IICptMillerII

Well, Hitler caused the Holocaust and invaded like 6 countries man, so the US invasion of Iraq is ok because Hitler did it way worse. 500,000 dead Iraqis isn't even close to 11,000,000 killed in concentration camps, so it was totally justified because it wasn't as bad as what Hitler did. Also, there was an English speaker in Baghdad, so we had to invade in order to protect a fellow English speaker. (/s) Am I justified enough for you now?

We are ripping Vlad because, after 53 pages and over 1,000 responses, he is STILL spouting the same tired drivel attempting to excuse what Russia is doing. If he said, "Yeah what we're doing is wrong but I still support it because I'm Russian" well then fine. Thats his opinion, and I can have my opinion on that, but thats all it is. But he isn't doing that. He is trying to excuse and justify the actions of his country. That is what has led to such a long thread, and the 'ripping of Vlad.' Wrong? Up for debate, but you can certainly hold that as an opinion. Illegal? No. While the UN did not endorse the invasion, there is a clause in the UN charter that allows member states to act independently of the UN if they feel threatened, or some such legalese. More importantly, the invasion was voted on and approved by the US congress. Everyone gets hung up on the whole WMD debate. 'Bush lied to us! There were no WMDs!' Except that there were. In the month or so leading up to the invasion, Saddam got rid of some, trucked more to Syria, and buried a bunch in the middle of the desert. Its also important to point out that in May of 2004 (after the invasion) 3 US servicemen were wounded by an artillery shell that had sarin gas in it. They had to be properly decontaminated as well as treated for their wounds. There were other instances of service members being wounded by chemical agents during the occupation. Here are some links to a few of them: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/10/14/world/middleeast/us-casualties-of-iraq-chemical-weapons.html?_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/26/world/middleeast/army-apologizes-for-handling-of-chemical-weapon-exposure-cases.html http://www.newsweek.com/how-us-nerve-gassed-its-own-troops-then-covered-it-317250 Did we find warehouses full of nukes and enough chemical weapons to sterilize Europe? No, but we did find chemical weapons, we know there are more buried out in the desert which will probably be lost to time, and more still went to Syria. As I stated eariler, whether or not invading Iraq in 2003 was a good thing to do is totally debatable. I have my own opinions on the matter, as I'm sure most here do as well. But it was not illegal. This is completely true. The West is not a perfect place. No where is. But as other have stated many times, just because the US did some bad thing in 18-whatever, or Britain did some awful thing in 17-whatever, is no excuse to do bad things yourself. "People have murdered before, so I can beat up this old lady and steal her car. Its not the worst thing anyone has ever done so its ok for me to do that." No. Thats not how the world works. By that logic, any nation could do any number of terrible things to one another, just as long as its not on the same level as the Holocaust. The point is, there is no excuse for what Russia is doing in Ukraine. None.

Simply put, it can't. The US Civil War sees to this. States cannot secede from the Union. That, and slavery was abolished. Two good things. If Texas voted to leave, and the vote passed, it would be considered a rebellion, just like the CSA was.

Defensive? Thats what you call invading another country and annexing its territory? I guess the Russian military really is in dire straights if you've confused a concept that poorly. Yeah, about as legitimate as holding a gun to someones head and then telling them they have a choice on whether the trigger is pulled or not. Oh wait you don't like analogies. Let me try again. You can't hold an election about annexing territory AFTER you invade it. "Hey France, now that we occupy you, want to have a vote and see if you want to stay occupied?" - Hitler, probably. Because that is totally legitimate Considering Hitler used the EXACT same justifications when he started gobbling up territory, it is relevant.

Thats what I and the rest of the civilized world will continue to do. Russia's pathetic made up excuses DO NOT make it ok to break laws, annex lands of a sovereign nation, and kill its citizens. The only people Russia abuses more than their neighbors, is their own people. Your history is literally loaded with it. The very last thing I would ever want, is for Russia to "look out for me" or "defend me" if I was Russian. Between the Purges, Gulags, Famines (intentional or not- its irrelevant) Russia has really only ever been good at oppressing, harming, and killing its own people for its entire history. The claim that you are trying to "help" and "defend" Russians in another country is laughable to the extreme. How about treating your own citizens better for once in your entire history? Furthermore, you have ZERO justification for "defending" people in another country. Some ethnically Russian guy was probably beaten up in New York City today. Gonna try to make up excuses why the VDV needs to paradrop in on the city and annex it in order to "protect ethnic Russians and Russian speakers?" No you won't, because you know you could never get away with such a thing, and you know how ridiculous that would be. But you think you can pick on your neighbors because they're smaller than you and cannot defend themselves. Shift8 was right, your government is nothing but the school yard bully. Except instead of pushing the fat kid in the dirt and stealing lunch money, you're slaughtering people and stealing their homes, all in the name of "protecting" and "helping" them. Come to think of it, there's another leader in world history who used very similar excuses to justify his mad rampages. Something about German speakers in Czechoslovakia and the Rhineland, and Lebensraum in Poland. Hmm...

