Jump to content

Jargotn

Members
  • Posts

    172
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Reputation Activity

  1. Upvote
    Jargotn got a reaction from beersmurff in German 'Handy Top Tips' armoured tactics document   
    I believe that in this case the rail-ontext is not refering to a curtain rail but to the "tracks"-rail. In this case "Halt" is short for "Haltestelle", which you explained later. "Halte" is the plural which is used when refering to multiple stops:
    This train has two stops.
    Dieser Zug hat zwei Halte (->stellen).

     

    On german roads you are waiting if you are close to your car and don't stand still for more than three minutes.
     
    But I believe that is besides the point here. And yes, the word "Haltezeiten" does exist and is commonly used in exactly that context.
     
    Literally translated "Haltestelle" does mean "stopping place" (As in: The place where something stops). You'll normally use it to refer not only to busstops, but also to similar public transports (The Underground, normal trains, etc.)
     
     
    i don't think that "Halte" is a diminuition for "Haltestelle". Haltestelle is a a place (or a noun), but the sentence we are referring to needs something that itself refers to Geschwindigkeit. Or, to make this more understandable to anyone who can't talk german (By the way, hello to you all. Greetings! We will have finished soon, I promise!)
    You can't say "Our speed at the moment: Stopping place".
    You could say "Our speed at the moment: Halted."
     
    I can, however, imaginethat "die Halte" was used in that context but isn't anymore today. I know that if "die Halte" was regularly used in my surroundings the sentence from the book would sound just fine. Maybe that is what happened here? It would make more sense regarding the instructions written in the same paragraph.
     
    dict.cc is an excellent source I often use myself.I can't say the same about vocabulix. Not because It's bad, but because I never used it before. It might be good or bad, but the translation it provided here seems fitting.
     

    Because firing on the move wasn't something to be encouraged except at close range, and as paragraph 8 says, move fast because moving slowly makes you an easier target, and doesn't improve your gunnery any, as paragraph 9 makes clear: Fire, then maneuver. So either the instructions are contradictory, or "die Halte" is both what is meant and means what it sounds like it should mean.
     
    Hell, if firing on the move was such a good idea, what purpose does gun stabilisation serve? And surely, if you're ever supposed to fire stationary, that makes three speeds (stopped, half and full) if "halbe" was the intention of the original pamphlet. Because it's absolutely clear that shooting while stopped is best.

    Exactly. That's what I think is weird about the whole thing.
    Maybe the guy who posted the instructions himself didn't think about "die Halte" and used "die Halbe" instead, reversing the meaning. We may never know
  2. Upvote
    Jargotn got a reaction from beersmurff in German 'Handy Top Tips' armoured tactics document   
    As a german native speaker I can assure you that "die halbe" means "the half".
     
    "Halte" is a word that doesn't exist. "Halt" would be the word for stop, but then the sentence wouldn't make any sense:
     
    "Die halbe" refers to "Geschwindigkeit which means speed. (Translated: "The half" "speed", "die halbe" "Geschwindigkeit").
    If the writer wanted to say that the tank had to stop and obey basic german grammar instead of "Halt" he would have had to use "stehende" (standing).
     
    "For a tank there should only be two speeds: The standing (because the sentence is built so that it refers back to speed) and full (again, refering back to speed.)
     
    Für einen Panzer sollte es nur zwei Geschwindigkeiten geben: die stehende nd Vollgas voraus.
     
    Or, if you neither care for german grammar nor the detailed explanation:
     
    No typo. Half speed is what the text is saying.
  3. Upvote
    Jargotn got a reaction from Bulletpoint in German 'Handy Top Tips' armoured tactics document   
    As a german native speaker I can assure you that "die halbe" means "the half".
     
    "Halte" is a word that doesn't exist. "Halt" would be the word for stop, but then the sentence wouldn't make any sense:
     
    "Die halbe" refers to "Geschwindigkeit which means speed. (Translated: "The half" "speed", "die halbe" "Geschwindigkeit").
    If the writer wanted to say that the tank had to stop and obey basic german grammar instead of "Halt" he would have had to use "stehende" (standing).
     
    "For a tank there should only be two speeds: The standing (because the sentence is built so that it refers back to speed) and full (again, refering back to speed.)
     
    Für einen Panzer sollte es nur zwei Geschwindigkeiten geben: die stehende nd Vollgas voraus.
     
