Ultradave

Yes. This needs to get pinned somewhere: 1. Right click on the installer and select Open. That will skip the step of authorizing it in System Preferences 2. It will begin verifying. This takes a few minutes. Wait it out. It will appear stuck when the progress bar is about 2/3 complete. It's ok. It will finish. Fix a drink or a snack 3. Depending on whether you've updated to Catalina or not you'll get a message that Apple can't verify it free of Malware. But you can click on the Open button (be careful to not just hit enter because the dialog has the Cancel button selected in blue by default. 4. Once you've done that you'll be presented with the familiar regular installer window. As for why it's this way, you'd have to ask Steve for details. I have a couple of astronomy planning programs and they have similar issues. The developer of one of those has said for a niche program it's expensive and a pain to get it done and not worth it to him. That's his view. He vouches for his software.

I would try reinstalling the patch if you haven't already. Or if you did the all in one download, try reinstalling that. I'm pretty sure all the ..... 210.brz files were installed by the patch.

After reading about it and being educated by a couple of other testers, the idea was for a sort of ambush position, the vehicle could get out to the rear quickly, even considering the driver having to jump back in. Less vulnerable in an "advance to the rear" situation. Also because it was built on a Valentine tank chassis it kept the overall length down. It's a really quirky AFV. I didn't know anything about it until it was added. I agree with Elvis there too. That's a fun scenario. Really different.

. deleted

Everybody does. Oddly enough, that's the way the real one was designed.

I posted this to the FI Beta forum. The OP is correct on all 3 catches and it's been reported (there is a application for entry of bug reports). And yes, the reason Brummbär Game was changed from its original form - Elephant Game - is exactly that - the availability of the Elephant in R2V and making R2V independent of GL (edited to match John's comment below) I don't know if there is a spreadsheet as you suggest. There may be. A couple of people did most of the TO&E work.

Nope. But I'm on a Mac. I don't recall anyone mentioning that offhand during testing.

A lot of the bug testing to death was to get the TO&E to work. It's *possible* you may need to play around a lot with dates on QB setups to get the vehicles you want, because a lot of work went into not only having all the correct formations and vehicles, but also the dates that they would be available. Playing around with some QB setups I don't see the "latest" versions either. Yet.

The module was released yesterday. No one has had any chance to modify any mods for it yet (In Beta we remove any mods we have so we know any issues are truly game related). My opinion would be to get it, and when and if mods are developed or fixed, then add them. You still have all of Aris vehicles, plus flames, smoke, terrain tiles, and others that do work. There are some new vehicles that obviously won't have mods yet, but the skins for various country's versions of M4's with their correct country markings, for example, look pretty nice as is. The other thing is Booty is currently working on the CMMODS site and they aren't all there, from what I can see. (like gridded terrain I don't see anywhere). They still exist and he's getting things organized.

The new scenarios have R2V as a PREFIX. So in the Battles, listed alphabetically, you'll see, say, "R2V Riva Ridge", just like the previous GL battles were listed as "GL Bear Claw" for example.

Anytime. Just happened to see it.

If I understand what Andy_101 is doing, he's moving the FI directory OUT of his games folder and into the Applications folder which is the default install location. If you just drag it there, it only creates an alias. Hold down COMMAND, while dragging it and it will move it. Then you should be able to run the patch, which will update it, license it, and then you can reverse the process and move it back to "Games" by COMMAND dragging the whole FI folder back there. Hope that helps. (and I hope I understood it correctly)

Check the last few posts here: Specifically the last one from Elvis.

I meant that for BF the 64 bit is not the issue, just the security stuff. Probably didn't express myself clearly.

Michael. It's not the 64 bit question, although that IS a Catalina feature (or issue depending on your perspective). The security for applications without Apple's blessing is tighter. There is no "anywhere" that Elvis posted up above anymore. That's currently on Mojave and earlier but is gone now on Catalina so you have to specifically authorize it on Catalina. The easiest way to get around this now, if BF apps still have that issue (they do in Beta), is this: 1. Instead of the usual double click on the installer after download, RIGHT CLICK on it and select OPEN from the menu. That will bypass the first security check and keep you from having to open System Preferences/Security to authorize it. (NOTE:. If you forget and double click, it's ok. There will be an unauthorized developer message. Open System Preferences, Security tab, and at bottom right click on Open Anyway) 2. A "verifying" window with progress bar will open. It's takes at least a couple minutes. 2/3 of the way it will look stuck. Just wait it out. 3. A window will appear asking if you really want to open it, something about not being able to verify for malware. The default is set to cancel, so you have to physically select Open. 4. Then you get the normal installer windows for Mac and in a few minutes you'll be up and running. John, you may want to copy and paste this to somewhere handy for the help desk and pin it when R2V is released - or maybe pin it to some overall Mac users spot since it applies to anything installed under Catalina. ALL of CM games run just fine under Catalina. I've noticed no issues at all either in R2V beta or any of the other titles. BTW I'm one of the "weird Mac testers"

Either Italian Theatre Zouaves, or British soldier in bathrobes headed for a shower.

And then bread, c'est bon.

Not part of a nuclear submarine design and construction contract. The vast majority of submarine maintenance is done at government shipyards by government employees. The private shipyards do some small minor or emergent jobs. These aren't big bucks by any means. In addition a VIRGINIA submarine costs in the ballpark of $3.2B. The "contractor's" part of that is in the neighborhood of $1B+. That includes subcontracting for CFE (contractor furnished equipment), like valves and pipe. There is a LOT of GFE in a sub. (government furnished equipment). Of course, for much of that equipment, other contractors build them and supply them to the shipyard. The Navy, however, drives a hard bargain, and for nuclear subs, they are being delivered ahead of schedule (on an ever decreasing schedule) and under budget. It's a program where taxpayers are getting their money's worth, with good accounting. Circuit board replacements are done by the crew. From spare parts they stock and carry on the ship. I don't know about other weapons systems contracts.

This is great. I played this PBEM against someone a while back and had a blast as the Germans. Lots of long range tank shots across the fields and trying to use what little cover there is. With updates I had lost the scenario.

Also, there are demos for EACH game. Free. Download them all and try them out. They will give you a good flavor of each particular title. But they are all worth it, and you'll probably have most fun with the period/campaign that interests you the most.

In my real life job I design and test the propulsion plants for nuclear submarines. We don't follow those guidelines. Because, ..., well, submarines.

Found one yesterday. Pretty small one, but annoying just the same. Although actually it was pretty funny, other than the obvious issue of having a problem.

I've seen this guy's videos on other weapons too. Nice little range to play on he has there. And yeah, that thing is very loud.

They look good in game. You can see some of them right on Battlefront's main web page. The teaser picture there of the troops running past the tank is from a scenario featuring South Africans. Nice scenario too.

I agree with Bud. The R2V stock scenario is good. One thing I'm liking about the R2V scenarios is that in several cases there is a role for proper use of recon to scout out the opposition. Failure to do so = bad things happening. Very bad things. (Ask me how I know this). In many CM scenarios the situation is pretty clear and the mission is to have at them. R2V in general is going to require some caution and development of the situation. IMO this is a really good thing. The stock scenario this map is from is a great example of that. As is the one that Elvis posted the edited picture from. You have recon forces and a reason to make use of them.