A Canadian Cat

Alright good to know. :-)

LOL, well you are correct - no one actually said that but the combined feel of these parts of posts in this thread leave me feeling the same as @slysniper

Nope! Adding more and more choices or more and more features does not make a product better. In fact it makes it worse. The old saying "things should be made as simple as possible but no simpler" holds here. You only add features and options for things that are really important. This is not important. Oh, I get that it *is* important to two people here but it is not important to even a plurality of players let alone a majority. For BFC this is a no brainer. Anyone who really wants this can tweak a scenario in the editor. Ditto designers that want this. The majority of players don't even blink at this feature of the game. Why on earth would they spend even five minutes on it when they have a list a 100 bullet points long of things that matter to more people?

Indeed - thanks for the link.

Is there any indication that Javelins were supplied to the YPG or any other Syrian rebel force? I'm not surprised by TOWs but even that I don't recall reading about.

We call it a limitation. Doing something different or better might be desirable but not at a cost of doing other work that is more important. BFC have decided to spend their resources on other things.

Yeah, unless and until the IP from that game has clear title and can be given to BFC I doubt they would touch it. Given what @Cobetco has found out my guess would be there is likely confusion and risk around how owns what. Even the alternative of the one of the new companies taking it up again seems a long shot for similar reasons plus they would have to get BFC to give the go ahead too. So, seeing a updated version seems really, really unlikely. As my son's hockey coach used to say "don't hold your breath - cause you might die".

25% sounds like a good choice. Good luck....

Yes. Not just from that conflict either. As @Vergeltungswaffe pointed out modern weapons are very deadly. As @Sgt.Squarehead pointed out some systems are speculative and BFC got some things right and other not quite. Actual experienced tankers have commented on here that those speculative systems preform in line with what they expect and the SOP of units reacting to the battle field are what they would expect as well. So, for your question in the title the answer is very. I predict that you are about the discover that some people don't think so and you are about to hear from some of them because I answered your question with a "very".

Yeah but we learned this stuff by playing a ton and reading this forum. You can / will too.

I am not 100% sure - never really paid attention to rounding - but it is all about ratios. Meeting engagements are even points and the Probe, Assault and Attack are ratios (probe being closes to even attack furthest) and the size of the battle plays into it too. It would not surprise me if there was a single round number for each size of battle and then the battle types just multiply by a fraction to figure out the final numbers for each type of battle. Like I said I don't really know because I never asked the boss and never really cared much about the specific numbers. You might be able to do some testing to see if what I suggest feels correct or not. Or perhaps a tester who has asked the question before might chime in.

The adjustment that was made was *not* to prevent the unbuttoning to use of the external MG it was to make it happen less frequently. But if the vehicle is threatened by near by infantry they will still open up on their own to defend themselves.

Ah, I see. There is no aquiring between soldiers so there is no way to transfer ammo from one team to another. Mortars and MG teams often have ammo bearer teams. Any of those teams can share with between Mortar and MG crews in the same platoon. In fact the MG and mortar crews will take ammo from their ammo bearer teams first (as long as they are close enough) that way once they have no ammo left they can go back to the truck and acquire more to bring back to the crewed weapon. For this I am not totally clear what you mean. Who game the mortar team rockets and grenades? Many teams have a supply of grenades and you can order any team to acquire bazooka rockets but mortar teams do not ever come with bazookas and rounds by default - at least that I am aware of.

They will not automatically share but you can have teams mount the carrier and use the acquire command to get any of that equipment. Including the mortar team.

I forgot to mention that members of the blitz are playing a scenario this month designed by our own @Bulletpoint. He asked me it we could do that a while back and we are finally here. Going to be interesting. And fun.

Cool, great post. We'll call it your first and declare you the all time fist post winner!

This would have to be a change made by the scenario author. The AI is surrendering because you have beat up his forces so much that their morale is low. Most likely while you were getting your FO into position you pounded on and or killed a large number of the enemy units. They have given up and retreated. My understanding is that if the scenario author wanted to have the force take more of a pounding then they could create some reinforcements and schedule them to arrive after the scenario ends. That way they would not change the play balance but they would count in the factoring of morale levels.

Just closing the loop - bug reported...

Interesting. How about posting a saved game and then anyone who wants can dl it, load it and show what their game looks like? Co you have that saved by chance?

Finally the voice of wisdom and reason sounds above the testosterone

So the .50 cal will only be used if the TC is unbuttoned. The hull MG should be independent and fire - seen it may times - even when the turret is pointed else where messing with a different target. As @Vanir Ausf B is probably alluding to there is a damageable component called "weapon controls" (wpn ctrls or something) that when it gets the red X nothing can fire. Yes, it is a bit black or white - it's an abstraction...

Yes, I remember now - fun. Frustrating at times (no spoilers but nothing seemed to go right or smoothly). It is one of those hard ones where you appreciate the challenge afterwards - especially after you hear how hard your opponent found it too.

Ah I see that now. That kinda sucks. Thanks.

OK now I am totally confused. The first time I clicked on you link just like @Ridaz I saw no number 6. The link went to the start of the thread. Not list no number 6. But now that I added my link directly to the post that has the numbered list you quoted both links open that post. Wired - or maybe just me (and @Ridaz :-)

Ah - you linked to the thread not the post. This is the post: