Thewood1

My teenagers love thinly sliced fired spam and fried rice for breakfast. I make 1-2 times a month. They can't get enough.

I am one of the ones who complained. I came in one morning to look for a specific thread. I found the first six threads started by John and another one only 8-9 down. One was on emoticons, one was on some issue with sound on youtube, one was on a video of the T-90 which could have easily been just a post in several existing T-90 threads, one was on Grad rockets falling on a city in the Ukraine (which also could gone into an existing thread if it really was relevant), one on Russian field rations, one on a video of the XM25, and another on a training video that no one seems to where it's from, and one legacy one on the A-10 in US service. So maybe 2 you could say were relevant. Three are clearly not relevant, and a couple could have been just part of existing threads. I have seen his behavior in other threads and the pattern is to spam the forum with so much stuff that finding anything useful about the actual game becomes difficult. I don't mind the thread here and there about equipment or units in real life, but I have seen where this ends up. I was just trying to point out that it would be nice to have the game forum have the majority of the posts about the actual game. There is a general forum. There are forums all over the web for this stuff. I initially asked nicely to back off of some of that stuff.

Yes, I can see it in Graviteam. And no I can't see it in CM2. There is no way to tell. Steve says he doesn't play other games so him saying it is the most detailed doesn't mean much. If I could see the underlying modeling or even the numbers used, I could be convinced. But until then, I have some faith CM2 is good, but no proof.

Graviteam seems to be more detailed in armor and at least as detailed in damage. At least they show it. I am not sure how anyone can claim CM is the most detailed when we have no idea how its done.

I think to really take advantage of the krysanthema, you need 3-4km maps at least. Maybe using it as an overwatch for a defensive position way behind lines.

btw..7. Am I going to have to put the links up for you. If you are going to crap all over the forum, keep freaking track of what you are posting. How's that for nitpicking.

Directly relevant vs indirectly relevant. Let's not push the directly relevant down because of 7-8 threads on stuff indirectly relevant. I am not saying don't post it, just have a little bit of consideration. I am not the forum police, but asking a s a forum user. So using your logic...why not post stuff on US politics here, football scores, baseball scores, etc. Since everyone is reading CMBS forums, why not post everything here. Just show a little restraint.

Could I ask you to put all of your semi-game related topics into one general modern equipment, Youtube videos, tank porn, and random links thread. The first six threads are yours, and 7 of the threads on the first page of the forum are yours. Some good threads that are directly game related are getting pushed off the first page. At the pace you are going, all the threads on the first page will be yours and have only a passing connection to discussing the game. Or move them to general discussion.

Those references from Steel Beasts were all over the CMSF forums for a while...no state secret.

I played Iron Front a lot for a while. I really tried to like it, but it played like a modern combat sim just using WW2 weapons. Seeing soldiers using tactical movement seemed very weird in a WW2 combat sim.

I am not sure what you are talking about..static defenses? Fighting them? Fighting in them? Placing them? Effectiveness?

Let me give you an example of machine learning in use... I have a GPS on my car. It has a machine learning capability to offer a route and then after "x" repetitions of me driving my own route, it will "learn that route and offer it and variations to me in the future. I have owned this car for two years and made hundreds of GPS-guided drives home. It has yet to offer me the route home that is most efficient. It has altered its offered route home slightly, but still takes me 5 miles out of the way even though it can see every road it needs to take on my route. I have asked the dealer about it and the tech laughed at me and said it hasn't worked since it came on the market. Machine leanring sounds good as an exercise, but applying it to a game is not going to be a trivial exercise. That doesn't even take into account the expense and lost opportunity in doing it.

I think maybe supporting multiple cores and a 64 bit OS would come before "machine learning". To me, there is some basic blocking and tackling that should be done first.

I do really think there is too much APS in the game for NATO. Its something that might be as easy to deploy as some think and US procurement is known for its speed to field.

Ground radar is not some all seeing eye. There are good reasons its not used more in ground combat. Its delicate, easily spoofed, and has a hard time with basic ground objects. There needs to be quite a bit of clearance between the target and any ground objects. IOW, conditions need to be just right to operate. It would be almost impossible to fire a radar guided missile into a stand of tress, or maybe even something near them. So while it is a good counter in certain aspects, lets not get completely out of hand with its capabilities.

I can't say as to its popularity, but I use it a lot as do several of my peers in ARMA.

What would the equipment OOBs look like if CMBS was 2015 vs 2107?

Actually some other games do allow AI vs AI... You can do it in Command, ARMA, and most modern flight sims. It is also possible in Steel Beasts.

I am assuming you have no save or video. Since you ran it many times, how about posting it.

Fuuny thing is I play most of my games completely the opposite way. I play hot seat just to play them out.

I assume there is no APS on those.

I think the popping of smoke is automatic in the more modern tanks...I think

Cool...just thought it was funny to question sources then mention some stats without sources.

Zaloga usually lists his sources in the book, but not sure on the book that is being referenced. I suspect it was written before a lot of Russian documentation was available to the public. btw, what are your sources.