Lethaface

King Copper Mines is indeed a very good scenario (the GeorgeMc ones also, ofc). Playing it PBEM now, with few minutes left. Very bloody, were now duking it out with PM's

Hehe, now I simply cant withstand reacting. While such articles as mr. JK posted aren't of real value to any intelligent discussion (no offense ment), there are rather dubious facts about the higher echelons in the USA society. It is a fact that the governmental executional and law making 'bodies' have (very) close ties with (read invest in holdings that invest in) companies that capitalize on those same laws and policies. Look at Carlyle with the Bush Sr. at the top with his son as President, even Colin Powell has been carlyle employed. Haliburton having strong ties with Cheney and Chevron with Condoleeza. I think these are very strong intertwined interests. They are (for me) also intriguing considering certain projects 'awarded' to those companies or investments made. Look at what business Haliburton has in, for example Iraq, or in which weapon industries Carlyle holds shares. One could consider these descriptions actually only mentioning the 'tip of the iceberg'. It is a fact that the FED isn't owned by the US goverment. Who does own it is (at best) unsure to me (a consortia of other banks, owned by other banks, owned by (time and money is needed if you want to see for yourself; I didn't)). It is a fact that every printed dollar bill becomes a debt from the USA to the FED. This debt holds interest. Interest/Dividend gets payed to the shareholders of the FED. These claims are verifiable through public available info that is provided by the Carlyle group and FED itself. However, those facts indeed do not indicate a group of "Lucifer worshiping criminals and bankers" (LOL), but at the very, very and very least do frown my eyebrows. Funny NYT article from 1904: http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=9404E3D7103DE633A25753C2A9629C946597D6CF What's in a name? [...] Ok and now I'll really go back to "Why Arabs Lose Wars [...]". I think the article presents a very logical explanation backup up by the writer having (assumed) experience in the field.

John Kettler, While I do consider many of the so called 'complot theories' not to be ruled out to easily (having had some problems myself and some inside info from various sources), it's something else to consider them as a fact. The article about the 'Mini Atomic Bombs' is obviously an article by someone that regards the 'complot theories' as his own bible. Hell, he connects the FED (controlled by Rothschild) scam to [...] and holds it as a reason for the DU scam. etc etc. Such an article cant be viewed as serious food for any discussion, in my opinion. Even if someone considered it as fully true, I would never bring this article up in any discussion since hit holds no references at all; only wild claims without any background support. While I do have some knowledge about the Rothschilds, Carlyle, etc myself, it will only confuse any discussion about another topic. Especially if one is not sure if the other participants in the discussion share the same opinion. Concluding, to bring an article like that as a fact based story, will only destroy a discussion instead of making others more open about the subject. It will only fuel the believe that all the opinions of the one posting that article, are based on similar unbacked stories / articles. That is, in my opinion, what Elmar and others are stressing about. I can't really deny them, altough I might have a different opinion then them on the same subject. All the best

I run CMSF at uberbest settings (extra FSAA and Anisotropic Filtering in GFX card) on a P4 (alike, Xeon actually) 2,66 GHz with 1GB ram and an 7800GS with 256MB DDR3 (XP). Which is obvious a very oldish system, hell my mobo is probably around 7 years old hehe... (it supports DDR and pre-DDR RAM and 478 socket and the one before it) In larger maps the FPS is still very decent (above 20-30 i think), redraws happen frequently though when scrolling the map. Strange thing it is even in WEGO. The largest maps (for example the excellent 'Armour Attacks' by GeorgeMC) have many many redraws, however only when I scroll the map. While I should tone my settings down for larger maps, I think it's strange even replays suffer from redraws. And except for the redraws it just looks to beautifull to tone anything down With all the other posters with much more heavy machines seeming to have less performance then me, i'm happy not to be in the position to upgrade my system anywhere soon So a question I would like to se conformed: Is there any1 with a Quad Core and a 8800 GT still having redraws on WEGO replays?

Any more info on 'Whack-a-mole-day' would be appreciated

By the way, 'radioactive wasteland' is perhaps a bit over the top.... The original article is indeed not really an objective article, to say the least.

JonS, while I dont understand your use of the word 'Nimrod' (hunter?) or Jimmy page, I perhaps was a little vigilante on you. However, it struck me that claims about the impact of use of DU rounds were served of rather ironically by your post (depleted?). That doens't show a lot of respect to the ones suffering by DU use post-effects. While U is a toxic heavy metal, it is also low radioactive. This radio activity (alpha radiation) cant go through skin, but when DU particles infest your body, the prolonged exposure to this radiation does have certain effects apart from the sheer chemical toxicity. Depleted uranium has a very long radioactive half-life of 4.5 billion years. In the event of internal contamination it can damage cells and tissues by it's prolonged presence in the body and by the intense radiation of alpha particles. Each alpha particle of depleted uranium gives approximately 4.2 MeV (million electron volts). Only 6 to 10 eV (electron volts) are sufficient for DNA or other large molecules to break, which causes damage that may not be undone by cellular repair mechanisms. http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3912/is_200202/ai_n9077795 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12121782?dopt=Abstract And a lil story with some pictures, for the more visual focussed: http://www.news-journalonline.com/special/uranium/ -- And Now GO get your ******* shinebox