    Or, if you neither care for german grammar nor the detailed explanation:
     
    No typo. Half speed is what the text is saying.
  4. Upvote
    Jargotn got a reaction from George MC in German 'Handy Top Tips' armoured tactics document   
    As a german native speaker I can assure you that "die halbe" means "the half".
     
    "Halte" is a word that doesn't exist. "Halt" would be the word for stop, but then the sentence wouldn't make any sense:
     
    "Die halbe" refers to "Geschwindigkeit which means speed. (Translated: "The half" "speed", "die halbe" "Geschwindigkeit").
    If the writer wanted to say that the tank had to stop and obey basic german grammar instead of "Halt" he would have had to use "stehende" (standing).
     
    "For a tank there should only be two speeds: The standing (because the sentence is built so that it refers back to speed) and full (again, refering back to speed.)
     
    Für einen Panzer sollte es nur zwei Geschwindigkeiten geben: die stehende nd Vollgas voraus.
     
    Or, if you neither care for german grammar nor the detailed explanation:
     
    No typo. Half speed is what the text is saying.
  5. Upvote
    Jargotn got a reaction from agusto in Royal Marine pokes fun at officer field rations   
    I sure hope they do.
    That's not a 24-hour ration pack, that's a breakfast. I really hope they cut out the later part of the video, otherwise I must fear for oiur allies health!
  6. Upvote
    Jargotn got a reaction from zinzan in Gustav Line and Gothic Line. I know you know the difference but will every one?   
    The main problem I see is not that people won't be able to differentiate between gothic line and gustav line, but that both modules will be shortened to CMGL. That will cause confusion, and, I believe, lots of it.
     
    I never read enough about the italian front to find a new, fitting name. From what I remember "Operation olive" might seem appropiate.
     
     
    Plz no kill me 4 no grognard.
  7. Upvote
    Jargotn got a reaction from Shorker in Gustav Line and Gothic Line. I know you know the difference but will every one?   
    The main problem I see is not that people won't be able to differentiate between gothic line and gustav line, but that both modules will be shortened to CMGL. That will cause confusion, and, I believe, lots of it.
     
    I never read enough about the italian front to find a new, fitting name. From what I remember "Operation olive" might seem appropiate.
     
     
    Plz no kill me 4 no grognard.
  8. Upvote
    Jargotn got a reaction from ZPB II in Opinion on Thread locking   
    I believe that politeness is key for good critiscism.

    The first thing to do is to never, never attack your opponent directly. Always remember: Engage the problem, not the opponent. Else you won't be able to move forward.
     
    Second: Make the other person feel understood. If you say "I believe that this and that needs improvements" and somebody else says "nope", first follow point one (don't attack) and then show them that you are on their side: IN this case, you both want to get the best out of a game. Don't say "You are a fanboy", or "F****** old breed", say "I can see where you are coming from, and, while I agree with some of your points, I do believe that further clarification is needed, so that you can understand mine". Be constructive.
     
    Third: Be careful how you open up an issue. If you say "This is s***, this should change!" you'll immediately see the answers you got: If you attack something others will defend it. Instead, try to show everybody what your motivation is, and why you believe your way is better.. "I'm seeing other games with features I believe might improve the experience for everybody. I know that my position might be controversial, please help me make the game better."
     
    Also, note how you should try to, immediately, inlude the people you are talking to. They can help you, you can help them. You aren't engaging each other, but you are tackling the problem. Include them, and ask them to include themselves!
     
    And, fourth: Don't hunker down in your position. The moment oyu hunker down is the moment you feel that everybody attacking your position is attacking you and you start attacking them. Take a safe distance from all of your arguments. And, if you realise that you are wrong, take a step back. You aren't loosing if you got the best result for everybody!
     

    Criticism doesn't equal attacking something. You can criticize in a polite way. I have never seen something good coming out of anything that startes with "your s*** is s***." While having a discussion in of itself can be fun, I don't think that's your goal here.
     

    Techincally not true, atleast if you are refering to the comment I have in mind.
     

    Nothing about death. Just about complaining somewhere else. But please don't misunderstand me, I do not agree with this statement.
  9. Upvote
    Jargotn got a reaction from c3k in Opinion on Thread locking   
    I believe that politeness is key for good critiscism.

    The first thing to do is to never, never attack your opponent directly. Always remember: Engage the problem, not the opponent. Else you won't be able to move forward.
     
