Machor

I too was not familiar with b/w, but it appears to be pretty solid, with 11 years in Urban Dictionary - we unfortunately can't get frequency data for lexical items like these: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=b%2Fw

I'd never thought about the game this way - yes, playing real-time and pausing would give the most control. Other than lacking experience with real-time in CM, I also didn't think about this option because I always have multiplayer in mind with CM - unlike GT, which still lacks it AFAIK. I've certainly had my share of 'dead-in-one-minute' moments, and quite a lot of them in WW2 titles as well. I'm just thinking here: Could it be that these controls would be covering bad command decisions? Like in the scenario that you mention, wouldn't the realistic choice be between overwhelming suppressive fire or risking the lives of pixeltruppen? Again, it's a level of control that would certainly help me personally, but we need to put more thought into what kind of real-life decision process it represents. And speaking of risking the lives of pixeltruppen - I think this is why people get addicted to wargaming, like gambling.

@HerrTom Operation Hooper with graphics maxed out must be the most exotic wargaming experience there is... I think I was thrown off by the reference to GT in your suggestion. If I am understanding you correctly, your suggestion would give more control over units, which is likely to ring alarm bells for Steve as micromanagement. The last time I read him arguing against this, he was bringing up more issues than 'tuning' the TacAI: That being said, your 'micromanagement' is innovative in that it would encourage playing real-time as opposed to trying to achieve similar ends in turn-based play with careful 'pause,' 'deploy smoke,' and 'target arc' commands, so it could get better reception. I will need to put in time to playing CM in real-time to have a better opinion - it's something I'm looking forward to try once I have a more powerful PC. [And you just got a positive response from a self-confessed real-time player. ] And I can mention two TacAI parameters I've had experience with that may help a new player who may be reading this thread: 'Fast' gives preference to completing movement in lieu of taking cover or returning fire, so I use it instead of 'quick' to that end. And 'slow' will make units move when 'hunt' isn't moving them because they perceive a threat - I often take things out that're 'just around the corner' with 'slow.'

Disclaimer: My experience with Graviteam Tactics is with Operation Star; I see they've improved the UI in Mius Front, but I'll assume that the heart of the engine is the same as GTOS. If you've paid attention to how all map squares are coded in GT, it's an engine that was designed as a command sim from 'ground up,' if you get my pun. Which is just as well for those games, since they're meant solely for real-time play, and the decisive, 'brainy' thinking is done at the - turn-based - operational level. It's a game that I'll definitely return to once I get a PC that can max out the ooh-aah graphics (I play CM turn-based with maxed out graphics on my current gaming laptop). On one hand, Steve has announced upcoming improvements to CM that will at least automate column movement and seeking hull-down; on the other hand, I'm not sure if the current engine can emulate the degree of automation in GT. However, lest automation get taken as the basis for CMx3 - and Steve has already stated they would take the engine the command sim way if they wanted to expand their market - I do love the degree of control that CM offers, which you could only get in GT if you play one of their tank sims using the same engine and literally drive your tank around. So I would say I'm fine with the addition of any sort of control or new command as long as we don't lose what we've got. Now, if there is one thing CM MUST take from GT, that is illumination rounds. I've concluded I'll be playing QB only with day visibility in WW2 titles until we get illumination rounds.

I only have CMA, and for me, the HUGE difference between it and the 3.0 titles is the inability to cherry-pick equipment and support in QB. You are allowed to choose between parameters like 'armor' or 'light infantry,' but for example Soviet armor can give you AA trucks in lieu of tanks, and there are rare Mujaheddin AT teams that can turn the tables against a Soviet player used to encountering nothing more dangerous than RPG-2. Other than this, I think there's no tallying of 'kills' for individual units. There are a bunch of cosmetic improvements in the 3.0 titles as well. On the positive side, CMA has a very special charm to it just like CMFI does among the WW2 titles, and you should at least check out the demo if you're even mildly interested. BTW CMBN can be updated to 3.0 for a small fee, like CMFI.

Thank you - very helpful list. In terms of CMFI (mine currently shows 1.20 on the launch screen, after the v3.0 upgrade), do you know of any features that it's lacking that other 3.0 titles have, or is it just a cosmetic matter with the launch screen?

