Luka

This has got me interested, hope we get someone in the know respond to the thread. Edit: actually might have better luck posting in one of the CMx2 threads, lots of guys don't look at the general discussion sub-forum. Just a thought.

@RockinHarry wow, that sounds awesome. Good on you man, I'm sure a lot of people will appreciate your effort in making this

I got to say that I understand where Kino is coming from. Talking about politics always has the potential to get nasty, mainly because no matter how objective we try to be in our critical discussion it does always end up boiling down to where a person stands really. Many people prefrr tonleave politics put of as mich as they can because of this. Having said tha,t I don't see a problem with letting people talk about it so long as it remains civil. After all warfare is essentially a continuation of politics and it would be difficult to talk about modern cases without divierging into talks about international politics every now and then. I don't get involved in these talks, sometimes they get a bit too close to home but I can't deny that reading them I often learn of new insights and perspectives on things as well as gaining new sources of information which is invaluable. Speaking of Intel sources. Does anyone know of reliable info on how many missions US and Allies are making against ISIS? Daily or since the start of operation or anything? Ive always been getting the feeling that not as much seems to be being done as in other air operations in the not too distant past, which in turn may imply that dismantling ISIS asap is not really that much the main goal/motive. If this is true it may come down to the very different situations on the ground and the difficulty of picking targets? Edit: sorry if this is way too off topic

You have been drinking. I doubt they would do an Africa module. It is a rather different tactical environment than Italy and Sicily. Also, while Italy can be seen as a continuation of the war from Africa it is a distinct "campaign". If you're craving for Africa you're more likely to see it in its own game, perhaps as a remake of CMAK. Unfortunately, given what the guys have said about upcoming plans that would be a long way off for those of us who want to go fox hunting

Seems like you got a lot more than you were expecting.

If you play with the Italians a lot you can actually make decent use of them. As has been said before they can be very effective at suppressing the enemy at range. You gotta practice playing them right though (especially making use of HMGs and mortars). Their large un-splitable units can dish some serious punishment in the right circumstances and help establish fire superiority but the inflexibility and C&C is what really gets them down (as most people know). Also, you have to be extra careful of artillery or you'll not have a fun time. However, you'll never be overly effective if you don't at least have German armor for support. I've also found they can be quite capable (and are much more suited to) defence.

I doubt anybody sees a ground operation of any meaningful size as a possibility. At least not at the moment. Also, if it were to happen I doubt how many conscripts serving their term Russia would rely on. I expect they'd try to absolutely minimise the amount of people going who aren't professionals, making as much use of proxy fighters as possible, which in turn would lessen the effect of families complaining their young are being forced to go and get slaughtered on a foreign battlefield. In any case a ground operation seems far fetched no?

I'm not seeing why people have an issue so much with players not behaving like they would as commanders in the real world. They're not in the real world (thankfully), they're just playing a wargame. If that's how they want to play it that's how they're gonna play it. There shouldn't be some great effort to make the game such that the player is forced to make more conservative decisions. I one wants to play imitating more real world behaviour then he is free to do so. Sure that might mean he/she will "loose" the scenario but what does that even mean except the words at the end. If you are happy with how you fought and what you achieved then who cares what the end title says. Heck often you see the AAR guys talk about how they had a tactical defeat or a draw but they're actually really happy with the outcome. If the problem is playing against other people and them not behaving enough like they were in the "real world" commanding "real people" then there's two things to say. Firstly, one can always try and find someone to play with who would be happy to play not for winning with points but performing the best as if it was a "real battle". You can even arrange your own objectives on a map if you're not happy with the ones the scenario designer picked and just toggle the objectives off. Secondly, if you want to develop your tactical abilities to a higher aptitude then you should try and be prepared to fight against people who may be less predictable then a "real" enemy by taking more initiative and not holding back when sustaining losses that might well make a real commander second guess themselves. I realise this might not be exactly what the discussion has been about so far but i just thought id chuck by two bux worth in. Also, what a perfect example of a thread going completely off topic (very interesting though don't get me wrong). Edit: @TheVulture I quoted your post for context, this wasn't an aimed attack on your point or anything.

