fireship4

What is this? Combat Mission Fulda Gap? Are you trying to give the older forum members heart attacks?
 
https://youtu.be/q1KYwXJM35E?t=11

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M551_Sheridan
Combat Mission: Civil War confirmed!

What is this? Combat Mission Fulda Gap? Are you trying to give the older forum members heart attacks?
 
https://youtu.be/q1KYwXJM35E?t=11

Check here also if you are still missing some, though I don't remember there being multiple (HD/SD) versions of Kieme's vehicles: https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1L_vto8k7s-AnIKR4VfAY1k0o3tGRTxox

Check here also if you are still missing some, though I don't remember there being multiple (HD/SD) versions of Kieme's vehicles: https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1L_vto8k7s-AnIKR4VfAY1k0o3tGRTxox

Check here also if you are still missing some, though I don't remember there being multiple (HD/SD) versions of Kieme's vehicles: https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1L_vto8k7s-AnIKR4VfAY1k0o3tGRTxox

I have uploaded 69 of Kieme's mods to Google Drive, as well as a few others by Vein, BTR and Bil Hardenberger.  Files will be taken down at request of author(s).  Files were made JSGME ready (they were placed inside z, inside data, inside a folder with the same name) and then zipped.
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1L_vto8k7s-AnIKR4VfAY1k0o3tGRTxox
 

That smoke grenade looks like it went quite a way.

I made an assumtion it was a Russian photo, my mistake.  I focused instead on whether or not it would be appropriate to show unconventional fighters at military funerals in Russia.  Had it been such, I maintain the same opinion. 
The fact that it is a Ukrainian fighter (that we have learned thanks to Haiduk) gives it a bit of a different slant.  Soldiers in uniform are masked in public if they would be targeted by some hostile group or power, if they are special forces which may also work at home or abroad out of uniform and would not wish to be identified, or if their association and presence at a funeral would give useful intelligence to the enemy.
In this case it is more likely because having soldiers (all or below a certain rank) unmasked could put them in danger, assassinations by Russia have occured in Kyiv if I remember correctly, though I claim no expertise in the matter.
@Sgt.Squarehead your reaction is very strong.  I am sincere in my position, and would not want present a distorted picture of the world. 
Let me be clear though, since you said I am biased.  I am heavily against what I have seen of the Russian system: firstly because it is not democratic (except where it is unimportant and democracy is the most efficient political technology), and cannot be reformed or change peacefully in the long term.  The political pretense that corruption and conservatism are "traditionally Russian" somehow and need to be protected from Western influence and Western ways, etc. etc.  No ideology except some kind of apparent rule of the strong real-politik fetishism.  This extends to my view of Russian actions abroad.  Their interests are not the world's interests, all the more since they no longer claim to be working on behalf of the global working class.
I am not naive about the uni-polar and somewhat cynical nature of US global power.  However, there is no other country I would trust on the planet as world hegemon.  They are sometimes a force for good and sometimes not, but they are democratic, have strong institutions and rule of law, and on balance make the world a better place.  We know what the world is like to live in with the US as the world power.  I don't want to find out what it is like were another country to take that mantle.  Being against the illegal actions of the Russian state is not bias, it should be the default for anyone that believes in the principles of international law, specifically in this case idea that changes to borders must be done peacefully.

Good to know.

I believe the sound effect is just there for flavour, similar to when you remove a target/target light order (I would assume).  In neither situation do they actually cease fire.

I don't think the cover arc does anything you have mentioned, it affects "hunt" by changing it from "stop when you make contact" to "stop when you make contact within the arc".

Fire arcs do not improve spotting they only restrict fire and affect facing as far as I understand.

Fire arcs do not improve spotting they only restrict fire and affect facing as far as I understand.

Fire arcs do not improve spotting they only restrict fire and affect facing as far as I understand.

Fire arcs do not improve spotting they only restrict fire and affect facing as far as I understand.

Uncons, platoon radars, and possibly a re-think of laser warning systems on tanks, since it is such a game-changer.  Vehicle emplacements, mine clearing equipment for vehicles, etc. 
I'd be more excited for an engine update though, oh, and co-op multiplayer.  A simple ammo replenishment mechanic for artillery and on-map units.  A second look at making artillery more realistic, specifically more deadly to infantry, more destructive to buildings, more likely to knock out tanks with misses.  And the option to call for fire anywhere on the map, or at least anywhere the unit has enemy spotted markers.  Hookers.  Blackjack.

Uncons, platoon radars, and possibly a re-think of laser warning systems on tanks, since it is such a game-changer.  Vehicle emplacements, mine clearing equipment for vehicles, etc. 
I'd be more excited for an engine update though, oh, and co-op multiplayer.  A simple ammo replenishment mechanic for artillery and on-map units.  A second look at making artillery more realistic, specifically more deadly to infantry, more destructive to buildings, more likely to knock out tanks with misses.  And the option to call for fire anywhere on the map, or at least anywhere the unit has enemy spotted markers.  Hookers.  Blackjack.