    Second: Make the other person feel understood. If you say "I believe that this and that needs improvements" and somebody else says "nope", first follow point one (don't attack) and then show them that you are on their side: IN this case, you both want to get the best out of a game. Don't say "You are a fanboy", or "F****** old breed", say "I can see where you are coming from, and, while I agree with some of your points, I do believe that further clarification is needed, so that you can understand mine". Be constructive.
     
    Third: Be careful how you open up an issue. If you say "This is s***, this should change!" you'll immediately see the answers you got: If you attack something others will defend it. Instead, try to show everybody what your motivation is, and why you believe your way is better.. "I'm seeing other games with features I believe might improve the experience for everybody. I know that my position might be controversial, please help me make the game better."
     
    Also, note how you should try to, immediately, inlude the people you are talking to. They can help you, you can help them. You aren't engaging each other, but you are tackling the problem. Include them, and ask them to include themselves!
     
    And, fourth: Don't hunker down in your position. The moment oyu hunker down is the moment you feel that everybody attacking your position is attacking you and you start attacking them. Take a safe distance from all of your arguments. And, if you realise that you are wrong, take a step back. You aren't loosing if you got the best result for everybody!
     

    Criticism doesn't equal attacking something. You can criticize in a polite way. I have never seen something good coming out of anything that startes with "your s*** is s***." While having a discussion in of itself can be fun, I don't think that's your goal here.
     

    Techincally not true, atleast if you are refering to the comment I have in mind.
     

    Nothing about death. Just about complaining somewhere else. But please don't misunderstand me, I do not agree with this statement.
  10. Upvote
    Jargotn got a reaction from niall78 in Opinion on Thread locking   
    I believe that politeness is key for good critiscism.

    The first thing to do is to never, never attack your opponent directly. Always remember: Engage the problem, not the opponent. Else you won't be able to move forward.
     
    Second: Make the other person feel understood. If you say "I believe that this and that needs improvements" and somebody else says "nope", first follow point one (don't attack) and then show them that you are on their side: IN this case, you both want to get the best out of a game. Don't say "You are a fanboy", or "F****** old breed", say "I can see where you are coming from, and, while I agree with some of your points, I do believe that further clarification is needed, so that you can understand mine". Be constructive.
     
    Third: Be careful how you open up an issue. If you say "This is s***, this should change!" you'll immediately see the answers you got: If you attack something others will defend it. Instead, try to show everybody what your motivation is, and why you believe your way is better.. "I'm seeing other games with features I believe might improve the experience for everybody. I know that my position might be controversial, please help me make the game better."
     
    Also, note how you should try to, immediately, inlude the people you are talking to. They can help you, you can help them. You aren't engaging each other, but you are tackling the problem. Include them, and ask them to include themselves!
     
    And, fourth: Don't hunker down in your position. The moment oyu hunker down is the moment you feel that everybody attacking your position is attacking you and you start attacking them. Take a safe distance from all of your arguments. And, if you realise that you are wrong, take a step back. You aren't loosing if you got the best result for everybody!
     

    Criticism doesn't equal attacking something. You can criticize in a polite way. I have never seen something good coming out of anything that startes with "your s*** is s***." While having a discussion in of itself can be fun, I don't think that's your goal here.
     

    Techincally not true, atleast if you are refering to the comment I have in mind.
     

    Nothing about death. Just about complaining somewhere else. But please don't misunderstand me, I do not agree with this statement.
  11. Upvote
    Jargotn got a reaction from Baneman in Opinion on Thread locking   
    I believe that politeness is key for good critiscism.

    The first thing to do is to never, never attack your opponent directly. Always remember: Engage the problem, not the opponent. Else you won't be able to move forward.
     
    Second: Make the other person feel understood. If you say "I believe that this and that needs improvements" and somebody else says "nope", first follow point one (don't attack) and then show them that you are on their side: IN this case, you both want to get the best out of a game. Don't say "You are a fanboy", or "F****** old breed", say "I can see where you are coming from, and, while I agree with some of your points, I do believe that further clarification is needed, so that you can understand mine". Be constructive.
     
    Third: Be careful how you open up an issue. If you say "This is s***, this should change!" you'll immediately see the answers you got: If you attack something others will defend it. Instead, try to show everybody what your motivation is, and why you believe your way is better.. "I'm seeing other games with features I believe might improve the experience for everybody. I know that my position might be controversial, please help me make the game better."
     