You LITERALLY said yourself, that Russia is breaking international law and has been condemned by the rest of the world. I'm not "interpreting" anything. I quoted you VERBATIM. The 'true face of reality' is that Russia broke international law multiple times and then lied (laughably badly might I add) continuously about it. Don't like analogies? Ok, lets try something else then: Russia illegally invaded a sovereign nation-state and illegally annexed territory of that nation-state. The rest of the world condemned Russia for this. Russia lied (terribly) about illegally invading and annexing the territory. That is the stark, "true face of reality." All your little "details" trying to excuse this are irrelevant.

"Its morally just for me to walk into this store and take jewelry without paying. The store owner and the police consider this to be breaking the law, so I'm forced to be covert about taking the jewelry. I have to change my tactics from 'buy with money' to 'smuggle under my shirt and don't get caught.'" "Oh its still ok for me to do this, the guy who owns the store is Italian, and my grandmother was Italian so we're basically related. Can't steal from family right?!?!" You have literally got to be kidding me. Are you for real? I'm not one to grade a nation/people on the tongue in cheek stereotypes made up about them, but you are enforcing every single one about Russians right now. Gotta hand it to ol' Vlad, if this is all a troll, it is the most elaborate long con I've ever seen. Just the patience alone...

Sounds to me like the whole "the Soviets were the greatest evil during WWII" argument. "Everything the Nazis did, the Soviets did worse!" Is it true? Maybe? I'm not sure if you can really quantify it, and I think that arguing whoever killed the most people makes them the worst is not really an argument at all. I understand a lot of people who become wehraboos tend to dislike the Soviets more than the Nazis for this reason. The thing is, the Soviets were invaded and suffered horribly because of the Germans. Any hypotheticals (the Soviets were going to invade Germany!) are irrelevant because they didn't happen. Most importantly, the Soviets didn't get away with anything. Yes, they occupied half of Europe at the end of WWII, but immediately following WWII there was this little thing called the Cold War, which among many things was a direct response by the West to the Soviets and their shenanigans. Furthermore, the Soviets lost the Cold War, badly. Take a look at the Black Sea forums to see the results of that collapse. So yeah, the Soviets were bad, but that doesn't make the Nazis any less bad, and at the end of the day it was the Nazis who were the worst because they started the whole thing.

I also agree. Watched it a year ago on Netflix and enjoyed it. Steers clear of any blatant wehrabooism, and you can tell by the end that the show is depicting a tragedy. Little if any glorification of the Nazis.

RE: "Better BAR" Those are all good points. I guess the answer to my question of why the US never developed an alternative to the BAR is because they never really felt the need to. Like what you said, a combination of combined arms and primarily offensive maneuvers likely negated the need for a whole new weapon. I've noticed a fair amount of BAR-bashing recently (not here on these forums, but from a variety of other military history/fire arm sources) I never bought into it, but I do understand the BARs limited ammo, and that tends to be the chief complaint used by those who decry it. I think it's likely a case of hindsight being 20/20, or something along those lines. "Wouldn't it be great if the Allies had the SAW during WWII?" I'm not one of those people who hate the BAR, just curious. RE: "IAR" I have never personally rucked a 240, and hope I never do. Same with mortars (either the 60 or 81) However it is worth noting that, generally the gunners/assistants (or in the case of the SAW just the gunner) carry only their guns and combat load of ammo. All the extra stuff is lumped onto the grunts. So while humping a 240/249 sucks, so does being saddled with the extra weight of 200 rounds of 7.62 on top of a regular rifleman's combat load. ("But sar'nt, it's heavy!") Not trying to start an argument over who has it worse or anything like that. Just pointing out that having to carry any kind of weight sucks. I imagine that's probably part of the reason you decided you wanted to ride ? As far as the IAR goes, I can see the appeal. It's lighter and easier to manipulate. They tried to make the SAW lighter and easy to wield with the SAW Para upgrade, but you can only slim it down so much. I can maybe understand the IAR for light units like the Rangers (they do love their raids) but then again that assumes that nothing is going to go wrong. If they get stuck in a serious firefight, they're going to miss the SAW. Unfortunately, things do tend to go wrong. In Mogadishu they decided (against standing SOP) not to take NODs and extra ammo. A book, movie, and most importantly 18 (+1 three days later) men were killed. Ever since the Army, and Rangers specifically always insist to stick with standard SOP load outs. (By the way I do not mean this to sound patronizing at all, just mentioning it because this is generally the reason given as to why you have to take a full load despite the specific mission) To me, the IAR goes against the supreme principle of fire superiority, or at the least assumes that everything is either going to go to plan, or that you're only fighting against terry taliban, and not a large force of anything packing more serious firepower.

