Sirocco

I didn't take that from the video. It seemed to me that the soldiers in the piece were just plain tired.

As a gamer, anything better looking than the standard NATO map symbol is a bonus. But as far as the Bradley's missile launcher, that it should be stowed while moving is a legitimate concern. In order for a moving Bradley to engage a missile target, the vehicle must stop on level ground and then erect the launcher. This takes a relatively considerable amount of time, and may very well effect engagement times and opportunities. And it is something that should be modelled if the game aspires to be realistic. </font>

And here's what the real world Javelin makes of T72's at the other end of the launch:

Deluxe version pre-ordered. Now is the time to shovel more cash into the BFC coffers for more of the same for the future.

German Grenades of WWII - HE & HEAT Rifle Grenades

There's a passage in one of the, if I remember the series description correctly, WW2 green book series that recounts how a US squad fired off a large number of rifle grenades against a StuG. I can't recall whether the StuG withdrew or was abandoned, but that sounds like a more usual use of them. I would imagine, given the number fired, that they would have been HE rather than AT.

The Syrians can jog back to their hidden weapons cache. </font>

Good work, and an interesting insight.

A.

I'm looking forward to the game, but not to the extent I would if it were WW2. That, I think, is when this game engine will really come into it's own.

The Syrians can jog back to their hidden weapons cache.

It's good to see QB's are in.

"TO&E" is Table of Organisation & Equipment, so that is the authorised strength. That can be exceeded, too, though, of course, it's much more common for actual strength to be lower.

And what of the units who had full Panther compliments? They sometimes had Tiger Abteilung attached to them.</font>

If the unit was subordinated effectively in lieu of an absent Panther battalion it's a little pedantic to object to the use of the word "replacement", IMHO, if I understand this spat correctly.

You can do, but I'm thinking more in terms of the average gamer. We tend to assume everyone has the same skillset as ourselves.

I thought the M1 sounds stood out, too. It's good to hear that might be improved when the game's released. Will there be an option to disable "tracers", for those who dislike them?

Would you please, please, both leave this forum, and take your tired, whining, somewhere else. Please.

I can understand how frustrating having a function not work can be, given that I have SH4. I wouldn't put it in the same category, even remotely, and I have more confidence in BFC and 1C fixing bugs and improving the title - without re-writing it - than I do CM. And constructive criticism has always been welcomed here.

I've read and re-read your posts, and I still can't make out how you feel people who pre-ordered were mislead. :confused:

And that's a perfectly valid point. But you can hardly trash the entire game on that single issue. I guarantee that if you use less hyperbole you might actually have a hand in fixing whatever problem you, and I assume others, are experiencing.

It's not black and white. Without question ToW is more realistic than, for example, C&C; it doesn't have resource gathering and unit building at the very least. But BFC made it very clear it wasn't a new CM, and shouldn't be compared to it, which should have been a good indication it was in a different mould. I didn't care for the demo, but, like you, there are plenty of people who don't like CM. I bought all three games in the CM series. The point being that rather than ToW being some huge betrayal of the wargaming community it's simply suited to a different taste.

As far as I can tell, you're suggesting ToW should have been more realistic, which suggests comparison with CM, and ToW was always flagged as being more a game than a combat simulator in that respect.

What is it that you expected from the game? At the moment, it seems there are two camps of complainers; people who have performance issues, which is fair enough, and there are people here ready and willing to help. The second is of people who were expecting ToW to be something it isn't, and was never promised to be. Now if you'd like certain parts of the game to be changed, adapted, or downright fixed, I guarantee that a little politeness and overall maturity will go some distance. If you decide to spit the dummy, and do it continually, then you will be categorised as a whiner, and your opinion will be margenalised. How you proceed is your choice, but I suggest you choose the productive route.

Not only that, but the score was 7.2, hardly a disaster, which he handily included in the subject.