Elmar Bijlsma

Then again, the loathing need not directly correspond with the actual suckage. For a soldier to stop bitching about the gear he is carrying would require him to be naked and empty handed.

Never asked for magic Steve. But I just thought I should mention that at least so far, the slight of hand isn't doing it for me. I really don't think I've ever been particularly demanding, except for that one thing and even in that my doggedness was at least two parts comedy to one part seriousness. Nonetheless, two years down the line too many features I loved in old titles , especially so called fluff, are still on the 'one day, some day' list. Just thought I'd mention it.

Since you brought it up... where did my blastwaves go?! Steve, not even so much of a graphics issue. It's about the stuff that does nothing for the game except make the player happy. Like the much missed kill stats. It's been two years so I think I can conclude it isn't as high on your mighty list as it is on mine. And there is a bunch of stuff in that category that just doesn't seem to be forthcoming. Vehicle damage not till CM:N2? Is something as basic as a hole graphic on projectile entry and exit points really put back until then? Spend a bit of time every now and again pandering to the player instead of the simulation.

I loved the vehicle damage in TOW. Those penetration decals did so much to enhance enjoyment of hammering a tank with cannon fire. It really doesn't have to get more complicated then that for me. A decal where a round went in or out, and I'd be chuffed. Doesn't seem too much to ask. Sometimes I wonder if BFC under appreciates effects like this. Things that don't add to the simulation but do add to the enjoyment don't seem to be getting much love. Kill stats, penetration decals, TXXXXX BXXXXX*, hand picked QB forces. You name it, it doesn't seem to get dev time if it doesn't add to the mechanics. Which is a mistake, I regard them as fun multipliers in games like this. *I had to bring that up, even here where I couldn't bring it up.

Could be that the terrain was all trees, no undergrowth. In such a case spotting a unit at the other end might be possible.

I recommend translating it with google. A surprisingly readable article for a auto-translation.

Not Mech Warrior 5, but a re-start of the series. http://pc.ign.com/articles/100/1002164p1.html Sweet! Always had a lot of fun hanging way too many ER-PPCs on my bot. Chance of enjoyment? Very high.

Adam, despite us having had some pretty fundamental disagreements about CMSF, I'd hate to see you go over something as trivial as this. Having said that, I do think you are taking FKs comments far too harshly. I think he was right in his comments in so far as that your post seemed out of place. Your 1:1 comment was incongruous with the thread and it wasn't till after you clarified I knew what prompted your post. Even then I think it rather strange you just picked up a conversation from there and placed it in this thread despite not being directly relevant. You got called on a minor error, you took the criticism entirely too much too heart and suddenly kittens were pucking all over this thread. But we love you anyway. Stay dude. Of all the reasons to leave, this isn't one of them.

Can I just recap this thread with the following video. Except you guys aren't as cute.

C-130 Hercules with wing mounted fuel tanks? Your aren't the first to make the mistake though. http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=84259&highlight=hercules Though by the looks of it it's using the outer mount, which is also visible on the Dutch C-130 pick I provided in the thread I linked to.

That deployment bug is gone, AFAIK. But the AI is generally as dire as it was prior to 1.2. It'll form up at max musket range and trade shots, often position it's units so badly they overlap. Still the penchant for forming square when only facing infantry as well. No effort to melee at all any more. Actually, now I think about it, haven't seen the cavalry probe my flanks since 1.3. On the plus side, the AI does now invade by sea fairly regularly. You haven't seen siege warfare crap until you sieged in Empire. Attacking infantry can all scale the walls in the first turn with ropes, lose one gate and all open to the attacker, defending cannons are uselessly short ranged, inaccurate, no grapeshot and no interlocking fields of fires as you would expect in forts of this era. There's still the central square=win lunacy too. Especially exploitable because you can jusat park your infantry outside the victory location and blast to pieces all that choose to occupy it, as they aren't interested in your troops unless they get in between them and the VL. I'm not prone to using exploits usually, but the uselessness of manning the walls means I'm inclined to exploit for all I'm worth. One would be better off not building forts in the first place, really. Not only a waste of money but seriously detrimental to your ability to defend. Actually, either on attack or defence, I found RTW/M2TW sieges fairly good, if you didn't just smash everything but charged the wall with ladders/towers a thrilling battle was often the result. Okay, maybe not all that fun after the umpteenth time, but not actually all that bad.

