AI is good at finding its own positions and engaging. When playing in wargame mode, 90% of your effort is detailed planning of your units' actions. Then when you just make adjustments along the way. It has a video replay of the entire game available that is in 4 sec increments. It a has very detailed and realistic artillery and engineering capabilities. Its infantry performance isn't as detailed as CM in some ways, but more detailed in other ways. When I need to have Chieftains or Leopards against T-72As or T-80Bs, I play SB. I now probably spend twice as much time on SB as CM.

This seems a pretty simple test... Throw 40-50 lbs on your back and measure yourself at various paces and distances. You should quickly see how close to realistic the pace in CM is. Also, physical fitness varied quite a bit between countries, branches, unit types, and even length of service.

"CM Fortress Italy v200 Full" is the full downlad. If it just said..."CM Fortress Italy v200 game and v400 engine Full". 17 letters extra saves how much discussion?

I downloaded both files. One said Upgrade 2.0 and one said 2.0 and was 5 Gb. I downloaded within an hour of it showing up on the forum. Another person on the forum mentioned the exact same thing. When upzipped they both say 2.0, not one of them says 4.0. You can gripe about your customers all you like, but over several upgrades, a steady message has come through that the numbering system is confusing. Either anumber of your customer base is stupid, you aren;'t communicating well, ot it is confusing. The same comments are showing up on grogheads as well.

So lets look at even the changed download page. CMFI full install 2.0 compared to CMFI Upgrade 4.0. Looking at that with little history, it looks like, if you are doing a full install, you need the 5 Gb file to get to 2.0 and then the Ugrade to 4.0 to get to a completely up to date install. Those who have been on the forum and reading all the posts kow that 4.0 upgrade is embeded in the 2.0 full installer. Just looking at that scree capture makes the point of why someone might be confused.

They changed it. It said 2.0 up until a day or so ago. There was a post about it a little ways up.

As I said elsewhere, for people with 25k posts who spend a lot of time engaging in these forums, BFC's nomenclature seems second nature But for people who rarely engage in the forum, it can be and is generally confusing. The announcement says CMFI 4.0 upgrade is available. The download site calls it CMFI 2.0 upgrade. You don't think that is confusing? Yes, with a little searching and some deductive reasoning, someone can figure it out. But should you need to do that? Its not the age of the gamer that makes the difference here, its how engaged they have been over the last couple of years. The information needed to quickly figure it out is scattered over multiple posts, news blogs, etc. And its different with different games. CMBN is 4.0 engine and game. CMFI is 2.0 and 4.0. So if you have been mostly working with CMBN, its not a poor assumption that the two games would use similar numbering systems. This is a pretty common IT problem. Developers, beta testers, and super users tend to lose sight of what the experience of a brand new user is like. This is why, what seems to them, a simple upgrade process generates dozens of posts confused about the process. Its why install testing needs fresh faces and that is what larger companies do.

I swear every time someone explains the version numbering scheme, it gets slightly more confusing. Seems like someone at BFC sees the issue if they changed the file name. btw, 4.0 isn't available for just WW2 titles. Its available for CMBS as well. Because we all know what the next questions would be.

" They change the title. On Sunday it says CM Fortress Italy v200 Update and now is v4 " I also thought the naming convention was a little confusing for the patch file. Saying CMFI 4.0 upgrade is available and then labeling it as CMFI 2.0 upgrade as a file is just asking for confusion. I understand the naming conventions BFC uses for their engines, but that's only because I read the forums and happened to see the explanation. Someone just coming over to update might have a question or two about having the right file.

" Juju's CMFI 5 UI doesn't work anymore for the weapons silhouetes" Is this really a bug that BFC needs to worry about? Isn't it a mod and BFC states that they can't guarantee mod compatibility?