I believe to have read several articles about DU contamination. It's effects were underestimated quite vastly it seems. The radiation itself is low, but alpha particles wreak havoc when it gets into your system. Compare it to other heavy metal comparticles in soil. In highly industrial polluted regions the soil contains larger volumes of those heavy metal particles then is good for flora and fauna. In modern countries these polluting facilities are often removed and the polluted soil is sealed off. Uranium is a heavy metal only it is much more toxic then for example, lead. In every place where was fought (extensively) with DU, DU particles are present in the soil at higher volumes then is good for flora and fauna. It will get in crops, in drinking water, etc etc etc. It is a fact that DU is toxic and can have sever effects to a men's liver in small quantities, from higher quantities other organs are affected and the chance of getting cancer increases. Because I dont recall the thrustworthy internet sources on this subject, I will leave the conclusion to everyone itself. Given the facts that DU particles are posionous especially when inside a body, how bad will the effects be in Iraq? (How much DU particles can be found in soil in Iraq ?) Im a bit sad to sea that even in this community with a lot of proclaimed knowledge about warfare, it's direct aftermath is severely neglected. While it might not be 100% sure exactly what the DU pollition does to the locals now, thats only because the research isn't done yet. The results might prove good (better then expected), it might prove bad (worse then expected). The expected value however is that it is not good having DU particles around in your soil, from which you eat your veggies, your cows eat their grass, you drink your milk and eat the cow, and so forth. So I'm quite stunned by people here who, when confronted with the DU aftermath, are roughly giving the following reply: "DU? It's not like a nuclear fallout orsomething, it is DEPLETED remember????!!!!" (as in that Depleted Uranium is harmless). Anyone agreeing to that I dare to come proof. @Elmar Bijlsma; If i'm correct I recall a few years ago a special in the monthly magazine of the NRC (one of the better Dutch newspapers). It featured an in depth story about the aftermath of the 2nd gulf war and the lives of Iraqis in that aftermath. The DU subject was, well, strongly present. Oh and JonS, depleted could indicate there is not 'working component' / radiation left in DU. Perhaps they chose the wrong term for this kind of material. Perhaps you could do a little lookup of the industrial process which leads to Depleted Uranium and 'Enhanced' uranium. Perhaps it isnt that depleted is you might think, I come to believe that that might be the reason it is used in ANTI-TANK ordnances.

John, The Javelin did explode but i'm not sure if it damaged anything significant, if I remember correctly a few seconds later an 120MM APFSDS took it out The strange thing here is that I see an explosion coming from the tank before the Javelin hits. Thats why I thought this might be an ERA explosion ? (not sure it is modelled) The sagger also hit and exploded but just failed to do damage to the T-55. I agree a sagger at the frontal armour of a T-55 isn't a guaranteed kill. However it was disspointing since it was at the very last second of a turn.. Waiting eagerly for the next turn only to find out it got away again. Again in that it already absorbed 2x 100MM D10 from my T-55's in the side, failing to do significant damage. Must be a lucky crew

Unfortunely lost my post will typing... Ken, For WEGO indeed there are extra difficulties to implement some type of ordnance control, since I play mostly RT I overlooked it completely For RT you could just fire of one Javelin for example and shoot another one as you see fit (or disengage if the implementation is to keep firing those 'special' weapons untill target destroyed). However as I keep thinking there will still be a problem with for example only using coax or targeting heavy without any javs or at-4's being fired (or one like you said). Putting weapons on hold might provide extra control, but is quite 'click heavy'. And in WEGO it is still impossible to shoot one more Javelin if you decided to hold all but one, if the first missed and your looking in the eye of a nice lil AT-14 KORNET-E... I saw another post with some interesting use of the blast command. Dont remember who posted it though. He suggested something as to use the Blast command as a sort of target heavy, so we could have one more level, i.e. target light, medium and heavy. That again wont be enough for a BMP-3 with it's array of weapons. Perhaps total control is just not practical. For me the most important things are: - Being sure a BMP-1/2 or Bradley fires its ATGM instead of the 25/30/75mm (frustrating to have them lose their lives over wasting time by firing anything else then their strongest weapon). Even the 'target' command doesn't give any guarantee. - Possibility to lay down heavy suppressive small arms fire from infantry without having to shoot any Javs, RPG's, etc. - Possibility to shoot 1 Javelin without any other ordnance being fired, for example AT-14's or another pair of javs. While it would be nice to be able to fire coax with a bradley before its 25mm run out, it isn't really that high on my list. There is plenty of 25mm ammo and it works similar but better then 7,62mm. Lets hope marines brings some nice tweaks on this subject..