How difficult would it be? It wouldn't need to fly faster necessarily if it is fired very shortly before but with enough time to set of the APS and allow the main round to hit the target. Something like the RPG-30 is supposed to do.

woops I probably should have pointed it out. I've just used it a few times even when i had issues in CMx2 games so didn't think of it. My bad

It has definitely been considered and may even be worked on as we speak. So much milltary development is not heard of until a way down the line from it first being considered as a possible idea let alone a dedicated project.

Very interesting article, thanks for the find John There's a lot of new developments going on right now, its quite an exciting time for those who follow. However, that also means many many candidates to put into CMBS and I feel like we'd need to wait for a lot more info to come out on the various projects we'd love to see before the guys should seriously think about adding them.

Strange, perhaps there is something you're not getting quite right. Countless times I thought my observers must be slow only to realise there was something i wasnt considering. Have a look at this thread and perhaps youll spot some trick you weren't aware of { http://community.battlefront.com/topic/4413-cm-artillery-synopsis-treeburst155/ } On a side note, how effective (in game) is airburst against light vehicles like Humvees and UAZ? Ive never had the chance to see. I would test it myself but nfortunately my fake life in the real world wont give me time anytime soon.

Good idea and would definitely be fun and interesting wargaming. However it wouldn't be an easy thing to implement and given that the BF team is quite small and has A LOT of work to do I'd much rather they focus on other more important things. I have a hunch there's not many if any that would want them to focus on making this happen rather than working on patches and modules.

This thread may interest you: http://community.battlefront.com/topic/121037-t90-light-fire-slews-entire-turret-rather-than-use-mg/

That's why I'm curious to see whether the tank would target them with the CROWS while still focusing on OpFor had you not given the command. If that's the case then I assume giving the command means effectively telling the AI that its threat number one and to focus exclusively on it whereas if left alone they would use the CROWS as its meant to be used. If so its a shame you weren't aware of it before. Good luck with the battle

Did you save before that turn by any chance? I bet you must be kicking yourself for if you didn't save. You could replay it without the Target Light command and see what happens.

You are a cruel man Edit: or woman, whatever the case may be. Lets go with ice cold boss

Maybe it was set as a fording location but deep water accidentally placed on the same spot instead of shallower water? Which mission was it?

Interesting, I've never noticed this but it intrigued me so I tried it out [only quickly]. The turret slewed every time I set Target Light behind it [area fire not at a target], and fired both the coaxial and CROWS, both when stationary and moving forward.

@Baneman Now that I look at it again it makes sense, rookie mistake on my part not bad grammar. Thanks for pointing it out

You can just imagine how that story would be spun and quickly known by all Russian soldiers. From "M1A2 immobilised by AFV" to "crew cheats death destroying the mighty Abrams"

Noob question, what is this "white vehicle/black vehicle" distinction? I dont think I've seen it before

It stands for "Low Profile Common Remotely Operated Weapons System". As I understand it, its the planned shorter model intended to replace the 50. cal (Browning) CROWS.

You could always arrange to play some quick battles focusing on infantry with someone if you feel there aren't enough scenarios that don't emphasise armour. Also if you have the time for it, try playing around and making some scenarios giving a larger role to infantry. It can be good fun making scenarios (and there's ample help on how to do it on these forums and some on armchair general) and people would certainly appreciate the variety, as you say. Sorry if this comes of as "well then do it yourself" I didn't mean it to. I'm acknowledging there's room for more variety in scenarios so to say, but also that if its not what most people want than the ones that do gotta work on it ourselves. Actually, I think I might have just found my project for the holiday Edit: Though I would like to point out there are quite a few scenarios where Infantry has a big role to play, but I guess there always is quite a bit of armour present so it doesn't solve your itch.