I too have been interested in this although I am more interested why the US did not develop a better automatic weapon for the rifle squad. As @panzersaurkrautwerfer said, it was designed to be an automatic rifle more than a machine gun, and the Marines have recently gone back to this model in the form of the M27 IAR. What I really want to know is, after confronting the very common, and vastly superior (fire superiority by volume wise) MG-34/42, why did the US not attempt to design and implement something more similar to the MG-34/42s? The US came up against these weapons early enough in the war for a new weapon to be produced and fielded. Also, the MG-42 specifically gained a massive level of infamy throughout the US Army. There were many propaganda videos and training classes designed specifically around demystifying and countering the MG-42. Instead of trying to develop tactics and videos/pamphlets trying to get around the problem, why didn't they just develop their own weapon system to counter it? Seems like a better way to go about things in my opinion. The only real reason I can think of as to why the US never developed an MG-42 counter could be the Pacific theater. As far as I know, the Japanese never fielded anything comparable to the MG-42 in terms of firepower, thus the average US rifle squad possessed a great firepower advantage with their semi auto Garands. My guess is that, if this holds true we did not develop an MG-42 counter because only half the war needed it, and not the whole. Although the whole would have benefited from such a weapon, I suppose it would have been a logistical nightmare. A quick point on the Marines and their switch to the M27 IAR. I think its hilariously stupid of them. Fire superiority is THE most important element of a firefight, and while the M27 can use large magazines, last I checked the standard loadout for the M27 gunner is to use regular 30 round mags. Even if you did use a bunch of higher capacity magazines, I'm not so sure it could maintain a high rate of fire for long without a barrel change, and I'm also not sure if changing the barrel of the M27 is possible/feasible during a firefight. To me, the adoption of the M27 is a massive step backwards. Any Marine Corps public relations specialists (aren't they all ) care to weigh in?

As I've said many times now, yes the TacAI can be better. Yes the TacAI is not perfect. Yes I expect that it will continue to be developed and improved as we go on. The TacAI is not perfect and will be improved. There it is, literally spelled out for all to see. Hopefully we can move past this point now. The primary point here is that the TacAI is more than good enough for the game, and is not broken or flawed in a major way. It will still be improved. It has some issues. Everything does. My car has broken parts, and other parts that don't work correctly. It still gets me to where I need to go, reliably every time without a problem (knock on wood), and is in much better overall condition than a lot of other vehicles. Just because not everything is 100% does not mean its broken. There are literally hundreds of other examples just like this. The TacAI is the sum of its parts that work, and despite the flaws it still works very well. I honestly do not know how else to explain it. *Scrunches brow* 'Not broken. Work good.' *Thumps club* As to the different types of AI and the difference between an FPS AI and a strategy AI, this is a rabbit hole I'm not going to bother going down. All I'll say is that the AI for each are extremely different. In Rainbow Six Siege its two teams of 5 if I'm not mistaken. So figure a max of 9 AI at most with only one human player. In CM, there can be battles that have HUNDREDS of soldiers ON EACH SIDE. Each soldier has his own AI. That means there are as many AI's working as there are soldiers on the field. The difference should be clear, but if it is not I am sure someone else with a much better understanding of the workings of CPUs and super computers will chime in. Point is, comparing an apple to a rubix cube is silly in any situation, and thats what you've done by comparing strategy and FPS AI.

