Sirocco

I think some people here mislead themselves, and that's the root of the problem. If you were expecting a prettier CM you were doing so on the basis of your own misconceptions. It has been here on this board in black and white for months; this is not CM. Again, people need to take responsibility for their own actions. No one was mislead, or lied to.

I think in the current context these weapons have more use hitting strongpoints than armour. You won't always have air support, or friendly armour, to hand, and having a tool that can free up an attack with one big boom has to be priceless at the tactical level.

Now come on, they never said anything of the sort. Weren't you offered a refund? It's really time to leave this alone. You don't like the game, we know, now move on.

With the new CM game engine CM:WW2 will be stunning, a real leap, and not just in graphical terms, from CMAK. It will be well worth the wait.

I think that's the CS version, and I believe that's saltwater, at least according to the Wiki entry.

You wouldn't happen to post at SimHQ as Sepp, would you..? If so that should ring some bells with BFC. Apologies if I'm mistaken, of course. </font>

You wouldn't happen to post at SimHQ as Sepp, would you..? If so that should ring some bells with BFC. Apologies if I'm mistaken, of course. </font>

Here's another, of the AT4 CS: AT4 CS firing demonstrations

You wouldn't happen to post at SimHQ as Sepp, would you..? If so that should ring some bells with BFC. Apologies if I'm mistaken, of course.

You know, the writing was on the wall months ago. If the lack of enterable buildings, smoke, etc. weren't enough to make people who were expecting a realistic game pause then the comments from BFC themselves should have made that clear. The game isn't CM, and was never intended to be so, and anyone expecting even a CM lite experience has had plenty of prior warning that they were likely to be disappointed. The whining, and I hate to use that word, but I think it's valid here, is outstanding. You voluntarily, on the basis of information available, declined the chance to wait for a demo - and BFC were under no obligation to release one - and pre ordered the game. Now take responsibility for your decision and act like an adult. I didn't much care for the demo, for many of the reasons set forth in this forum, but that isn't necessarily because it's a poor game, there are plenty of people enjoying it, it's just not for me. And that's after years spent casually following it's development. I'm glad I waited for the demo, but if you didn't, and don't care for the game, then, well, suck it up and deal with it.

Isn't that the point of putting a 105mm on a stryker, to do exactly that with a $250 HE shell Peter. </font>

Does the US field the AT4 CS?

It occured to me that Iraq and Afghanistan are almost field tests for Javelin. I imagine the feedback from actual usage must be invaluable. At $1,500 the AT4 looks a better choice: Are these units in service with UK/US forces yet?

But it depends what you're shooting at. A static target - a bunker, for example - should be point and shoot. And RPG's seem to be a decent enough choice for that. A mobile, well protected target would probably have been flagged up early enough for fixed wing or rotary support. Pinpointing BMP's or T72's must be top of the priority list.

I haven't watched the video, but it makes no sense to me that we can't field a cost effective solution to mid range tactical targets after all this time in Afghanistan and Iraq. We're practically throwing sports cars at relatively insignificant targets. On a war footing we should have fielded something more appropriate by now. No blame on the infantrymen on the ground for using the tools at hand.

Wouldn't the next step be an M203 or somesuch? </font>

Wouldn't the next step be an M203 or somesuch?

I've seen one or two videos with Javelin use. There isn't a cheap man portable big HE launcher available? I'm assuming there isn't as these wouldn't be in Afghanistan otherwise.

Install Firefox, and scan your computer for viruses and adware. As I recall I had a similar problem with IE years ago, and I tracked it down to a corrupted bookmarks file.

Why not use some actual in game footage? What's the point of all that Hollywood from a marketing perspective? There's some awesome in game footage out there that would make for a far better ad tool, and would be much more representative of the actual game.

A nice video, as I thought however many years ago when I first saw it, but completely misleading, of course.

Well, the point is that when they did I imagine they made for good defensive strongpoints, as part of an all round defence. And in all likelihood they were overcome with flanking maneuvers rather than armour, which was available in limited numbers, after all. I can understand the technical reasons for how TOW handles buildings, but if the spin is that buildings weren't all that useful in rural fights, and only really mattered in an urban context, then I have to disagree.

How often would an attacking unit have access to armour? Buildings were useful parts of a defence, and their absence from TOW is an issue. But it appears one we'll have to live with.

I'd like to see some track marks left by the M1's, and I think when starting up their engines, or accelerating, would generate a cloud? I can't help but think how a King Tiger will look with the new engine.

There's a comment in Baverstock's Breaking the panzers about a common crew aiming error with the towed 17pdr. I can't recall the exact quote.