That's my coin you skelpie!

Enforcing VAT only on domestic products when it applies to all would be opposite of protectionist, and remedying that should not be cast as protectionist.  However, no changes that would apply to the digital sale of the game have in fact been made.  Any changes to import of the game physically are changed to the point at which VAT is charged, and would only affect someone who was evading tax in the first instance.
 
 
We are talking about the game, to which no new charges apply.  However I will say again that VAT has not been added to anything.  The relief for consignments under £15 has been removed, the EU will be doing the same thing in July 2021, so it would be disingenuous to say it happened because we left the EU.  You have not mentioned any specific charges that have changed, VAT nor customs.  These non-existing changes are here being related to a narrative of protectionism and making leaving the EU look better, I am not interested in speculating on this.
 
Battlefront has always had to pay VAT, and it had to be charged at the point of sale on the digital product, unless someone can show a relevant exemption.  If you are correct that the 20% increase is VAT (again this is not obviously correct as you suggest) then that would suggest Battlefront had not been meeting this requirement up to now.
 
What additional taxation?  Again VAT is applicable to all goods, and customs duty was present before.  No-one here has said a free-trade agreement is tax fraud, nor is VAT being charged twice - it is either charged at the point of sale or on import, or deferred to a later date, and can be reclaimed if the product is sold on.  I will avoid discussing economic theory with you, this discussion is too broad already.
 
Can we plese try to narrow this discussion back down, and sharpen it up.  We were discussing the reason for the 20% increase in price of the game in question for customers in the UK.  Rambling paragraphs with unsubstantiated or vague assertions should be avoided.  Discussion of the benefits or otherwise of one or another trade policy should in my opinion be avoided also.
 

I know what Elvis said, I am saying that nothing relevant has changed, VAT was always applicable, charging it now (if that is what they are doing) is not the fulfllment of a new law.  You can further the discussion by disproving this, as his assertion is not UK tax law, nor did he in fact mention VAT, it is simply presumed by the percentage increase.  After all that I've had to repeat myself and waste a fourpence.
 

Enforcing VAT only on domestic products when it applies to all would be opposite of protectionist, and remedying that should not be cast as protectionist.  However, no changes that would apply to the digital sale of the game have in fact been made.  Any changes to import of the game physically are changed to the point at which VAT is charged, and would only affect someone who was evading tax in the first instance.
 
 
We are talking about the game, to which no new charges apply.  However I will say again that VAT has not been added to anything.  The relief for consignments under £15 has been removed, the EU will be doing the same thing in July 2021, so it would be disingenuous to say it happened because we left the EU.  You have not mentioned any specific charges that have changed, VAT nor customs.  These non-existing changes are here being related to a narrative of protectionism and making leaving the EU look better, I am not interested in speculating on this.
 
Battlefront has always had to pay VAT, and it had to be charged at the point of sale on the digital product, unless someone can show a relevant exemption.  If you are correct that the 20% increase is VAT (again this is not obviously correct as you suggest) then that would suggest Battlefront had not been meeting this requirement up to now.
 
What additional taxation?  Again VAT is applicable to all goods, and customs duty was present before.  No-one here has said a free-trade agreement is tax fraud, nor is VAT being charged twice - it is either charged at the point of sale or on import, or deferred to a later date, and can be reclaimed if the product is sold on.  I will avoid discussing economic theory with you, this discussion is too broad already.
 
Can we plese try to narrow this discussion back down, and sharpen it up.  We were discussing the reason for the 20% increase in price of the game in question for customers in the UK.  Rambling paragraphs with unsubstantiated or vague assertions should be avoided.  Discussion of the benefits or otherwise of one or another trade policy should in my opinion be avoided also.
 

Sorry to pull out a post from earlier in the thread, but this is well put.  This is one of a couple of big issues that the Graviteam games suffer from.  They designed a great engine, but in the name of playing at a higher tactical level, they remove fine control over individual units and add command delays.  These are both good ideas but as implemented they made the game less realistic not more.  AI is not advanced enough to do what you would do in the place of a soldier, squad or platoon leader, and they end up doing frustrating things.
 
 

As far as I know, nothing relevant has changed.  The 20% increase added for UK purchases means either:
Battlefront were paying VAT before on digital sales to UK consumers, adjusting the base price of the product to make the final price the same between US/EU markets, and have now decided to increase their prices by 20% for the UK. Battlefront were not paying VAT before on sales to UK consumers, and now they are.

When people are playing computer games all day they aren't working.  It's the same with smiling at old ladies.
A tax of this sort is not charged on imports which will be sold on to consumers, it is charged at the point of sale (or paid and reclaimed), and not charged twice on the same product.  It is charged on all consumer products which are not exempt for one reason or another (basic food items or sanitary products for example).  It is a tax designed to adjust with spending on consumer good, but not affect businesses.
UK purchasers were in fact getting Battlefront games tax-free up to now it seems, giving Battlefront an advantage over other sellers.