BlAin

I forgot to add these two: </font> With the addition of the yellow target line (in patch v1.5), that a box pops up whenever you want a vehicle to fire --either through smoke or dense foliage-- on an enemy's anticipated position. At this moment, it rarely occurs.</font>On certain types of terrain (for Syrian Forces only), provide the use of a preference box to cover their tanks/armors with foliage (forest + olive plantation, etc.) or while static with sandbags.</font>I guess that must be it for now...

First of, I would like to sincerely thank Battlefront for the great patch they recently released. I am happy that I continued to keep faith as it finally paid off big time. Alright, that said, here is the point behind this message: all the annoying things that, albeit minor, detract from accomplishing important actions or are simply superfluous. Let's start: </font> Once you click on a vehicle, no matter what, if this vehicle carries an infantry unit, it will automatically select it instead of the vehicle.</font>When a tank or Stryker MGS (and some others) are ordered to fire on a wall, or on a building, they do not execute it either with the proper ammunition or with the proper weaponry.</font>Despite having a unit (with radios) having a fair view of the battlefield (and the enemy's positions and units), it does not relay the info (coordinates) to i.e. tanks [who could have a line of fire].</font>More often than not, the line of sight [in order to fire] does not EXACTLY fall on the wanted target.</font>When clicking with the mouse and setting a path for vehicles their is a "dead zone" around them which prevents setting the waypoint but only if you are using the "above view".</font>Despite not having access to a "Hull Down" command, an option should be added that would (nearby the end waypoint) indicate through the use of a "short curved line" on the ground the position at which a vehicle has reached "hull down".</font>In WEGO, give an option disabling the replay phase after the main sequence.</font>Again in WEGO, that units' actions be "highlighted" in some kind of way (much like tanks firing in CMAK) to help localize which units are involved, especially on larger maps.</font>NOTE: Unless I am mistaken --I have not found this information in the manual-- is it possible at this point to either manipulate the path's cones or move the waypoints?</font> I hope that this list will help in the future. Please add your two cents!

Also, although I thought another member would have mentioned it by now, is it the vanilla version of the game that's being shipped as we speak or is it the game already patch with v1.02 or even --let's see-- v1.03 as a surprise? I guess Battlefront would have been so kind in going with v1.03!!

Wow, are you sure there are no built-in logic that it's trying to avoid potential mine-threats? Seriously, your definitely right with the above. You should actually try that with all US vehicles just as an exercise. I would bet on one of the vehicles and see if it wins. Book the wagers!

From what I've read and learned about the Falklands conflict, although the newly released Sea Harriers were not in sufficient numbers to effectively engage all enemy aircraft, albeit they had air superiority by over 80%, I also know that very few engagements because a logic would prevail as to not fight disadvantaged, thus logically wanting to fight at one's own respective best altitude resulted in less losses on both sides, more on the Argentinian side though because their Canberras and Skyhawks were defenseless birds at the time. Would the Sea Harriers try and engage Mirages at their best altitude, one would wonder if the latter would have had the upper hand. Furthermore, the whole of the Argentine Navy was recalled to port once submarine threats were imminent. So all the planes taking off were doing it from the mainland, seriously hampering their ability to patrol effectively with rare airfueling occasions. Would the Argentinian plan be not "botched" and carefully planned instead (Argentina knew the islands like their backpockets), I think the runway on Stanley airfield could have been substantially improved as they had a full 15 days before any threats from the British could come in sight. They air war would have been different in many ways...

Interesting article, but Saddam's initiative was doomed to fail because of no Air cover from his air force. You can't just throw in all your armors. Actually, this aspect was quite obvious, even before Khafji, already in 1944 when Germany's air power was waning. Panzers needed to be heavily camouflaged with bushes and branches because they did not have air superiority anymore over France and their own territory. I am sure that if any enemy can counterbalance with decent air support (think of the Falkland war and the numerous successes Argentinian pilots had over British warships) their tank divisions, well, it could very well mean that a tank destroyer solid and steady design could make the difference. In the end, we'd never know, would we?

