Roter Stern

Ahem.... http://www.battlefront.com/community/showpost.php?p=946956&postcount=7 http://www.battlefront.com/community/showpost.php?p=911019&postcount=2 :cool: ...also note that their entire TO&E seems to be reversed, not just the ATGM assets, i.e. RPG and LMG quality and quantity, number of men per squad, etc.

Excellent idea! +1 Some sort of an event log would benefit the game greatly, especially if the 'detailed hits' and 'unit status' on-screen info from CMx1 is not slated to make a comeback.

Running an nVidia 8800 GTS 512 by ASUS on Vista x64, at 1440x900 (16:10 widescreen), without any problems in CMSF.

Again, I vote for it to be mandatory for all (possible) bug reports to be submitted in a comic-strip format! This reminds me of one slightly outdedthis thread - http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=52;t=003829;p=1#000012 - and more specifically the quick experiment I did , as seen in the two screenshots in that post. It's worth noting that none of those AFVs had any arcs set and all of them reacted with fire with-in a second or two of spotting the enemy. So it's pretty hard to say why something like that would happen ... perhaps the BMP was out of ammo that would be considered effective against the Bradley? I'm 99% certain that BMP-1s do not have an internal sighting system for the ATGM mounted on the roof - so the only way to fire it off in real life, is to unbutton and use the optics mounted on the launch tube. So this behavior in-game is actually quite accurate.

Perhaps the replacements for the ASU-85 is a black-and-white Specnaz trooper?

Encumbrance does seem to be modeled - I've noticed on several occasions that squads equipped with Javelins moved considerably slower and got tired a quicker. One recent example I recall is squads carrying 3-4 Jav tubes fell back 50-60m over a 300m when moving 'quick', they were also 'tiring' where as ordinary squads do not seem to suffer fatigue from the 'quick' movement at all.

Appreciate the comments, and I’m glad it played out well in multiplayer. Also note that the wall bug I mentioned above has been fixed in v1.07.

The post makes for a funny read, if you come up with creating meanings for the mysterious "FF"... Personally I find it really cute how instead of praising Battlefront for getting rid of the Blue Bar of Infinite Doom, people actually manage to criticize them for not inventing a Time Machine ... good times. [ March 14, 2008, 03:33 AM: Message edited by: The Louch ]

Oh I figured that much, I'm just saying that if Russia was to invade Kosovo I doubt they would be fighting against a NATO coalition force. I'd imagine they would be trying to suppress some Kosovo Independence fighters... so perhaps a logo along these lines would be more appropriate: Kosovo Liberation Army Kosovo Protection Corps

Why KFOR vs Russia? Russia had an active role in the KFOR - one of the first countries to actually deploy troops, if I'm not mistaken. Something about Russian VDV troops seizing an airfield even before KFOR was officially stood up comes to mind. ...just curious.

That's the 'currently selected' unit.

Some one ought to steer it back on track

The more interesting part is how they claim that during tests a T-90 was able to withstand six 120mm Sabot Penetrator hits - apparent equivalents to those used by the Abrams - from 200m and then still drive away under its own power. Although I would agree with the post above - the commentary didn't appear to be very objective and at times even condescending to the Abrams. Not to mention how it's rather convenient that they did not test tandem-HEAT rounds, which would've had a much better chance at defeating the T-90s ERA than those Sabot rounds.

That video has been circulating for years, but for some reason no one ever seems to have the accompanying photo series. Here's also a couple of them I remembered I had:

Best of all is watching that turret fly 100-200m up in the air

...ohh sigh

So does this mean that game is capable of loading multiple versions of the 'non-sequantial' skins? Although I wonder how a game as the UN would work? Would you have a big "OMG we're being attacked" button, that you can press to request permission to fire back?

Here's an ammo load in a Full-Supply Excellent-Equipment M2A3: I honestly fail to see how you got the impression that there's 10 TOWs on board. All I'm seeing it "TOW-2 T-HEAT - 2", and those are the ones currently loaded in the tubes, once they are fired off there aren't any more. ...well here's your problem!

Perhaps in the game you need to have a couple of troops riding in the back of the Bradley, and possibly unbuttoned, in order to reload?

Are you suggesting that we should have unlimited smoke? :confused: ...at first this looked like one of the cesspool threads, although I'm still not sure that it isnt

I'd imagine it's a hit probability threshold, and not a fixed range value. But from experience I've seen RPG7 get fried (and hit) stationary units behind light tree cover at around 150m. Anything beyond that should have an incredibly low chance of hitting.

Actually all the "decent" Scifi franchises I can think of already have a Strategy Game associated with them ... perhaps Space Lobsters it is...

Actually in my test above the route from one side of the poles to the other is not completely blocked - the vehicles could've driven around the buildings, if they wanted to. Besides, those poles are there to block vehicle passage regardless of whether or not there is an alternative route.

Apparently .BMP files with an organic Alpha channel are quite new, and according to a quick blurb in Wikipedia... I've searched far and wide for editors other than PS7 and GIMP to support .BMP Alpha, and so far haven't found any ... even Corel's new PaintShopPro doesn't know what to do with those bitmaps. ...geez, thanks for making it easy for the Modders, Battlefront... as if a good'old .TGA wasn't sufficient [ February 26, 2008, 02:21 PM: Message edited by: The Louch ]

I honestly don't see what the big deal is - I'm on an average consumer level internet connection, and I'm able to upload those 20-30Mbs in a matter of a few minutes ... which is really not very different from how long it took CMx1 to upload it's turn files - which is more than acceptable for TCP/IP, let alone PBEM. As for... ...from what I remember we basically had a riot when Steve announced that PBEM might get cut because the turn files were too big. But since they still went ahead and spent the precious development time on PBEM I honestly don't think PBEM folks have a right to complain - especially since the "large file size" was also the main reason for TCP/IP WeGo getting cut. Not to mention that I'm quite certain that it's not a case of Battlefront not "trying hard enough" to make the files smaller, but rather people grossly underestimating just how much raw data is being processed under-the-hood in CMx2. If anything, we should be praising Charles that PBEM files aren't well into hundreds of megs. I'm sorry if it sounds like I'm venting here... but it's not like im bitter about the lack of TCP/IP WeGo :mad: [ February 26, 2008, 01:44 PM: Message edited by: The Louch ]