    Also, note how you should try to, immediately, inlude the people you are talking to. They can help you, you can help them. You aren't engaging each other, but you are tackling the problem. Include them, and ask them to include themselves!
     
    And, fourth: Don't hunker down in your position. The moment oyu hunker down is the moment you feel that everybody attacking your position is attacking you and you start attacking them. Take a safe distance from all of your arguments. And, if you realise that you are wrong, take a step back. You aren't loosing if you got the best result for everybody!
     

    Criticism doesn't equal attacking something. You can criticize in a polite way. I have never seen something good coming out of anything that startes with "your s*** is s***." While having a discussion in of itself can be fun, I don't think that's your goal here.
     

    Techincally not true, atleast if you are refering to the comment I have in mind.
     

    Nothing about death. Just about complaining somewhere else. But please don't misunderstand me, I do not agree with this statement.
  12. Upvote
    Jargotn got a reaction from Holien in Opinion on Thread locking   
    I believe that politeness is key for good critiscism.

    The first thing to do is to never, never attack your opponent directly. Always remember: Engage the problem, not the opponent. Else you won't be able to move forward.
     
    Second: Make the other person feel understood. If you say "I believe that this and that needs improvements" and somebody else says "nope", first follow point one (don't attack) and then show them that you are on their side: IN this case, you both want to get the best out of a game. Don't say "You are a fanboy", or "F****** old breed", say "I can see where you are coming from, and, while I agree with some of your points, I do believe that further clarification is needed, so that you can understand mine". Be constructive.
     
    Third: Be careful how you open up an issue. If you say "This is s***, this should change!" you'll immediately see the answers you got: If you attack something others will defend it. Instead, try to show everybody what your motivation is, and why you believe your way is better.. "I'm seeing other games with features I believe might improve the experience for everybody. I know that my position might be controversial, please help me make the game better."
     
    Also, note how you should try to, immediately, inlude the people you are talking to. They can help you, you can help them. You aren't engaging each other, but you are tackling the problem. Include them, and ask them to include themselves!
     
    And, fourth: Don't hunker down in your position. The moment oyu hunker down is the moment you feel that everybody attacking your position is attacking you and you start attacking them. Take a safe distance from all of your arguments. And, if you realise that you are wrong, take a step back. You aren't loosing if you got the best result for everybody!
     

    Criticism doesn't equal attacking something. You can criticize in a polite way. I have never seen something good coming out of anything that startes with "your s*** is s***." While having a discussion in of itself can be fun, I don't think that's your goal here.
     

    Techincally not true, atleast if you are refering to the comment I have in mind.
     

    Nothing about death. Just about complaining somewhere else. But please don't misunderstand me, I do not agree with this statement.
  13. Upvote
    Jargotn got a reaction from cool breeze in Opinion on Thread locking   
    I believe that politeness is key for good critiscism.

    The first thing to do is to never, never attack your opponent directly. Always remember: Engage the problem, not the opponent. Else you won't be able to move forward.
     
    Second: Make the other person feel understood. If you say "I believe that this and that needs improvements" and somebody else says "nope", first follow point one (don't attack) and then show them that you are on their side: IN this case, you both want to get the best out of a game. Don't say "You are a fanboy", or "F****** old breed", say "I can see where you are coming from, and, while I agree with some of your points, I do believe that further clarification is needed, so that you can understand mine". Be constructive.
     
    Third: Be careful how you open up an issue. If you say "This is s***, this should change!" you'll immediately see the answers you got: If you attack something others will defend it. Instead, try to show everybody what your motivation is, and why you believe your way is better.. "I'm seeing other games with features I believe might improve the experience for everybody. I know that my position might be controversial, please help me make the game better."
     
    Also, note how you should try to, immediately, inlude the people you are talking to. They can help you, you can help them. You aren't engaging each other, but you are tackling the problem. Include them, and ask them to include themselves!
     
    And, fourth: Don't hunker down in your position. The moment oyu hunker down is the moment you feel that everybody attacking your position is attacking you and you start attacking them. Take a safe distance from all of your arguments. And, if you realise that you are wrong, take a step back. You aren't loosing if you got the best result for everybody!
     

    Criticism doesn't equal attacking something. You can criticize in a polite way. I have never seen something good coming out of anything that startes with "your s*** is s***." While having a discussion in of itself can be fun, I don't think that's your goal here.
     

