Centurian52

This is a conversation I've had with my dad (he's a philosophy professor). When is it fair to blame someone for their actions, vs when do the circumstances around the action (mental health, broken home, etc...) add up to the point where it is no longer fair to blame someone? My father considers himself a pragmatist, so it should come as no surprise that his answer is that you should direct moral blame against someone when it works. His view is that the purpose of moral blame is to change a person's behavior. Humans are generally social creatures, so having a bunch of other humans telling them that they shouldn't do a thing should generally make them less likely to do that thing again in the future. Healthy humans are usually very uncomfortable with a bunch of other humans strongly disapproving of their actions.
He uses a thermostat as an example. If the room is too cold, you adjust the thermostat. If the thermostat is broken, then adjusting it won't work. So there is no point in trying to adjust it. If someone does something that we think they shouldn't do, we leverage moral blame to get them to stop doing it (and to deter other people from doing it in the first place). But if a person's brain is broken to the point that moral blame is no longer effective at getting them to stop doing the thing they shouldn't do, then there is no point in blaming them for doing that thing (I believe our discussion at the time was mainly about mental health).
So, when do the circumstances around an action add up to the point that it's no longer fair to blame a person for their actions? According to my father, it's when the circumstances around the action add up to the point that no amount of moral blame will be effective in deterring someone from doing that thing again under similar circumstances.
So, by this logic, can we blame the population of a country for their actions? Maybe? I think there is some precedent for aggressive ad campaigns saying "you shouldn't do the thing!" getting the population of a country to do a thing at lower rates. I doubt there's much we can do to change the behavior of the Russian population, simply because I don't think western media has enough penetration into Russian society. In any case, moral blame is certainly a much fuzzier concept for populations than it is for individual people.

This is a conversation I've had with my dad (he's a philosophy professor). When is it fair to blame someone for their actions, vs when do the circumstances around the action (mental health, broken home, etc...) add up to the point where it is no longer fair to blame someone? My father considers himself a pragmatist, so it should come as no surprise that his answer is that you should direct moral blame against someone when it works. His view is that the purpose of moral blame is to change a person's behavior. Humans are generally social creatures, so having a bunch of other humans telling them that they shouldn't do a thing should generally make them less likely to do that thing again in the future. Healthy humans are usually very uncomfortable with a bunch of other humans strongly disapproving of their actions.
He uses a thermostat as an example. If the room is too cold, you adjust the thermostat. If the thermostat is broken, then adjusting it won't work. So there is no point in trying to adjust it. If someone does something that we think they shouldn't do, we leverage moral blame to get them to stop doing it (and to deter other people from doing it in the first place). But if a person's brain is broken to the point that moral blame is no longer effective at getting them to stop doing the thing they shouldn't do, then there is no point in blaming them for doing that thing (I believe our discussion at the time was mainly about mental health).
So, when do the circumstances around an action add up to the point that it's no longer fair to blame a person for their actions? According to my father, it's when the circumstances around the action add up to the point that no amount of moral blame will be effective in deterring someone from doing that thing again under similar circumstances.
So, by this logic, can we blame the population of a country for their actions? Maybe? I think there is some precedent for aggressive ad campaigns saying "you shouldn't do the thing!" getting the population of a country to do a thing at lower rates. I doubt there's much we can do to change the behavior of the Russian population, simply because I don't think western media has enough penetration into Russian society. In any case, moral blame is certainly a much fuzzier concept for populations than it is for individual people.

Also it looks like your German tanks have an FO team nearby that may be assisting them in making the spot. Units in CM that are in communication with one another will share spotting information. That FO team looks to be in the same formation as the tanks, and probably has a radio, which means it is probably in communication with the tanks.

Both the Tiger and the T64 are using unenhanced optics. Visibility out of either one of them relies on fundamentally the same technology, periscopes and vision blocks. Both provide the commander with a cupola. Neither has thermals or CCTV screens. So on the face of it I would expect their spotting ability to be more or less the same.
But, as others have pointed out the Tiger has more crew members to assist in spotting. And, probably more importantly, spotting in CM is random. There is a chance that a given crew member will make a spot on a given target in a given amount of time. But there is no set amount of time in which the crew member will make the spot. This is realistic, but it does also mean that you need to run your tests more than once in order to get any sort of meaningful results. Each time you run the test it will take each tank a different amount of time to make the spot. After ten or so tests you will start to get a somewhat reliable average of how long it takes each vehicle to make the spot. The fact that it took the T-64 longer to make the spot in a single test could very easily just be statistical noise.