Wow, you lucky b... Yes, since I saw the Discovery Channel "Best tank ever" countdown, I feel that this tank is really top-notch in a defensive stance. If you read the wiki article about it (HERE IS the Stridsvagn_103), it definitely rules. Although, some mentioned they were being scrapped, Sweden put a great many in storage, kept the latest vehicles in museum display (and still in working order on top of that) and would assuredly sell those to a country to a relatively low price. Syria could even be interested. Face it, a tank like this in Syrian hands instead of T-55s in static position would seriously hamper an enemy advance if they use them to their advantage.

Huntarr ==> I beg to differ on that one, especially in desert settings. Would the U.S. Army be involved in a war against a potent adversary (on all aspects) in the Middle East, Abrams will have it hard if the only gun support is the MGS Stryker. Furthermore, too much strenght and stamina is expected from the U.S. Helo force, though they are quite vulnerable to ground to air attacks and air-air attacks. So if the air force of that country is overall above average in a a defending stance, they won't give away that easily. Any battle is won (in a broad perspective) on a ground setting, although Navy, Air and Armor forces provide crucial support, it is at the infantry level that a conventional battle can be brought to its end; and the closest thing to the infantry is the armor divisions. One country cannot rely solely on armors once they engage, obviously, and now that they are less dominant on the battlefield as they used to be in WWII, they need to be wisely deployed and re-affirmed at the ground level with mobile, versatile and effective wheeled armors support which can play the role of tank destroyers/MGS, not solely the latter. Sergei ==> For sure, I guess the article about the Stryker in GlobalSecurity dates back to a couple of years, but it is still very low armour protection against tanks for the Stryker MGS version. Actually, the WWII tank destroyer was a cost-effective alternative to full-fledge tanks and decent infantry support in the combat zone. Nowadays, a tank destroyer design, while being as cost-effective, needs to be as versatile as possible, ensure the survivability of its crew and engage in a shoot-and-scoot type of way when its complement is complete enough to inflict serious damage versus mild losses.

At first look, both seem very similar, yet we couldn't be further from the truth. The B1 Centauro, from the info I gathered from Global Security is a tank destroyer/wheeled tank with garanteed protection against 14.5mm and between 25mm and 30mm for the frontal arc (depending whether added armour was bolted on or not). It has an excellent power-to-weight ratio whereas its weight does not and the structural frame for which it was designed does not hamper the horsepower provided by the engine (hence slowing down its reaction time to threats). It's main armament is a 105mm recoilless fire-on-the-move gun system (a Centauro version with 120mm GS is in DEV. as we speak). It can carry a crew of 4 infantry soldier. [Operational. range of 800km] So, if we compare this to the M1128 Stryker MGS, you'll be surprised to see how this Stryker variant is inferior and not well suited to the similar role that was given to the B1 Centauro, although it is hoped it would do just that: Again, from the info collected on Global Security, the MGS Stryker "is not a tank replacement, but it gives a direct fire capability to support the infantry elements. The principal function of the Mobile Gun System (MGS) is to provide rapid and lethal direct fires to support assaulting infantry." It is equiped with the same gun caliber as the Centauro as well as similar shoot-on-the-move functions, in it's current version however, the Stryker frame was not designed to go over 17,300 metric tonnes and the MGS version weighs almost 1,400 mt more than the maximum spec. (not taking into account crew or troops w/ gear in weigh-in amount), which before weight reduction attempts in 2002 was by ~3,200 mt. Most significantly, the Stryker armour cannot at present protects its crew against calibers above 0.50 and add-ons (which would load on extra weight) are in development to withstand 14.5mm caliber. Slat armour does provide effective protection (as proven on the battlefield) but against tank-like rounds, it would not protect the main hull from being pierced. [Operational range of 500km; 300km less than Centauro...] Here's a quote to summarize the Stryker MGS design: "Caught in-between the weight restrictions and the desire to protect against ATGM threats on the future battlefield, the MGS is suffering an identity crisis." NOTE: IMHO, were the U.S.A planning an attack on Iran (or even Syria) in a near future (more or less 5 years), much like when the U.S. Navy has identified a "cruiser gap" in its available ships in the '80s, the U.S. Army has a "tank destroyer gap" which needs to be addressed. Main battle tanks or costly and are high-maintenance, especially in an attacking stance. They are not as mobile, cannot regroup as easily and their supply lines are vital for their survivability. On the other hand, a wheeled tank destroyer with sufficient armour and cross-county mobility would have an easier time to outflank a tank position and evade or fall back strategically. A longer war (like it would presumably happen in Iran) would render this concept wheeled tank destroyer beneficial to army troops as ground air support will have a difficult time to cope with better AA and AAGM from the Iranian side. [ August 07, 2007, 09:24 AM: Message edited by: BlAin ]