    Techincally not true, atleast if you are refering to the comment I have in mind.
     

    Nothing about death. Just about complaining somewhere else. But please don't misunderstand me, I do not agree with this statement.
  14. Upvote
    Jargotn reacted to c3k in When should BFC start to develop a CMx3 engine ?   
    Wiggum15,
     
    A small piece of advice. It's free, so it's worth exactly what you value it. You ask a lot of questions, but you cloak them in criticisms. Some criticism is constructive. Yours is not.
     
    A point: "Then why dont they hire new people with better skills ?" (That's from you, just a few posts up.) I don't care about the rationale behind the statement, just the statement per se.
     
    - You are on a forum paid for by BFC. They are a small company. The money to support this forum is money which is not going to get a muffler replaced. It is money which is not going to replace that old furniture they got when they got married. It is money which is not going to buy a better Christmas gift for their daughter. It is money, literally, out of their pocket.
    - Other companies support forums. Other companies have a far greater budget. Yes, $1,000 is valued differently. Ford (or Daimler) would think nothing of a $1,000 expenditure. How about you?
    - You are a guest. As am I. If I went on Intel's forums and demanded that they use AMD cpu's, I would (probably) be banned. Rightfully. As a guest in someone's home I act with deference and civility to my host. But maybe my concept of civility differs from yours.
    - Your statement, above, presupposes several insulting assumptions.
    -- BFC doesn't have sufficient skill. There are, what, six BFC employees? Just name them and state they are incapable of creating a game the way it should be done. Your passive aggressiveness would at least transcend to outright aggressiveness. It would be more honest that way.
    -- Other people do have the right skill. ("You can't do it, but someone else can." That's more insulting than just saying "you can't do it.")
    -- BFC (again, just name the decision makers; it's simpler) is too ignorant to recognize the need to hire other people.
    -- BFC is too cheap to hire other people with better skills. The assumption is that the budget is there, BFC is just hording the money.
    -- Other people with those skills exist (that is a foundation of your initial insult)
    -- Your idea of how a game should be created is better than BFC's idea
    -- Your idea of how to run a game company is better than BFC's idea
     
    Now, that's a pretty surface level dissection of your insult. I, for one, do not take anything you write seriously.
     
    I suggest, again for free, that you consider criticisms a bit more before you make them. It is easy to criticize that which you have no idea how to do. That demeans you, as your posts here have done. If you had created a company and successfully released several games, your criticisms, as insultingly as they are delivered, would have some validity. As it is, they have no validity and are merely insulting.
     
    Regards,
    Ken
  15. Upvote
    Jargotn got a reaction from A Canadian Cat - was IanL in How do you guys manage multiple units at once, without turning around and finding half your units are dead?   
    Yes, CM moves in tiny baby steps. However, there were some improvements that I'd call "mayor". Being able to shoot at planes. Onmap mortars.
     
    If you look at the core of it, CM is a very tiny game. Extremely complex, but also, just like BFC, rather small. However, I do like that BFC seems to have found the right speed to both deliver us regular upgrades to the engine while at the same time staying in business.
  16. Upvote
    Jargotn got a reaction from Bud Backer in Strategic and tactical realities in CMBS   
    The difference is that in the west there is a lot of media with lots of opinions. If you look at Fox and compare it to other western channels (Let's say BBC) you'll see that they voice a very different opinion. Thats something that is very important for a free society.
     
    Also, Fox is being accused for biased reporting by (alomst)  everyone. I don't see general distrust against something like RT. Thats the difference between "The west" and Russia.
     
    Without a doubt the USA is an extremely powerfull country. However, I don't think that it is fair to call everyone who sees themselves as allies sattelites. Look at Germany. During the Lybian crysis, when the UN security council decided whether or not to get involved, Germany did not support the resolution. If they were an american sattelite, would they openly oppose American interests?
     
    Many western countries don't support the US and its politics because the US controls them. They support them because they share the same values. If you have the same goals you tend to stick together.
  17. Upvote
    Jargotn reacted to Bud Backer in The future of user made scenarios – and the lack of community feedback   
    I find this discussion very interesting because it made me examine my own motivation and desires for what I create and share online. It's not just about scenario or map design, it's about anything one does without recompense and gives freely to others.