And nobody says they are. The Tiger might get to roll a 100 sided die while the T64 gets a 4 sided one. And still the Tiger can roll a success (rolling that 1) while the T64 doesn't. It is unlikely but that is statistics and you can't argue statistics with a sample size of 1.
And there may be 99 incidents where the T64 makes the spot first and 1 where it doesn't. People rarely post "Yep, look, happened just as I think it should." On the other hand, the one where the Tiger got lucky is almost guaranteed to trigger that "Spotting in CM is broken!!!" post.

Also it looks like your German tanks have an FO team nearby that may be assisting them in making the spot. Units in CM that are in communication with one another will share spotting information. That FO team looks to be in the same formation as the tanks, and probably has a radio, which means it is probably in communication with the tanks.

Also it looks like your German tanks have an FO team nearby that may be assisting them in making the spot. Units in CM that are in communication with one another will share spotting information. That FO team looks to be in the same formation as the tanks, and probably has a radio, which means it is probably in communication with the tanks.

Both the Tiger and the T64 are using unenhanced optics. Visibility out of either one of them relies on fundamentally the same technology, periscopes and vision blocks. Both provide the commander with a cupola. Neither has thermals or CCTV screens. So on the face of it I would expect their spotting ability to be more or less the same.
But, as others have pointed out the Tiger has more crew members to assist in spotting. And, probably more importantly, spotting in CM is random. There is a chance that a given crew member will make a spot on a given target in a given amount of time. But there is no set amount of time in which the crew member will make the spot. This is realistic, but it does also mean that you need to run your tests more than once in order to get any sort of meaningful results. Each time you run the test it will take each tank a different amount of time to make the spot. After ten or so tests you will start to get a somewhat reliable average of how long it takes each vehicle to make the spot. The fact that it took the T-64 longer to make the spot in a single test could very easily just be statistical noise.

I doubt it.
 
 
Considering that in the assumed timeframe the 3BM21 should be available for all T-62s in the game, I think that the Chieftain will be vulnerable in its frontal arc to 115mm tank guns. Not to speak of the 125mm guns.

On reflection you are absolutely right. My inner voice was telling me that I was probably saying a bit too much when I was originally writing my comment, and I really should have listened to it. I have edited my comment. 

We won’t really know until final TO&Es are put in but we had planned pretty much the full gambit of UK units - if it was in the BAOR or had a chance to get pulled in, we put it in for submission to the game.  For the Canadians, I basically recreated 4 CMBG from the old ‘76 redesign - beefed it up some and tried to get some cool stuff put in.
Not sure I can post much more than this - BFC has a pretty uptight policy until we get the thing entirely baselined.

Considering that a Chieftain will struggle to go faster than Usain Bolt on a road, I'm going with yes.

I was just about to comment the same thing.
(the rest edited out)

I've always played chronologically ever since Beyond Overlord.

I'd go with hunt. It'll wear them out, but I believe their situational awareness is a bit better with hunt, and they'll stop moving if they hit a mine. They'll tend to start running after hitting the first mine if you use move, so you'll be more likely to get mass casualties.

Here is a rudimentary rundown.
you need to set up a Slitherine Account - you will need your username, password and e-mail for PBEM++ (note, I don't 100% remember if it is a Matrix or Slitherine account you need - I think you can link the two in the Matrix or Slitherine systems.  In any event my username and password is identical for both my Matrix and Slitherine accounts so it makes no difference to me) In the game you can login to PBEM++ through the Options Menu but I never do that.  No idea if there is an advantage to doing so or not.  You can also log-in when creating a new battle or playing a PBEM turn or accepting a challenge The PBEM++ Login will ask you to enter your Username, your password and your e-mail.  You will enter all three the first time you attempt login in a CM Game (e.g., CMFB, CMCW, etc.).  You will need to do this for each game.  On subsequent login attempts the game remembers your user ID and e-mail, you just need to enter your password Once logged in you will stay logged in until you shut down that instance of the game. To start a new battle in PBEM++ pick a new battle and side.  There will be an option in the drop-down menu for how you want to play and you will select 2 Players - Automated PBEM+.  If not already logged in you will get the login screen (see bullet 2) If you want to set a password for your opponent to be able to first get access to the game you MUST manually re-select (click on it) the automated PBEM+ option even if it defaults to it on your list (it is called a private challenge).  Otherwise the entry box to type in a password will not appear. You want to set up this password if you do not want anyone you do not know to accept the challenge and play against you. And you obviously tell your preferred opponent what the password is.  This password is only used once so that they can accept the challenge.  It has nothing to do with your login password to the system. Click on Next or OK.  You will now get a password screen for your side like you would normally see for a regular PBEM game.  You can leave it blank so just hit OK.  There is no danger to you from cheating by your opponent as things are protected through your PBEM++ login Click on okay for save e-mail game. Your first turn will now be sent to the PBEM++ Challenges page. To accept a challenge go to Saved Games and PBEMs.  On the Drop-down screen select Automated PBEM++ Challenges A listing of all challenges will appear with the date Username and scenario description.  If there is an asterisk ( * ) in the first character position that indicates a password is required to accept the challenge.  No asterisk means anyone can accept the challenge Accepting the challenge will require your challenge password to be entered in the white box above the accept button which may be greyed out.  The a login in to PBEM++ if not logged in and basically follow the steps outlined earlier.  Once your opponent has done all they need to do and sends the turn back to you it will be accessible under the Saved Games and PBEMs/Automated PBEM++ In Progress drop-down selection.  It will only show save game files that you are personally playing through PBEM++ and that are for your next turn.  Once you play the turn and return the file, it disappears from your list and is removed from your game files folders. This is one thing I don't like about PBEM++, so if you are someone who want to do AARs or videos you need to be aware of this and move the fles to somewhere safe before sending the turn back.  I haven't tried, so I am not sure if you can even replay the turn files later outside of PBEM++ however Slitherine will send you/opponent e-mails saying your next game turn awaits you.  I find there is some time lag on their end getting these sent so if you are banging away a number of turns in an evening, you will probably be quicker just checking PBEM++ In Progress listing frequently.  I think the lag in email notifications is typically on the order of 15 minutes +/- I think that mostly covers it.

By convoy orders I understand it to mean you set a path for the first vehicle and then issue a 'follow me' command to vehicles behind.  They follow the same route, but keep their distance to avoid bunching up and getting in a jam.  I've read that BFC trialed this some time ago (before my time) but I gather it was not a total success and was withdrawn.
To do it now you have to issue individual, detailed paths with waypoints following the road (so not just A to B...) to each vehicle in turn, and if required also put increasing pauses on the vehicles in the queue so that they don't run into the back of someone in front.  Does this always work?  Definitely not, but it does if everything aligns.  It can be a joy to watch, or it can be 'oh no, not again!'.
In a current game I have 10 M5 Stuarts moving as two groups.  I've got their movement right most of the time, but not every time.
What I suggest above does not guarantee the same spacing, it as an attempt to avoid traffic jams which result in vehicles going 'off-piste'.  If there is no bunching up and you've issued sufficient waypoints along the road, they should all stay on the road (unless there are obstacles, incoming fire, mines etc.).

My experience of empty roads is that if your movement orders allow time between vehicles such that they don't bunch up, and are also short enough to follow the road turn by turn, then you can get it work.  If one vehicle gets held up, it might go off road or cause others to go off road. 
Micro-management - yes.  Part of the game - yes.  Has BFC tried to introduce 'convoy orders' before - yes. Did they work flawlessly - no.  Is it being looked at again - yes.
Did I mention I quite like micro-management 😉?

60mm mortar round meets MG42 HMG team.

Yet another look at that invasion scenario war game. This time, they show more visual detail on how it was performed:
 
 

Thanks for the useful briefing. I have the impression that altough the combat mission community is small by comparison to other game titles in terms of numbers, it is otherwise in terms of quality of great caliber. Cheers for the great community here! 
Yes, and the subsystem damage to tanks is also nothing to take lightly in any situation. 
I will definitely post anything worth seeing/mentioning. 
 

I assume its a 7.5 cm le.IG 18?  If so, 4 HEAT rounds as standard.  HEAT rounds are very capable against things like Shermans.

I`d prefer the germans as i`m surely not as skilled as you are, altough the americans have superior firepower, defending would make me a more robust adversary. The map seems fun, that hilltop position sounds like a bloodbath in the making. Set up the game and PM the password and we`ll see eachother on the battlefield. 🫡

I might be up for a fight in CMFI. I have at least a couple scenarios that I've been ignoring because they say "H2H only", and I'd be interested in giving them a go.

Our researcher over at FH2 recently dug up two interesting documents. These are US intelligence reports based on captured documents of the 2nd and 3rd FJG divisions in Normandy, showing their squad loadouts, which differ quite a bit. One little thing of interest: In both divisions, some assistant platoon leaders and one rifleman in (basically) each squad is carrying a "French rifle". I believe that this is a translation error: The Germans sometimes referred to the FG42 as "F-Gewehr" in their reports and I think the Americans, not knowing this obscure gun, mistranslated it.
I don't think I have ever seen the original docs th
is was translated from and was never sure about how FG42s were issued. It seems like the FJG squad of the time had only 1 lmg instead of the 2 the standard ToE assumes, but one was replaced by an FG42. There also was one in the platoon and company HQ. In addition to that, 3rd FJG apparently reported quite a few MP43s even in Normandy.