Thank you! - I was just about to post this based on BFC's wording for the CMFI v3.0 upgrade: "The 3.0 Upgrade for Fortress Italy converts and upgrades your existing game (and any installed modules) automagically to include most of the advanced CMx2 v3.00 game features! (This includes features you may already know and enjoy in Combat Mission: Red Thunder.)"

I am well aware of the different engines/updates/versions; what I'd like to clarify is the 'official' nomenclature. So, for CMBS (regardless of the version number), would we use CMx2v3 or CM2x3?

Am I making a mistake with terminology? I thought we were in CM2, and that CMx3 referred to the titles with the 3.0 engine?

Do check out the significant improvements of the CMx3 titles over CMSF and CMA. They may or may not be relevant for you - they are for me.

John, The BBC's caption from the report: "The slogan for this bargain laptop, targeted at gamers, reads: "designed to cause damage""

Keep an eye on Alienware ads, and you might snatch one for $33... "Dell error hands Mexicans $33 laptop bargain" http://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-38025662 "Mexican officials have ordered Dell Computers to honour the sale of laptops that had been mistakenly advertised online for just 679 pesos (£27; $33). The computers normally sell for up to 50,000 pesos (£1,990; $2,500). But because of an apparent software malfunction, only the shipping costs - 679 pesos - were included in an advert published earlier this month."

Thank you for the sympathy and links, @John Kettler. I happened to learn about the Battle of the Java Sea little more than a year ago - for those who may not be aware of its significance, "At the time, the battle was the largest surface ship engagement since the Battle of Jutland in 1916." (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Java_Sea ). Now the wrecks are gone before the 75th anniversary expedition had a chance to shoot documentary footage. The BBC came out with a new article exploring what may have happened: "How could a shipwreck disappear?" http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-38010130 "Dutch and British World-War-Two shipwrecks have mysteriously disappeared from the Java Sea, prompting outrage. The BBC asks experts what could have happened to the vessels. For decades the wreckages of three Dutch warships - HNLMS De Ruyter, HNLMS Java and HNLMS Kortenaer - were lost to the world, sitting at the bottom of the Java Sea. The victims of a fierce 1942 sea battle with the Japanese, the ships had gone down along with 915 Dutch and 259 Indonesian sailors. ... Ship salvage experts told the BBC that any attempt to raise and tow huge ageing warships from such depths would be a massive operation involving multiple barges, cranes and trained divers. ... What was more likely was that locals clandestinely stripped the wrecks in a piecemeal fashion over the years until nothing was left. Bas Wiebe, commercial manager of salvage company Resolve's Asia operations, said they could have cut away parts of the rotting wreckage using mechanical equipment known as grabs. "If time is not of the essence, you have a barge and equipment, you could just nibble away," said another expert who declined to be named citing political sensitivities. Another possibility is that the ships were blown up into smaller pieces - a cheaper and faster way to disintegrate wrecks. "It is not like an huge explosion like you see on TV. It's basically fairly contained but enough to break apart the vessel and if you do it a few times, you can just fish out the pieces," said Mr Wiebe." And here I was displeased with the micro-salvaging of the German High Seas Fleet in Scapa Flow: "The remaining wrecks lie in deeper waters, in depths up to 47 metres (154 ft), and there has been no economic incentive to attempt to raise them since. Minor salvage is still carried out to recover small pieces of steel. This low-background steel is used in the manufacture of radiation-sensitive devices, such as Geiger counters, as it is not contaminated with radioisotopes, having been produced prior to any chance of nuclear contamination." (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scuttling_of_the_German_fleet_in_Scapa_Flow )

There is poignant breaking news that the remains of the Battle of the Java Sea have all but disappeared: "Mystery over Dutch WW2 shipwrecks vanished from Java Sea bed" http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-37997640 "Three Dutch World War Two ships considered war graves have vanished from the bottom of the Java Sea, the Dutch defence ministry says. All three were sunk by the Japanese during the Battle of the Java Sea in 1942, and their wrecks were discovered by divers in 2002. A report in the Guardian says three British ships have disappeared as well. The British government says it is "distressed" by the reports and is investigating. A new expedition to mark next year's 75th anniversary of the battle found the wrecks missing. The Guardian says it has seen 3D images, showing large holes in the seabed where HMS Exeter, HMS Encounter, the destroyer HMS Electra, as well as a US submarine, used to be. Experts say salvaging the wrecks would have been a huge operation. The Dutch defence ministry is to investigate the mysterious disappearance. In a statement, it said that two of its ships had completely gone, with sonar images only showing imprints, while large parts of a third ship, a destroyer, were missing. "The desecration of a war grave is a serious offence," the ministry said. The UK's Ministry of Defence confirmed that it had contacted the Indonesian authorities. An MOD spokesperson said, "Many lives were lost during this battle and we would expect that these sites are respected and left undisturbed without the express consent of the United Kingdom.""