Well, I must say I rather enjoyed it, and Johan is too damn right. I just don't buy the argument that one developer owes it to another not to say anything. Johans €50,- buys him a right to moan, certainly on his own forum. Don't begrudge Kieran the right to defend himself on Pardox's forum either, though it's perhaps not the smartest move. Certainly not the tongue in cheek death threat, which is just a bad idea at any time no matter how witty. And he got THAT wrong as well. The challenger doesn't pick weapons, the challenged person does. I found it pretty telling that the ETW forums were more vigours in agreeing with Johan then the Paradox crowd. Empire Total War in it's release state, and even in their current state, is FUBAR. The tacAI can't handle forming a battle line, strat AI doesn't know the fist thing about building a proper army or using said armies for offensive and defensive actions. Diplomacy is a cruel joke, with random AI factions thrown at you just to slow you down, no matter what your relationship is or how good or poor their chances a war. Only the naval AI seems to know what it's doing. It's no a suspension of disbelief breaker. I'll beat it like the proverbial red headed stepchild but I'll not get too annoyed by it.

From Moons comment (lack therof) I'm more of the impression that the only people happy about this module will be lawyers. I mean... really, BFC not semi-gloating about a new product? Unheard off!!! But yeah, properly done Muhadjideen/Taliban would be nice.

Vista, I presume? It does that. Some "clever" file management that, unlike you, knows where your files should best be placed. You n00b.

Thanks for that Rustman. I expected there to be some kind of doctrinal ammo loadout. Good to hear the grunts can have their say. Hey, since we are throwing more stuff in the back of APCs could you please, please, pretty please with a cherry on top, give some 7.62x54mm to the Syrian vehicles?

Steve, I'm pretty sure SlapHappy was correct in stating that the quoted Stryker loadout is about 40x53mm. I'd be stunned if a Stryker would carry an additional 430 rounds for the M203. Seeems excessive.

But most troops already carry an ungodly amount of the stuff. So it's not forgone conclusion that there'd be more in the Stryker. Maybe BFC thought, the heck with this, let's give them all the 40mm from the get go.

Actually, what extra ammo is supposed to be in a Stryker per SOP? There already is quite a lot in a Stryker, would there really be room for much more?

sales@battlefront.com or helpdesk@battlefront.com would be your best bet. Dunno about the thread title, but hold on that more positive vibe for your email to BFC though, it's deffo the right approach. You really do catch more flies with honey then with vinegar. Because at this point in time they technically aren't required to help you with this. But I'm sure they like to, provided you don't piss them off. Just calmly give them an explanation of what happened, plus probably your details and they'll respond positively, I'm sure.

Elicence is probably just following the generic SOP. You really should contact Battlefront. I'd be very surprised if they won't hook you up with a new download after confirming your details.

Now now, let's not rush to conclusions. Whom did you talk to? As this isn't the BFC I know. I was recently made aware of the 1 year DL limit but it's generally BFC habit to be accommodating. Certainly, I expect them to be so in this case if they have you in their system as having bought the game.

Looks like a very good technology to make a wheel or tracked vehicle twice as expensive as it needs to be. The US Army is gimmick addicted.

At the end of the day, as Meach so neatly tells us, it's about putting holes in people and the 5.56 does this just fine. Someone being shot through the lungs will have his day ruined regardless of whether it was 5.56 or 7.62. Having fired both the FN FAL and the Diemaco C7 I suspect the reason for the preference amongst some for 7.62 is morale. Firing your gun is known to be a morale booster. And boy, when you fire off a 7.62, you sure get the bigger boost. While the C7 is much kinder to the firer, firing the FAL was very satisfying.

Who from what?

Oh, I think we did well in not pointing out how incredibly behind the times our pet wino was. Except for you.