I assure you it is only civil right now because the dissenting party has not had a chance to address the conversation. Brace for the counter attack! Ralfidudes signature defensive maneuver! It can't be beaten! If only the Air Force had paid as much attention to Star Fox as Ralfidude did they would have discovered this ingenious move earlier! "Do a barrel roll!!!" Back on topic @Michael Emrys brought up another aspect of the TacAI. It does indeed simulate less than clear thinking by soldiers under stress very well. Even if it is not intentional. I include these 'Sobel Moments' when I'm looking at things from the soldiers perspective. So if I go down to eye level and see what the soldier in question did and am still confused by it I usually am able to chalk it up to pure stupidity/incompetence. On the part of the soldier, not the TacAI. Again the TacAI is not perfect but what has been described by myself and others is more than enough to explain/justify/make sense of 95% of what you see going on.

Love the vid Panzer, and your others as well! Quick question for you, what is the smoke mod you are using? It looks extremely realistic, especially when that first Sherman gets hit by the Panther. (1:24-1:30) I re-watched those few seconds a dozen times, just drooling over the effect!

At a certain point you have to accept that no AI in any game or sim is going to be perfect, or even a direct 1:1 representation of a human intelligence in the same situation. There are many sci-fi novels, movies and scientific theories about the development and impact a true artificial intelligence will have on the human race. Needless to say, whether you believe it will be a good thing for humanity or not, it will be a monumental technological breakthrough. Battlefront is a fantastic little company that is able to do things that companies with 10 times the size and budget could not. Creating a near human intelligent AI is not one of those things, and never will be. Well, unless of course the real reason @ChrisND is taking a break from streaming is to develop the first true AI Mk 1. The point is, the TacAI is not perfect and never will be. However, the TacAI is one of the most impressive things I've ever seen simulated in any game/sim, ever. Seriously, take a moment to think about it. Each soldier has its own little AI that is context specific to that soldier. This is why just because one soldier sees an enemy, it doesn't mean the rest of his squad magically does. I am continually amazed at the little things I see the TacAI do in game. When you see the AI do something you think is questionable, put yourself in the shoes of the soldier. See what he sees and is interacting around him, and it might just make sense after all. Also, truth IS stranger than fiction. for any silly thing you see the TacAI do, I am positive you can find a primary source account of a soldier doing something far more ridiculous in a real life battle. One of the main reasons why I love the TacAI so much is because it somehow manages to simulate these odd human-like moments on the battlefield. I remember reading the manual to CMSF a while back, and at the beginning they talk about the challenges of creating a war simulator. "Computers are essentially fancy calculators. They like order, simplicity, and predictability. Chaos is not something that a computer handles very easily or very well. Depending on the circumstances, it might even be impossible. A tactical combat simulator, unfortunately, requires the computer to simulate chaos - both natural and manmade. Then, as the simulation is executed in RealTime, the computer must calculate this chaotic environment quickly and efficiently. As if this isn’t demanding enough, the gamers using the simulator require that the computer also devote a large amount of its power to push around polygons to make the simulation seem real." There is only a bit more after that at the front of the CMSF manual, and I urge anyone interested to check it out. It helps to have a better understanding of the simulation as a whole. The next time you see the TacAI do something you think is silly, take a moment to think it through first from the perspective of the soldier, from the perspective of a real life account you may have heard, and then from the perspective of the simulation itself. Somewhere along the way it should make sense to you. And if for whatever reason you go through all of that and still can't figure it out, snap a quick video so the rest of us can enjoy the silliness as well, and just come to terms with the fact that its not now and never will be perfect. But what we have is pretty damn good, and far and away better than anything else that I've ever experienced.

@kohlenklau Your mission is YouTube famous! (Not my video. Popped up in my suggested vids)

