Dr.Jones

I would still rather see destroyed (more authentic representation) tanks than the dead base below it br. Dr.Jones

Yea, i know about the hit text, thats why would easy to implement this feature to see all the hits already done to a tank, like in TOW2. br. Dr.Jones

Hi, i just want to commend Battlefront for doing a good job with this new release. CMBN graphics are good and vegetation is abundant and very greenish and quite well done also the 3d models are very detailed especially the tanks and apc vehicles. But i really miss the damage model when the tanks are hit, like parts falling off (plates and other attached items on the vehicles), broken track and the hit decals on the tank where the projectile hit the armor, it would be very cool if there was an option to see all projectile which hit the tank and info about that projectile like type and what kind hit was is (bounce, penetration). PS: Thats just my 2 cents about improving graphics of the already good looking game. br. Dr.Jones

Yes they can, someone posted the solution at http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=84362 br. Dr.Jones

Yes sir, togi, sir. br. Dr.Jones

Še isto ime deliva poleg rojstega mesta br. Dr.Jones

Sem z Ljubljane br. Dr.Jones

I pretty disapointed too about this, in my country (Slovenia) they charge the import tax on whole packet value including postage cost : ( and on top of that also admins fee (UK is not alone in this) so this is going to cost me a lot, so if BF policy is not to offer preorders in EU then i will not make any preorders anymore, i'm not going to cancel the preorder but i will not make any new ones either. br. Dr.Jones

Nice. br. Dr.Jones

Great videos and i liked the narration very much as it was calm and not to serious. What made the videos so interesting was the constant camera movement. br. Dr.Jones

If i'm given a choice between activations and Steam i will always take Steam, so i don't need to worry about my activation count. br. Dr.Jones

Nidan1, yep as Michael pointed out its not enough just look at the Japanes soldiers in Pacific, they had courage, they were desperate and had some initiative but a dumb headlong attack on machine gun defensive positions was not winning any battles br. Dr.Jones

sburke, sure it was tactical air support which the army counted for air support not from "strategic" arm of air force. And as i read of the Cobra offensive the strategic bombers also wiped a few US units from the map. br. Dr.Jones

Don't forget that the carrier was speeding at 30kts and zigzaging br. Dr.Jones

Problem is that the Allies thought especially in the US, that they would roll over the Germans quickly , but they didn't, the political pressure was enormous on the allied generals to get a break out. I must imagine what was probably total humiliation for army general to call Arnold and Harris for help them fight ground war . br. Dr.Jones

I wouldn't say that Hasting is a Wermacht fanboy he just writes the fact which happened during the campaign. Allies were really beaten on the hedges in Normandy they couldn't penetrate the line. At last they were so desperate that they called in the 1000 carpet bombers to break the line, that's real desperation for you. They were stuck in Normandy for more than a month (almost 2). br. Dr.Jones

To Magpie, This quote from Overlord by Max Hastings (Location 2804 of 7724 Kindle), after explaining of rigidity of allied attacks. I woudn't write something without backing. br. Dr.Jones

Referring to my previous post about flanks. One the main reason for Allied "broad" offensive approach to defeating the Germans was the fear of exposing the flanks, that why Dwight D. Eisenhower enforced this not just because of the political tensions between US and UK. They were really concerned about their flanks on Army level down to battalion level. br. Dr.Jones

At the lower levels (Division and lower to company level) the Germans were tactical more skilful, there are numerous written accounts about that especially in the year 1944 after Normandy landings. The main tactical advantage they had was tactical initiative, meaning that the commander (company, battalion) was not waiting for further orders from upper command but on his own initiative (the doctrine taught them that) they need to occupy the best defensive or attacking positions even without instruction to do so. The allies lack this initiative (soviets feared for their lives if found disobeying orders, US and British doctrines didn't really encourage this). Also the allies (US, UK) were really afraid of exposing their flanks which the Germans had no trouble doing this, and Germans realized that in Normandy and used it effectively through out the campaing. So the tactical doctrines were the mayor issue here not man vs man. br. Dr.Jones

Andromahkos, when i get home i will send you my version. The problem i see is incompatibility between rts.dll and SFSExtractor which is a little puzzling. br. Dr.Jones

No i dont think that is 32bit comp., try the other version. br. Dr.Jones

Hi, i have looked in to the logs its says following: Unable to load DLL '..\rts.dll': Invalid access to memory location It cant load this dll, so the mounting of the sfs files is not happening. You said you run this in XP (is it 32 bit?) and you are administrator, do you have enought rights in the folder where the TOW is? br. Dr.Jones

Ok, forgot to tell you, that you can show me the log files in log dir. br. Dr.Jones

Well done Arzok. br. Dr.Jones

Can you run MissionEditor for TOW1? br. Dr.Jones