    I have yet to share the maps I've made but I intend to. What I have shared are my Comic AARs, which are each 100+ hours of work. I did them for fun, because I could. I did them because I genuinely enjoyed doing them. But were I unable to share them - say for lack of a venue - I doubt I'd bother after the first one, when the novelty is over. I do them because I do wish for reaction, feedback - not just appreciation, though of course this is most welcome - but because I want to have the feeling that the effort itself is in some measure appreciated or recognized.

    I can't speak for Umlaut, but he may feel this resonates:

    -it's not about getting $0.99 per comic or map or scenario. Sure if one could make a living off it legally it might be another matter but then it's a business and not a gift to the community or something done for oneself.
    -it's not about getting "ratings" such as a star rating or whatnot. Certainly getting a high rating in any system is a nice thing but if that was the limit of the feedback, I don't think I'd be as enthused as I am when someone asks me if my story is going in one direction or another, or that I changed some graphical style and why, or telling me my German was slightly off in a particular panel.

    What I think it's about - for me - is engaging with the community, having a dialogue about what I've done, offering suggestions, giving me something to think about. The appreciation certainly is a huge part of that, but if every person who read my comics were to say "nice job" and leave it at that I would be grateful but still feel something lacking. I do want to interact, and not just collect praise.

    I think this is something one sees when one is designing a scenario or map and posts WIP screenshots. One gets ideas, discussion and contribution and it's no longer simply a passive affair. Once the scenario is done, as has been noted, the interaction stops and I think it's natural for a designer to want it to continue.

    So it's not that anyone is right or wrong in this discussion - certainly designers want something in return for their effort because these creations are a huge amount of time and effort and thought. But those who say design for yourself and you'll be less disappointed are correct in part as well - I do make things for myself, but I'd likely stop were I to operate in a vacuum because how many times does one wish to repeat the same task.

    What this says to me is that I make things because I want to, I'm inspired, I'm curious, I'm excited to explore something and want to challenge myself, but that it does not end there. I share what I create because now I want to see if my vision, my creation, matters in some way to anyone else. Only the most dedicated and passionate about their craft will bother to work for hundreds of hours on something purely for themselves; others will stop, feeling that nice as it is, they have made a masterpiece only to shove it in the attic, and that is a pity and a loss to the community, in my view.
  18. Upvote
    Jargotn got a reaction from 467Mike in Interesting report from Russian volunteer who fought in LNR in the winter   
    This just makes me sad.
     
    I really hope, for all parties involved, that the conflict will end rather soon. However, looking at both the situation on the ground and the international political situation, I don't think that that will be the case. Thanks for the translated version, I believe that it offered me some insight into the sotuation on the ground. I expected a "all is f*****" mentality, but it surprised me that the situation was that bad.
  19. Upvote
    Jargotn got a reaction from A Canadian Cat - was IanL in CMBS License/Activation   
    Wait...
    Are you telling me that you buy a new computer every year?
    We all know that DRM is an inconvenience, both for us players and the developers. But if it wouldn't work in some way developers wouldn't spend resources to aquire DRM.
    I never had any problems with DRM, and from what I can tell Battlefront prides themselves with their excellent customer support.
     
    Yes, it sucks not being able to download everything as much as you want. Some will prefer a system where they have to enter a key once and won't be bothered again, others like DRM plattforms like Steam which expect you to log into an account every time you want to play something, but in return offer a huge number of games connected to your account, and additional fetures.
     
    In the end I't say that (this kind of) DRM is just a minor inconvenience: You do it once, and unless something unexpected happens you can play your game. If you liked the game don't let the activation procedure stop you from enjoying it.
  20. Upvote
    Jargotn got a reaction from RabidOtters in In-game spotting system: are you kidding me?   
    It would be great if you could pst a screenshot or video of your testbuild to give us the option to come to our own conclusions.
     
    If the T-90 can't spot the M1A2 first in all tries something might be wrong. It might be wrong.
     
    We all know that both the T-90 and the M1A2 have good optics, and AFAIK the M1A2 has better optics. How long does it take for the tanks to spot each other? Did they spawn in plain view of each other or did the M1A2 drive into the T90s line of sight?
     
    And, most importantly, why would you post something like this? You don't seem to know what to improve (you didn't offer a solution or something comparable), you didn't ask if this was a bug or intended and you started attacking the game, and therefore BFC, directly.
     
    What are you trying to achieve? Do you just want to rage or do you want to make the game better?
  21. Upvote
    Jargotn got a reaction from George MC in Ambush - no spoilers   
    After being away (again) I finally finished the mission.
    With a draw.
     