It seems to me that you are both arguing the same thing by trying to explain it in different ways. You each have a different perspective of the same thing. Infantry are visibly represented 1:1. Each soldier has his own TacAI. One man in a squad can still see the enemy if the rest of his mates cant. Hits are 1:1. If a bullet hits a pixel of a soldier then he is hit. Depending on where the bullet impacted the soldier determines if he is lightly wounded heavily wounded or killed. This is where the abstraction comes in. If you don't believe me here then I urge you to go in game and see for yourself. What I said above is true. If a bullet (or shrapnel or whatever) hits the pixel of a soldier then that soldier is hit. However this does not mean that the soldier must be killed or wounded. The game uses a save system to determine if soft factors have saved the soldier or not. Micro-terrain, furniture, stones, and any other number of small things that the game does not visually represent. I have seen my soldiers hit by direct fire many times and not be killed or wounded by it. You can even see the tracer "splash" on the pixeltruppen but he is not harmed in any way. This is the abstraction. The example of some soldiers clustered up behind a lamp post; if a mortar round lands on top of them then they will most likely be wounded or killed. If one or more is not it is because the abstracted saves occurred. If they are all taken out then the saves were not enough to actually save them. The locations of the soldiers and the rounds that impact them are all 1:1 but there are behind the scene saves that can occur. Lets take another example. A rifleman is shooting from behind a tree. You see return fire literally shoot him in the face, but the rifleman behind the tree is unaffected. (For simplicity sake lets just say hes a veteran or crack so he doesn't immediately dive for cover) Why is he not dead? Did the bullet actually hit him in the face? Yes. Is he unharmed? Yes. Then what gives? There was a cover save applied. The game determined that the soldier was leaning around the tree not just sitting out next to it all exposed like you see on your screen and the game decided that because he was leaning out from behind a tree he was not hit. I hope these examples and explanations are not confusing at all. For me when I see something such as the example above I take a moment to thin it through and then use a little imagination. That one German sniper in the window who just won't die? Maybe he stacked furniture or even some sandbags up there with him thats protecting him. The MG42 that has survived two or even three mortar barrages? Probably a bit more dug into the dirt berm of the hedgerow than the games visuals can show. Perhaps he even has some improvised overhead cover. The point is is that you can explain a lot of what you're seeing in game even if you can't directly see it. I also tend to treat situations like these as micro challenges. Just because the first MG you encountered was easy to wipe out does not mean the second one will be just as easy. These are the challenges that face the infantry every time they go into combat, and is one of the many reasons why the infantry are the most important on the battlefield. They are far and away the most adaptable to these challenges, whether they are making it harder for the enemy to kill them or trying to undo what measures the enemy has taken.

Seems like whenever I finish one book, three more take its place that I need to read! Thanks for the suggestions, I'll definitely be checking them out! Another I've recently added to my list is "All American, All The Way" by Phil Nordyke. Its a combat history of the 82nd Airborne that has been highly recommended.

Airborne All The Way! That being said I've always had an immense amount of respect and interest in the boys that hit the beaches, specifically the 29th Infantry Division. If anyone is looking for a great book that follows the Blue and the Gray from training in England, through D-Day and into the hedgerow fighting of Normandy, then I highly recommend "Beyond The Beachhead" by Joseph Balkoski. John, the YouTube link to the broadcast during the morning hours of the invasion was fascinating to listen to. Great find, thanks for sharing it!

All of it looks excellent! Particularly the map you've made. For some reason I just can't seem to ever make maps that look or feel right. Luckily you and others here don't seem to have that problem!

@Reiter These videos are awesome! I just discovered this thread while browsing the forums and I'm glad I did. I personally prefer CM vids that only show the action and cut out all of the administrative stuff, like plotting movements and such. There are only a handful of CM vids out there, and even fewer that take a more cinematic approach like you do. Your videos are a welcome addition to the small but growing collection!

The scenario is great and the mods add some awesome flavor to it! The map is fantastic as well. I found it to be a very intense mission, in part due to the terrain and the nature of the battle (damn those mines!) and also in part due to the limited amount of manpower available to the US player. Every casualty really hurts. I also like the small size of the engagement. It makes it all the more engaging and immersive. If this is all being developed into a campaign, it could be a really good way of telling a soldiers story. A virtual war diary of sorts. You could have a main character that is followed through the course of the campaign. Could be an interesting take on storytelling. I was wondering, are you going to try to mod in the German patrol caps? Like the one in this image:

Ah ok my apologies then. That's the second time I misunderstood which video was being referenced. I'll catch on eventually!

The video by Shift8 is not cut at all. Watch the seconds in the turn tick down. You will see that they are ticking down in real time and there is no inconsistency. I'm not sure what to make of what happens in this video game mechanics wise, but it seems clear to me that Shift8 is only trying to point out an issue that he is seeing. Accusing him of some kind of Soviet level video tampering ("missing cosmonaut? what cosmonaut? was never cosmonaut!") is unfounded and rude. I've never experienced something like this happening in either CMFB, CMFI or CMBN having played all three. I think that there may be something not readily apparent that could explain what we are seeing. What that something is, is anyones guess. I can say with confidence that this has never been an issue for me and likely isn't a major issue affecting many people, meaning that it is likely a specific snafu or a very minor bug. The best way to get to the bottom of the issue is likely to send a save game file to the developers and see what they make of it.

The action shown in the video is unedited. The first Panther was knocked out in the previous turn, and after the Sherman was engaged by the Panther, nothing else of interest happened in the remaining time in the current turn so I stopped recording. If you watch the clock tick down during the action, you will note that it is consistent.