I like the idea of having more control in certain situations over what kind of weapon is fired at a given target (and/or which not), given it has been targeted by the user. This also goes for expendable rarer weapons like the TOW's on Bradleys, etc. Since TOW's are organic to Bradleys unfortunately your idea wouldn't fully work for similar rare organic weapons. Wouldn't be an extra 'special weapons / munitions' command be more easy? In that way the current TAC-AI behaviour when targeting by itself, or when given a target or target light command wouldn't have to change (much). For example in this case, you could have given the order 'fire Javelin' at the enemy tank. The amount of clicks needed to perform the same task would be (far) less (in certain cases). Moreover, I would imagine players trusting the TAC-AI more to do its own firing. I think Huntarr was right that, if you wouldn't have given the target command, the TAC-AI would have probably only fired a javelin missile. However I totally agree with you to target the 'mofo' manually I think there are many of us who just don't trust ANY AI enough for not manually given that target order. Most 'must shoot heaviest weapon' targets that appear in my games, are given the target command by me explicitly. Just to be sure... A 'Fire Javelin' / 'TOW' / 'AT-5' / 'AT-12' / etc command would let me comfy about leaving the TAC-AI alone untill I really need to be sure about 1 thing: that target needs to receive the heaviest ordnance available, and it needs it now. Click 'Special Weapons', designate, boom. Of course even in this case there is still debate over what is a special weapon and for example; how to fire a Bradley Coax? Which is a problem that probably is going to be fixed with the same solution, I think. I'm sure the best solution possible will be found and eventually implemented. I sniffed something somewhere about this bradley coax thing, that it would work 'like it should' in 1.1. Maybe we should just wait a bit till 1.1 comes out (?!). Or perhaps Steve or associates could give a lil' hint ?

Kontakt Era ??? (it survived): And this bastard (SLUG 88's) also survived

Count me in for the russians

Indeed, a little typo by me, i ment the T-90 SA... That does clearly show in the overview between the BMP 3 and Humvee MK-19

Ah, that explains the TUSK versions are in the manual, and other marines content not T-92 SA should ofcourse be T-90 SA (http://www.battlefront.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=blogcategory&id=180&Itemid=231)

Good to see many of the game tweaks layed out in the revised manual. While inspecting it however, I noticed the T-92SA, BMP 3 and new RPG16 (?) and several of the other new vehicles are not in the unit descriptions (yet). Will these new vehicles/weapons be added at a later time?

I'm waiting to make some shining movie with a H2H pbem game... Only problems is this will be my first movie, and the PBEM isn't finished yet... ill take my chances

So, what would you prefer: Leo, Abrams or Challenger II?

Good to hear i'm not alone In tcp/ip I'm always the one connecting to the game, since my opponent has the better pc Is this problem confirmed by BFC?

Good News! The list is surely impressive. Finally I can hear Warthogs farting However, 1 question... I dont mind paying my hard earned money to Battlefront for their hard work, in fact i'll gladly do it because they have a nice product . There will definately be a charge on my CC reading 'CMSF Marines'. However I would like to know what extra's does the Mailcopy version bring except for a hardcopy? Having ordered the deluxe version of CMSF (download & mail), I'll gladly pay more for extra content. But if the download & mail option only brings the hardcopy (CD-ROM), i'm not sure if thats worth my extra $20 shipping. Considering my belief that Battlefront is such a honest company, they will not cash in major on shipping costs ( ). Paying DHL $20 for delivering an (printed cd) installer which i can burn myself? (no offense ment) I'm not that rich unfortunately. In that case, if you want my money earlier, you can make the pre-order download only version available now @ $25,- I'm still hoping for a CMSF Action Figure with motion and sounds which should make me buy the download & mail delivery pre-order! (FOURTH SMILEY HERE, NOT ALLOWED ; ) )

A few weeks ago I tried TCP/IP for the first time since months. There seems to be a quite serious bug though. After the setup fase all my vehicles appear outside the map for me. My opponent sees them correctly. After I give any vehicle a move order, they beam to their real spot and the off map unit dissapears. Almost all TCP/IP battles show this behavior. Anyone has this same problem?

What is a 'notable battlefield victory'? Different enemy's require different strategies and, hence, different tactics.

They sure look 'awesome' so to speak dont torture us any longer !! keep it on

Scipio, that wasn't the case. Anyway I tried it some time later and it did work again. (my profession lies in hosting business so i'm quite sure it was completely down ) It looked like your zonefile did dissapear in the nameservers. Anyway, great site!

Scipio, that wasn't the case, but it was up again some time later. (my profession lies in hosting business so im quite sure ) Anyway, great initiative