Jargotn

I believe that in this case the rail-ontext is not refering to a curtain rail but to the "tracks"-rail. In this case "Halt" is short for "Haltestelle", which you explained later. "Halte" is the plural which is used when refering to multiple stops: This train has two stops. Dieser Zug hat zwei Halte (->stellen). On german roads you are waiting if you are close to your car and don't stand still for more than three minutes. But I believe that is besides the point here. And yes, the word "Haltezeiten" does exist and is commonly used in exactly that context. Literally translated "Haltestelle" does mean "stopping place" (As in: The place where something stops). You'll normally use it to refer not only to busstops, but also to similar public transports (The Underground, normal trains, etc.) i don't think that "Halte" is a diminuition for "Haltestelle". Haltestelle is a a place (or a noun), but the sentence we are referring to needs something that itself refers to Geschwindigkeit. Or, to make this more understandable to anyone who can't talk german (By the way, hello to you all. Greetings! We will have finished soon, I promise!) You can't say "Our speed at the moment: Stopping place". You could say "Our speed at the moment: Halted." I can, however, imaginethat "die Halte" was used in that context but isn't anymore today. I know that if "die Halte" was regularly used in my surroundings the sentence from the book would sound just fine. Maybe that is what happened here? It would make more sense regarding the instructions written in the same paragraph. dict.cc is an excellent source I often use myself.I can't say the same about vocabulix. Not because It's bad, but because I never used it before. It might be good or bad, but the translation it provided here seems fitting. Because firing on the move wasn't something to be encouraged except at close range, and as paragraph 8 says, move fast because moving slowly makes you an easier target, and doesn't improve your gunnery any, as paragraph 9 makes clear: Fire, then maneuver. So either the instructions are contradictory, or "die Halte" is both what is meant and means what it sounds like it should mean. Hell, if firing on the move was such a good idea, what purpose does gun stabilisation serve? And surely, if you're ever supposed to fire stationary, that makes three speeds (stopped, half and full) if "halbe" was the intention of the original pamphlet. Because it's absolutely clear that shooting while stopped is best. Exactly. That's what I think is weird about the whole thing. Maybe the guy who posted the instructions himself didn't think about "die Halte" and used "die Halbe" instead, reversing the meaning. We may never know

As a german native speaker I can assure you that "die halbe" means "the half". "Halte" is a word that doesn't exist. "Halt" would be the word for stop, but then the sentence wouldn't make any sense: "Die halbe" refers to "Geschwindigkeit which means speed. (Translated: "The half" "speed", "die halbe" "Geschwindigkeit"). If the writer wanted to say that the tank had to stop and obey basic german grammar instead of "Halt" he would have had to use "stehende" (standing). "For a tank there should only be two speeds: The standing (because the sentence is built so that it refers back to speed) and full (again, refering back to speed.) Für einen Panzer sollte es nur zwei Geschwindigkeiten geben: die stehende nd Vollgas voraus. Or, if you neither care for german grammar nor the detailed explanation: No typo. Half speed is what the text is saying.

I sure hope they do. That's not a 24-hour ration pack, that's a breakfast. I really hope they cut out the later part of the video, otherwise I must fear for oiur allies health!

The main problem I see is not that people won't be able to differentiate between gothic line and gustav line, but that both modules will be shortened to CMGL. That will cause confusion, and, I believe, lots of it. I never read enough about the italian front to find a new, fitting name. From what I remember "Operation olive" might seem appropiate. Plz no kill me 4 no grognard.

I believe that politeness is key for good critiscism. The first thing to do is to never, never attack your opponent directly. Always remember: Engage the problem, not the opponent. Else you won't be able to move forward. Second: Make the other person feel understood. If you say "I believe that this and that needs improvements" and somebody else says "nope", first follow point one (don't attack) and then show them that you are on their side: IN this case, you both want to get the best out of a game. Don't say "You are a fanboy", or "F****** old breed", say "I can see where you are coming from, and, while I agree with some of your points, I do believe that further clarification is needed, so that you can understand mine". Be constructive. Third: Be careful how you open up an issue. If you say "This is s***, this should change!" you'll immediately see the answers you got: If you attack something others will defend it. Instead, try to show everybody what your motivation is, and why you believe your way is better.. "I'm seeing other games with features I believe might improve the experience for everybody. I know that my position might be controversial, please help me make the game better." Also, note how you should try to, immediately, inlude the people you are talking to. They can help you, you can help them. You aren't engaging each other, but you are tackling the problem. Include them, and ask them to include themselves! And, fourth: Don't hunker down in your position. The moment oyu hunker down is the moment you feel that everybody attacking your position is attacking you and you start attacking them. Take a safe distance from all of your arguments. And, if you realise that you are wrong, take a step back. You aren't loosing if you got the best result for everybody! Criticism doesn't equal attacking something. You can criticize in a polite way. I have never seen something good coming out of anything that startes with "your s*** is s***." While having a discussion in of itself can be fun, I don't think that's your goal here. Techincally not true, atleast if you are refering to the comment I have in mind. Nothing about death. Just about complaining somewhere else. But please don't misunderstand me, I do not agree with this statement.

