zmoney

Yea Road to Moscow was the one I was tring to describe to you in my email. Good call Melnibone. By the way what is your web sites address Abbott?

I know I have a couple, if you could list their names I will look them up for you and try to get them back to you.

Abbott, I love your battles. Your one of my favorite authors, look forward to playing this one. Keep em coming.

Portero said Isn't that basically the same thing. I mean whats the defference between calling a company, company A and company 1. Or Aco Bco Cco versus 1 2 3. Plus I dont know how other countries do it but in the US our companies are labeled with letters such as Aco or Bco. Numbers are usually used for platoons and squads. The /62IR you reffer to probly stands for sixty second infantry regiment. So 3/62/4ID stands for 3rd Battalion 62 Regiment of the 4th Infantry Division. So in conclusion I see no reason to change the way it is now because the way it is now is realistic.

Nice read where did you get that?

Man that sucks. I've never heard of that happening before.

FuBball said: No, your still a nerd. I'm 28.

I think unit specific campains would be great. Any unit either Rusky or German. Like the blowtorch seris tries to recreate.

It is a major pile of poop, but thats not your fault. Its your fault for watching it.

Ah. Good news thanks for response.

I know you weren't reffering to me, but I kinda wish they would do WW2 again. Its just the most interesting event in recent history and it involved a whole lot of countries, I mean even the Finns and Canadians got to fight so you know it would be worth doing again.

I think it might unbalance it a bit. But... I think if its going to be a modern game I think the best time frame would be in the 70s-80s. Because now the "allies" side would have to big an advantage with the germ leapord 2 the US Abrams and the English tank. Not to mention all the other allies like Italians and the French have some good armour as well. So I think if it took place twenty years ago the Soviets would still have a chance because their equipment wasn't obsolite then. China uses the same kind of tanks too so that kind of game wouldn't work either. Assuming its a cold war/ modern era game. My $.02 take it or leave it.

I was in the US army from 5/01-5/05. I served proudly in the 2/75 Ranger Regiment, I was in Alpha company 3rd platoon. Some of you may recognize that Pat Tillman was in the same company but he was in second platoon.

Thats a cool article thanks for linking it.

Funny you say that cause I'm actually working on that right now.

Thanks for those skins they look awesome. I'm playing combined arms south to kiev right now so those skins would look great on my tanks. Keep up the good work, and thanks again for all your skins.

CMx2= Cold War era war that never occured, between the allies and the soviet's and other commie states. It will have the first installment in Europe followed by one in maybe Asia, lastly one in probly central/south america or mid east. Think about it, its perfect.

I thought the graphics were ok in cmbb. What I think their going to leave out is WW2. Or at least that is my worst fear. I certainly hope I'm wrong because they make great games with WW2 themes.

Oh yea and 3.I would love it if you guys put a campain feature in there so you could retain some veterain units and such.

1.Dead vehicals are actually dead space and can be used for cover. 2. I think the cover arc needs to have a possibility of being 360 degrees rather than 180.

The western allies could have easily taken berlin before the russians, maybe even a couple of weeks earlier. The germans were more than happy to surrender to the allies at that point so the allies path to berlin was almost unopposed. The germans were hopeing the allies would take berlin instead of the russians. If you recall the allies just stoped and went south into bavaria instead of going on to berlin. From what I've read the higher up german officers were hoping the allies would come to berlin. I honestly believe the only reason the germans put up a fanatical defense of berlin is because they were fighting the russians. They would have probly surrendered the city to the allies. So I don't believe the allies would have sustained as many casualties as the rusky's and defiently not more. Because there would have been less of a fight. Sure there would still be pockets of fanatical SS fighting to the death, but as a whole I think most of the germans would have surrendered without a big fight. If you also remeber Isenhower made a deal with the russians. He said that the allies wouldn't advance on berlin because stalin wanted it so bad for a symbolic victory. Numerous western leaders like churhill and patton pleaded with Isenhower to forget the deal and take berlin before the ruskies. But he stayed true to his word right or wrong.

thanks amigo. I always enjoy your mods. keep up the good work.

Uhm whats this record you keep talking about? And for the record why dont you say something to him for even bringing it up. Also for the record I was just trying to let him know this isn't a political view forum. Last thing for the record I haven't stated anything political other than the word political. P.S. for the record you haven't posted anything to do with this thread so quit spamming and makeing me spam. For the record have a good night.

What about that had to do with politics. I just used the Germans because I am assumeing he is from Germany not because I have a problem with them being in Iraq or not. I assume you dislike the US as well so I expect some one like you to try to nit pick what I have said. I have nothing against any Western country. I just dont like when people throw little cute remarks in their posts bashing the US. Especially when the remark is based on opion not fact like his remarks are.

@ Bish77 it sounds like you are letting your dislike for America jade all your views and points in this thread. I can’t believe you actually said the quality or soldier and the soldiers marksmanship were slipping in the US. Come on man no one in here wants to hear your politics. For one last I checked the good old US still had one of the best trained armies in the world. All our soldiers are volunteers not conscripted so that would tell you right off the bat that most of our soldiers are well motivated. I also believe our troops did most of the fighting in either Afgan of Iraq. I don’t know if you remember the battle of Faluja or not but that was all US marines I don’t remember seeing any German troops there. Oh yea there aren’t any in Iraq. The reason the US switched to the burst instead of fully auto is pretty obvious. Full auto fire has little to do with marksmanship and a lot to do with luck. I assume you have never fired a weapon before and are one of these inexperienced fellows that loves the idea of fully auto blaze away movie type shoot outs. Well I’m here to tell you that every weapon is more accurate on semi auto fire than fully auto fire. Any 5.56 gun is about as accurate as you can get on fully auto. The reason the top brass of the US changed from fully auto to three round burst is because there is a limit to the amount of ammo you can carry with you in the field. Think about it you could blaze away all 8 of your 30rd mags and not hit a thing. When you could carefully aim your shoots and kill what you are shooting at with less ammo wasted. In fact in basic training the instructors tell you to never us fully auto ever. Last thing on this particular subject, how many other Western countries use fully auto compared to burst? Again have you ever shot an M4? Where do you get your info about the M4 not being effective in Afgan? I was there and noticed nothing of what you mentioned. Other than the 5.56 I don’t believe any soldiers I ever talked to had a problem with shooting at long range. Even if you shoot at 500m with any iron sight NATO rifle your going to have a problem with accuracy. I do agree with one of your points. I think NATO needs a bigger caliber.