It is intentional: I was searching for a historical confirmation of this online, but couldn't find one.

"June 4, 2012: A student at the Brazilian Air Force Academy was killed when he accidentally ejected from an Embraer EMB 312 Tucano while waiting to take off at Pirassununga-Campo Fonetenelle, Brazil. January 30, 2012: An Indian Air Force (IAF) HAL HJT-16 Kiran Mk2 exploded in mid-air over Iyancherry village in Kancheepuram district, South India. The two pilots ejected safely." There's a fair amount of dark humour in those Wikipedia lists.

I'm guessing it's still Russia's property. See the secrecy of the Chinese in salvaging HMS Poseidon (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Poseidon_(P99) ) and the equally secret attempt by the US to salvage K-129 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Azorian ).

Going through both lists from 2000 on, there were some patterns that I picked up without running the numbers: - Trainers crash a lot. [Makes sense.] - The USMC tends to have a lot of incidents relative to its size. [Interesting.] - If you see something flying with the roundels of the IAF, seek shelter.

Thank you, @Codename Duchess, for the insight and the links, and thank you @HerrTom for the engineering insight! The very little I know about carrier operations is from playing "Carriers at War" (the new, Matrix Games release), where I was pretty much guaranteed to lose a pilot when launching/recovering more than two squadrons, and then kept losing more pilots when launching/recovering CAP (I'm not even going into recovering after sunset). I was assuming that things would have improved in modern times, so I didn't know what to make of yesterday's incident when it was first reported as a landing accident, but it now seems it belongs to a different category. Out of curiosity, I ran through two Wikipedia lists (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_accidents_and_incidents_involving_military_aircraft_(2000–09) , https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_accidents_and_incidents_involving_military_aircraft_(2010–present) ) and tried to come up with some numbers. I found only seven incidents involving the launch or recovery of carrier-based fixed-wing aircraft since 2000. Not surprisingly, six involved the US Navy, and one the Russian Navy. Of these seven, two happened at launch (March 2, 2002; May 12, 2015) and five at landing (March 8, 2002; September 11, 2003; January 29, 2005; September 5, 2005; June 4, 2014); of these five, three happened due to breaking arresting cables (September 11, 2003; January 29, 2005; September 5, 2005), including Russia's only reported incident on September 5, 2005. I also found four more incidents which illustrate other ways that things may go wrong: "July 30, 2007: FA-18C from VFA-195 crashed after the pilot inadvertently ejected while on emergency night approach to USS Kitty Hawk (CV 63). The aircraft continued to fly for nearly 20 minutes before crashing into the sea 400 miles SE of Guam. The pilot was safely recovered. August 15, 2007: Lts. Ryan Betton, Cameron Hall and Jerry Smith were killed when their Grumman E-2C Hawkeye, BuNo 163696, 'AD', from Carrier Airborne Early Warning Squadron 120 (VAW-120), based at the Naval Station Norfolk, Virginia, crashed in the Atlantic Ocean off North Carolina at ~2300 hrs. An investigation was unable to determine the cause of the crash, according to a copy of the Judge Advocate General final report — known as a JAGMAN — obtained by Navy Times. The aircraft catapulted off the deck of the carrier USS Harry S. Truman and crashed into the water moments later. The carrier never received any emergency radio transmissions or acknowledgment by the mishap crew, according to the report. March 30, 2011: Ten sailors are injured when an engine of a USMC McDonnell-Douglas F/A-18C Hornet of VMFAT-101 based at MCAS Miramar, California, suffers a catastrophic failure while preparing for launch at 14:50 during routine training exercises from the USS John C. Stennis, about 100 miles (160 km) off the California coast. USN Cmdr. Pauline Storum said that five of the injured are taken by helicopter to the shore, four to the Naval Medical Center, San Diego, and one to Scripps Research Institute at La Jolla, California. None of the injuries were considered life-threatening but the fighter sustained damages over $1 million. The ensuing fire was quickly extinguished and the carrier itself was not damaged. August 11, 2015: A McDonnell Douglas F/A-18C Hornet spotted ahead of the island aboard USS Harry S. Truman catches fire while undergoing refuelling during night operations off the Virginia Capes, injuring two. The pilot ejects and lands on the flight deck. After receiving medical treatment aboard, he was transferred to New Hanover Regional Medical Center in Wilmington, North Carolina. A sailor assigned to the ship suffered injuries that weren’t considered life-threatening and was also taken to hospital. Flight deck firefighters extinguished the blaze. An investigation is underway." There is some dramatic footage of the incident on September 11, 2003, where an arresting cable broke. The naval aviator who successfully ejected from the F-18 plunging into the ocean should have his or her callsign changed to 'Boba Fett,' and the yellowshirt who jumped over the cable twice has earned the nom de guerre 'Hopscotch:'