This is BFCs forum. They can do whatever they want with it, and I respect that. Their house, their rules. I'd love to have a forum where nobody needs to be the "bad guy" and lock threads, or ban people. But sometimes a discussion won't lead to anything but anger, and if that's the case I'd rather have somebody tell everyone to calm down by locking the thread, instead of watching everyone shouting. We aren't perfect, and sometimes things will go out of hand. That's normal, but it can also be a extremely unpleasant experience for everyone involved. And, I have to disagree, sometimes we ARE wild "rude,arugmentless creatures". That's perfetly normal. But it's also, as I said above, extremely unpleasant. There are enough places on the internet where you get shouted at. I don't need that here, too. But I also do see your point. Hearing an argument, no matter how good or reasonable it is, and being unable to respond to it, no matter how good the reason, is something nobody likes. But someone has to do the last post. So, how can we change behaviour, to give everybody the best forum-experience? I'd say that the last post before lock shouldn't be an argument, but a simple "this discussion leads to nothing" or "everything that has been said or will be said was said before, no reason to kick dead horses"-post. Of course, after such a post, every participant has to accept that everybody, not just they, were told to calm down. No injustice and no censorship, everybody shuts up. Or, you could just do whatever you want. Tua casa, tue regole.

You'll find it in most of the older warsaw pact vehicles. While in the west smoke was a defensive measure in the east it was something you'd also use on the offensive: Lay down smoke to make the defender unable to shoot at your approaching tanks.

If I remember correctly, the slower you go the lower the chance for you to bog is. If I see something bogging somewhere on the map I'll usually change the speed of all vehicles of the same type on the same terrain a step lower.

Yes, CM moves in tiny baby steps. However, there were some improvements that I'd call "mayor". Being able to shoot at planes. Onmap mortars. If you look at the core of it, CM is a very tiny game. Extremely complex, but also, just like BFC, rather small. However, I do like that BFC seems to have found the right speed to both deliver us regular upgrades to the engine while at the same time staying in business.

Pick your fights. Retreat if you have to, or you will die.

This made me think about a discussion we had before release about fighting after nuclear/chemical/biological impact. Now we could just add gasmasks and suites, pull down all the stats in the editor and have a realistic WW3 experience. Imagine the possibilities!

The simple reason BFC doesn't do flash sales is that it doesn'T give them anything. THe moment you regularly offer your games at a discount your costumers will start buying during those discounts- and you will have less money at the end of the day. But then, you might ask, why are there other companies that offer sales? The reason you'd want a sale is that more people who don't regularly buy your games buy it. If you watch a Steamsale you might see a game where you'd think "Yeah, I might enjoy that!", You wouldn't buy it at a regular price, but buying it at 50% off? Thats a great deal. This works great for games that will soon go out of retail (which doesn't apply in this case. BFC sellf online) and games that might be enjoyed by a broad audience. As Steve said, CM is a subgenre of a subgenre. You won't find many people who'd buy this in the first place. And those who would will buy it, sale or not. Thats the reason why you won't see a sale any time soon. CM just isn't mainstream enough,

The reason I relly liked FI was the unique italian landscape. Lots of hills and, maybe even more important, snow if you buy it with the Gustav Line expansion. It also seemed smaller, with less troops involved. However, if you prefer tanks over infantry and want to see tankriders and flamethrowers i'd tell you to go for RT.

Yes, if I remember correctly it was brought up before. Battlefront said that it was to much work to include unless there was a major incentive, like a military contract, requiring them to implement it. Regardless of how much work it would be, it would be awesome!

Wait... Are you telling me that you buy a new computer every year? We all know that DRM is an inconvenience, both for us players and the developers. But if it wouldn't work in some way developers wouldn't spend resources to aquire DRM. I never had any problems with DRM, and from what I can tell Battlefront prides themselves with their excellent customer support. Yes, it sucks not being able to download everything as much as you want. Some will prefer a system where they have to enter a key once and won't be bothered again, others like DRM plattforms like Steam which expect you to log into an account every time you want to play something, but in return offer a huge number of games connected to your account, and additional fetures. In the end I't say that (this kind of) DRM is just a minor inconvenience: You do it once, and unless something unexpected happens you can play your game. If you liked the game don't let the activation procedure stop you from enjoying it.