    I lost one APC and my non-qrf infantry got beaten up pretty badly (Note to Myrelf: Your air support can't see russians under the trees. Your Air support will see your own infantry hiding inside buildings). The points were pretty equal.
     
    I would probably have won the mission if one of my trucks hadn't decided to get immobilized while crossing the river on "slow". Those ~300 points really hurt. Bad luck I guess.
  22. Upvote
    Jargotn got a reaction from Blyskawica in Please NO Marines or NATO forces module !   
    So... new western equipment is a unnecessary addition but reusing the Ukrainian army fresh and new?
     
    Both a marines module and a separatist are kind of confirmed (The separatists by Steve somewhere in the "has debalt(something) fallen?" thread and the marines both by the story and ChrisND somewhere else. I personally don't think that the jump to NATO is small enough to justify not doing it. Yes, much of the equipment is somewhat similar, but so is everything in modern warfare. Heck, all warfare is "shooting stuff with my stuff".
     
    I don't think that we'll see winter anytime soon. It is a lot of work. Earlier, before the release, Steve was asked if they would include winter for community scenarios. He answered that for everyone asking for winter there would be someone who asked them to add a winter variant to all models, etc. Redoing everything, from infantry models to vehicle textures, is a LOT of work.
    What I'd personally like to see is a mix. Some traditional NATO countries (Germany, GB, France) combined with other NATO countries (Poland is a must!) with new forces (Marines and Russian stuff. I don't know details about those, so please forgive me).
    Ideally I'd like to see one BLUFOR addition and one OPFOR addition in every module.
     
    But hey, I don't have to do the work behind all this!
  23. Upvote
    Jargotn got a reaction from Fizou in Please NO Marines or NATO forces module !   
    So... new western equipment is a unnecessary addition but reusing the Ukrainian army fresh and new?
     
    Both a marines module and a separatist are kind of confirmed (The separatists by Steve somewhere in the "has debalt(something) fallen?" thread and the marines both by the story and ChrisND somewhere else. I personally don't think that the jump to NATO is small enough to justify not doing it. Yes, much of the equipment is somewhat similar, but so is everything in modern warfare. Heck, all warfare is "shooting stuff with my stuff".
     
    I don't think that we'll see winter anytime soon. It is a lot of work. Earlier, before the release, Steve was asked if they would include winter for community scenarios. He answered that for everyone asking for winter there would be someone who asked them to add a winter variant to all models, etc. Redoing everything, from infantry models to vehicle textures, is a LOT of work.
    What I'd personally like to see is a mix. Some traditional NATO countries (Germany, GB, France) combined with other NATO countries (Poland is a must!) with new forces (Marines and Russian stuff. I don't know details about those, so please forgive me).
    Ideally I'd like to see one BLUFOR addition and one OPFOR addition in every module.
     
    But hey, I don't have to do the work behind all this!
  24. Upvote
    Jargotn got a reaction from waclaw in Please NO Marines or NATO forces module !   
    So... new western equipment is a unnecessary addition but reusing the Ukrainian army fresh and new?
     
    Both a marines module and a separatist are kind of confirmed (The separatists by Steve somewhere in the "has debalt(something) fallen?" thread and the marines both by the story and ChrisND somewhere else. I personally don't think that the jump to NATO is small enough to justify not doing it. Yes, much of the equipment is somewhat similar, but so is everything in modern warfare. Heck, all warfare is "shooting stuff with my stuff".
     
    I don't think that we'll see winter anytime soon. It is a lot of work. Earlier, before the release, Steve was asked if they would include winter for community scenarios. He answered that for everyone asking for winter there would be someone who asked them to add a winter variant to all models, etc. Redoing everything, from infantry models to vehicle textures, is a LOT of work.
    What I'd personally like to see is a mix. Some traditional NATO countries (Germany, GB, France) combined with other NATO countries (Poland is a must!) with new forces (Marines and Russian stuff. I don't know details about those, so please forgive me).
    Ideally I'd like to see one BLUFOR addition and one OPFOR addition in every module.
     
    But hey, I don't have to do the work behind all this!
  25. Upvote
    Jargotn got a reaction from NDeMarse in Black Sea manual: get it here while it's hot!   
    I suddenly feel so exclusive! All the details, I think I know what I have to do on the modern battlefield!
     
    That is until I get the game.
×
×
  • Create New...