This is one where I'd be very interested to hear @Codename Duchess 's comments: "Russian MiG-29 fighter jet crashes in Mediterranean" http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-37978463 "A Russian MiG-29 fighter jet has crashed into the Mediterranean Sea as it tried to land on the Admiral Kuznetsov aircraft carrier, the country's defence ministry has said." Routine or inept?

Currently, you can still do this with Fraps. You would need to 'shoot' each turn separately and edit them into a single movie, and I assume the interest isn't there to make BFC commit its very limited resources into offering this utility in-game.

Isn't Putin on a roll? A pro-Moscow male candidate beating an anti-Moscow female candidate is the new black: "Pro-Moscow figure Igor Dodo claims Moldova presidency" http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-37970155

I've always wanted to play the German side in HPS Simulations' "Defending the Reich," because I emotionally perceive them as the 'good guys' in that game. Alas, no time left from playing CM.

Well, ostensibly the RAF firebombing of German cities was also not intended to 'kill' German civilians, but to make them flee to the countryside, and thus leave German factories without workers; so yes, there was a military goal at the end. Ditto with the US bombing of Japan. And I think the line blurs mainly because the perpetrators were never forced to defend themselves in court, so we have not had an occasion to work out the ethical dilemmas in practice. Notably, Robert McNamara disclosed in The Fog of War that Curtis LeMay believed he would have been tried as a war criminal had the Japanese won the war.

Instead of framing the election result as an establishment conspiracy, wouldn't it be easier to go with the explanation that it was a free and fair election, and you yourself have stated one of the reasons why Trump won. If I were looking for a conspiracy in this, I'd look at how successful RT/Sputnik/Southfront/Putinbots/the Kremlin's other information warfare agents have been in influencing American public opinion. There is a principal difference between causing massive collateral damage and deliberately targeting civilians. The last instances when the latter was openly practised by civilized nations were the RAF firebombing campaign against Germany, the US firebombing of Japanese cities, and of course the atomic bombings. It is worth noting that all three remain controversial to this day, and if you ask the Japanese (I have asked four Japanese) about the latter two, be ready for some very hard feelings. Food for thought - perhaps if Moscow and Leningrad had fallen in 1941, many millions of lives would have been saved. Many Russians were willing to go with Hitler (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Liberation_Army ), and by 1941 he had killed fewer innocent people than Assad has. I don't mean to say I believe this 100%, but I can see a fairly compelling argument there, at least on the surface. It is beyond me how Trump withdrawing US forces from Japan and South Korea will help contain the threat from China. Err, what actually? How could the US ally with an authoritarian regime against another authoritarian regime when those two authoritarian regimes have no conflicting interests and have everything to gain from cooperating with each other? Given the fact that Trump got considerably more support from older people, it is ironic that they hadn't seen Why We Fight: Prelude to War: And, respecting Steve's wishes - how is a Trump presidency relevant to CMBS? Well, get off the Abrams and get in the T-64, 'cause THAT'S ALL YOU GONNA HAVE. Good luck! And could BFC fast-track the Canucks and Poles module, pretty please? LEO2 stronk!