Shadow RST-V Reconnaissance Surveillance Targeting Vehicle; and although the US army has none of the following, we could add a twist where the Italian government kindly asked the U.S. government to field test in "harder battle conditions" their B1 Centauro IFV/A-TV Centauro Wheeled Tank Destroyer, Italy. What do you think?

Seriously, what do you think about the "exclamation mark" idea about which I was refering previously? Just read the last reply I posted above... Thanks, we should debate on this...

That is really an error from BF if what you just said holds to be true. Of course, over a certain range it should not be too probable for an infantry unit just dismounted (hence at ground level) to see an enemy tank, but if it has been detected by the vehicle in which they were riding and told at what range (unless to far) and which direction [both, all in all, communicated to them as it should happen], they should be either wary of the vehicle's presence through more than a god-forsaken "interrogation mark" red icon (rather for such situations, add-in an "exclamation mark" of an identified enemy unit [and] pressing immediate presence but not flawlessly marked off: exact coordinates for range, direction in degrees and terrain elevation from spotter's observation emplacement) or be able to receive situational updates from an other (at least one belonging to their group) or their own vehicle commander about enemy current whereabouts. If that infantry unit can't CLEARLY mark them off (let's assume to "Javelin it down"), at least they should know what that enemy is up to.

True, happened to me as well. Beside the red cross for having failed that objective it was mentioned: Failed to eliminate enemy resistance (good to know, thank you, didn't they JUST $%*&!# surrendered???). Also, if I recall well, I had another red cross explaining that I did not complete my objective in securing the lower city block (or whatever that is). Hum, it seems surrendering does not confirm you actually secured a specific "hold that place" objective. It must be the whole unconventional warefare thing...

Actually, they were Scout Infantry Units with one of the soldier carrying a MG. Of course, once you have access to a "Deploy weapon" command, that it be for a dedicated MG Team or anyone in one X type unit carrying a MG, the thing stays the same: they just can't deploy their weapon. As for the ATGM issue mentioned earlier, it should go by the same logic, that it be a ATGM team or not. In fact the Scout unit I am refering about had 1 soldier with a MG, 3 with M-16s and 1 with a M203-M16 hybrid. Once I asked the unit to acquire their ATGM launcher, one soldier with a M-16 got it replaced by that launcher and acquired 3 Javelins afterwards. That's it. After that Scout unit was ordered to take position on the (same) rooftop we've been picturing from the beginning.

I realised that those of us who got issues with their ATI video card should completely uninstall (if you do not know exactly what is means, go on the forums of Rage3D, there are very well detailed and thorough uninstall guide for your drivers) and download the DISPLAY DRIVERS ONLY for Catalyst 7.7 (which improved a lot of slowdown problems I had previously). After it's done and before rebooting, install ATI Tray Icon only if you got a NON-VIVO card (one that does not support video-out and video-in; if yours only has video-out than download the latest version of ATI Tray Icon). Reboot and after playing wisely with the gfx settings with Tray Icon, play the game!

Thanks for the confirmation. I think the reason behind the incapacity to deploy MG on those "higher walls" rooftops is related to a "unplanned" animation whereas the MG gunner --instead of going prone to fire (which is automatic from what I've seen once the deploy command is activated)-- fixes onto the most logical of the "walls" to fire from it's machine gun while still standing up (where he got no choice). This angle of doing things was not thought of beforehand. As for the ATGM launcher, still from a rooftop with "higher walls", the behavior of the soldier holding the damn thing is moron at best: he never faces the right direction in order to strike at a designated target, and if you ask him to face the right direction, the whole team on the roof moves around like idiots and in many occasions that same guy keeps himself away from the "wall" (from where at least he could see something!) once they've stopped moving. I think it's because that soldier needs to put a knee to the ground that the whole thing is screwed on rooftops. I guess, it must be the same thing for sniper teams on the same rooftops that we're talking about... You're thoughts on this?