I can't tell you how many small maps there are, but there are lots of maps. One key feature of the game are the quickbattles. If you add up the scenario maps with alll the quickbattle maps you have more maps than you can play on. Also, keep in mind that we have the map editor. If you see a big map it's easy to crop it down and create two or three small maps in the process.

Something similar happened to me in CMFI some time ago. I drove a tank (either the Tiger or the Ferdinand, I can't remember) through a city with very small alleys and it somehow ended up driving through a house. I have to look if I can find a screenshot somewhere...

This just makes me sad. I really hope, for all parties involved, that the conflict will end rather soon. However, looking at both the situation on the ground and the international political situation, I don't think that that will be the case. Thanks for the translated version, I believe that it offered me some insight into the sotuation on the ground. I expected a "all is f*****" mentality, but it surprised me that the situation was that bad.

It would be great if you could pst a screenshot or video of your testbuild to give us the option to come to our own conclusions. If the T-90 can't spot the M1A2 first in all tries something might be wrong. It might be wrong. We all know that both the T-90 and the M1A2 have good optics, and AFAIK the M1A2 has better optics. How long does it take for the tanks to spot each other? Did they spawn in plain view of each other or did the M1A2 drive into the T90s line of sight? And, most importantly, why would you post something like this? You don't seem to know what to improve (you didn't offer a solution or something comparable), you didn't ask if this was a bug or intended and you started attacking the game, and therefore BFC, directly. What are you trying to achieve? Do you just want to rage or do you want to make the game better?

Oops, I actually wanted to answer my question with "No". Looks like I copied something and didn't read my answer before posting. Sorry if my mistake caused any confusion. Actually, I wasn't. I tried to make a (bad) joke about the ambiguity of "BS" as an acronym for both "Black Sea" and "Bull excrements" since you used it abainst DreDays post ("I call "BS" on this."). Making a (bad) joke is something I usually do while entering a discussion to set up the right mood: Nothing is personal, we all understand each other, we can make jokes about stuff. Again, my excuses if I caused any confusion. The rest of you answer was (as expected) well argued and rational. I think we are talking about the same thing, just in different situations. Thanks for the clarification, though.

On this one I have to disagree with you. Regardless of the rest of this dicussion I find this (at least the statement in the beginning) to be a valid position to take. Granted, DreDay could just have answered "True". And I believe that is the answer you (and I) expected to hear. However, he doesn't answer because it "ignores much of the origins of this conflict". Yes, you didn't ask about the background. But looking at the whole conflict without looking at the background will produce a biased view of the current situation. Taking something out of context is an easy way to discredit someones opinion and asking for a simple "Yes or No" answer feels, at least to me, just like that. I think here you misinterpreted DreDays answer. He didn't say "Now I ask you: Would we be talking about all the horrors of this war had the new Kiev government (again with full approval of US and EU) had not chosen that its own selfish interests are best served by violently suppressing a sizable regional and cultural minority instead of embracing the dialog with them?” but he said "One could ask", and I think that this "one could ask" is key here. I don't think that you would feel comfortable answering the question "If Kiev hadn't decided to side with the West, after a change in power, would there be a bloody conflict in easter Ukraine?" with "yes" because it takes things out of context. Yes, without a change in power there would be no conflict, but without the government being controlled by Russia there would have been no change in power in the first place. (Probably, but let's not talk about alternative history here.) Asking someone to say just that without explanation forces them to acknowledge something that might be true, but it will show a biased picture of their position. Also, BS? Why would you use the name of such a beautifull and masterfully researched game as an attack? You don't have to do that. We all know who is winning this discussion.

Don't move forward without suppressing all enemy positions. A big part of urban combat is finding the enemy. As soon as you know where he is at make sure that he doesn't leave that position. As an attacker it's hard to find enemy units without taking casualties, so make sure that you only have to find them once.

A nice, quick scenario! I think I'll replay it more seriously later, but please keep up the good work!

Today: Teamwork for pros. Lesson one. Task one: An Ukrainian Tank, hiding in the forrest. How do you solve this problem? Correct! Use your artillery spotter to mark the tank and fire some precision artillery! Then wait six minutes and watch the guided shells hit the trees instead. Destroying them and allowing your tank to see the enemy tank! Teamwork!

I -think- that Steve said that they wouldn't inculde a LOS tool because it would make the game to controllable. Right now we have the option to target and, while it is a bit annoying to use, it offers surprises if you don't look precisely enough. I don't think that BF wants to eliminate those surprises.