This is quite weird. I wonder why this would happen? I've also found another bug: -[Although it needs to be confirmed at this point] MG Teams on some rooftops (mostly those with "higher" walls) do not/cannot deploy their heavy machine gun... If they have Javelin launchers, they also take a while before they fire their Javelin at targets (compared to those on troops on ground level).

Although it needs to be confirmed, MG Teams on some rooftops (mostly those with "higher" walls) do not/cannot deploy their heavy machine gun... It needs to be confirmed at this point, just in case.

Possibly, yet in a previous mission, I had 4 Bradleys and they had reconnaissance support from 2 RV Humvees (they ought to be in the same company, yet I could be wrong) and no information was relayed at any point to the tanks. I did read the manual and they mentioned stuff about relaying battle info and what not, but I think that it still does not work (from the above example). Also, I thought the force of the U.S. Army was its battle-instant awareness and interoperability: here's wiki's definition(s): In telecommunication, the term can be defined as: 1. The ability of systems, units, or forces to provide services to and accept services from other systems, units or forces and to use the services exchanged to enable them to operate effectively together. 2. The condition achieved among communications-electronics systems or items of communications-electronics equipment when information or services can be exchanged directly and satisfactorily between them and/or their users. The degree of interoperability should be defined when referring to specific cases. So I would not see why not the info collected by any type of RV would not be relayed to all units within range??

I don't know who owns Silent Hunter 4 here, but let me tell you that Shock Force is WAY better than SH4 when it came out. Those of you who visit the official SH4 forums (on Ubisoft website) will turn green if they see the amount of bugs that are still present. If you are familiar with the SH4 forums, I am known as "krazyfrenchman", and I know what I am talking about. I was the instigator of the call-in initiative to "convey" Ubisoft in patching the game "one more time" (being the lastly released patch v1.3). And yet, we still have major issues...

I think, although the BF Team reads thoroughly the comments and informations given on the forums, that an official thread for all the bugs and other issues should be created. It would certainly benefit everyone and the DEV Team would enjoy having a comprehensive list at their disposition. Here are a list of all the bugs, quirks or missing functions I've encountered. Bear in mind that my intentions are not to sack down the game but are rather about bringing as much help to get rid of playability issues. Everyone is invited to add to this thread. Let's begin... -Slowdown issues (the mouse cursor and the mouse response time is cut by 75%) when using the shift key and ctrl keywhile in real time. Still happens when the game is paused, although a bit less. -RV Strykers and Humvees do not relay informations to other vehicles in the group. I.e.: although I am not sure if those other vehicles need to have a special communiation gear or target system to understand any info relayed to them; at one point my RV Stryker detected a T-54 well hidden behind a building and I could not use my Bradley (eq. with TOW) which was just beside that Stryker to fire at it because it did not have it spotted or what not. I think a command like "Relay info" in SPECIAL or ADMIN (for these types of vehicle only) would be beneficial. -Some "path following" logics have to be addressed. Either a vehicle ordered to go to a certain point does not and rotates in place or he goes the long way around. Same for infantry teams, when it comes to breached protective walls (and the like) and going the safer way in (meaning not going through the front door if it's being peppered by the enemy while the back door is exit is not challenged) when assaulting a building. -I am not sure if we do have the option, but if we don't, here it is: The missing feature prompting a message asking us if we want to use the main gun or not. -Nostalgia: "Hull down" and "shoot-and-scoot"? -Can't "move" Sedan and pick-up trucks out of the way. I think a Bradley or a Stryker should be able to do that much. That's it for now. I will post more as I find more. Don't retrain yourself from posting. I like participative discussions!

For Uninstalling SP2, you "can't" really do it through your configurations. You always have to reformat in order to really switch back to your previous version. SP2 leaves a lot of bullcrap when uninstalled. As for helping you out, I don't normally recommend to people to go on eBay, but for this case, you can get decent brand-new card in original packaging for less than $80USD (and then you pay for shipping). So for around $100USD (with shipping), you can get enough for a satisfying experience. Also, defragmenting helps a great deal, I should have mentioned it earlier; always do defrag in SAFE MODE. Another thing that could happen with your video card (although it's already very bad, but it could be a reason), it's entering in conflict with other peripherals inside your machine, namely being IRQ in your BIOS which in return slows down your machine. If you're not an expert, I would not play with those if I were you, but if you feel comfortable enough, I would try to find the best fitting IRQ for your video card and your sound card, which often get in conflict. That's about everything of what I can think for now... So a common and efficient procedure would be to format your hard drive, install SP1 and all its components, install all the programs you want and the drivers of your peripherals (one important program I recommend is AVG anti-virus *FREE*, no Norton, no McAffee, they slow down your machine), then defrag your hard drive in SAFE MODE. In the case you have a drive you can spare, please do an image of your drive to store it on your spare one, so you don't have to do it again in 6 months. I can recommend you a program for the image, but it's complex, so a friend advanced in computer would be a good thing for this.

_snakeeyes_ , I think the point of this game was actually to play in an environment where no top-of-line armors were deployed, to know what is old school and recent tactics alike in somewhat of refreshing setting: the Balkans. I cannot emphasize too much on the importance it has on my choosing this game. First off, it's challenging not to be backed up by satellite imaging and all the techno-gimmickry e.g. American Forces can deploy on the battlefield. Secondly, an interesting locale that is not WWII-based and that is similar to Italy, making for interesting dogfights. Never would a fight between Russia and Nato happen, so I think that is where the developers reasoned about their game, yes it would be fun to see it come to life but hey, why bother? Furthermore, if a prolonged armed conflict was to happen, those older tank design ought to be deployed so... About your specs, one common mistake people do is to install crappy Service pack 2 on their machines... D O N' T!!! It slows it down and make a lot of things run in the background. So, I strongly suggest when installing any big time sim like T72, to install it on a just formatted hard drive (like a did with Doom 3 and Silent Hunter 3) Also, type in "RUN" msconfig to get rid of everything default XP installs after the clean install but the anti-virus. Please, shut down the anti-virus before playing any demanding game. The worst thing in your specifications is, and not the least, your graphic card. By far the worst on the market by any standard. My grand-mother would run faster with her legs broken than the GE 5700. So, you cannot blame it on the game, that video card is so badly rated that I think people bundle them up to make improvised snowboards. Anyhow, I must say the game has many shortcomings, but nothing that deserves this misjudged trashing. I am getting an ATI Radeon X700 next week, so I will try it up with that one, in the mean time with my Radeon 9700 pro, it runs decently. I expect better in the days to come, stay tuned!

Hum... I hope that other people continue to add to the "wish list" and that people from Battlefront read it and forward it to T72: BOF's developpers. Maybe create a sticky post out of it would be a really wise idea... Just to make the game look better and play better so making it be a better game over time.

From my experience ISF (demo and reading the posts for a while now): (1) When the hatch is opened (unbuttoned), an "eyeball view" for the commander and accessible with a hotkey (e.g. "h"), not through the page-up/down. Maybe a commander binocular view would be another good addition too. (2) With the commander magnified view, that you can spot target left-clicking on target and while right-clicking will give you a solution telling the gunner to rotate/elevate/set the gun to the according position of the target. (3) An evasive maneuvers command hotkey for the AI driver. (4) A toggle option (possibky through capslock) for AI commander to report all contacts with bearings and distance (if possible) or while untoggled on report only through a hotkey. If a friendly unit is reported and easily identifiable afterwards, he will not report it again. (5) It's the only annoyance I have so far in terms of graphics: the trees. I would like them to be much more improved than they are now because they all look... sorry to say, ugly and irritating. While, fire effects, smoke, etc. on the other hand look great and satisfying. Water? Could be better, but for a game of this sort, who the ***beep*** cares? (6) Some of the stuff that has been said so far, plus, of course, what _Gian_ said about the prestige and upgrades.