Rinaldi

Meh. Close assaults are messy; sometimes they go right, sometimes they go tits up. "God" spotting tanks is a preposterous claim with a dearth of evidence to support it.

What better way to introduce someone to a forum than by showcasing how you are a crass, classless pig? Welcome regardless, I suppose. Ignore the idiots, the rest of us do.

It's ERA in a soft module. It's been seen before:

A fair point; and I don't think the rarity system would seriously offset it. It would an almost decisive advantadge for the Allied player at the tactical level. Besides, it was a rare thing indeed for a Rifle company leader to be able to have a direct line to a L-4 or something similar.

lmao it's just more mindless grumbling and pining for the fjords @IanL: "God-Like-Player coupled with Info Sharing is just to much and gives unrealistic results. " is just another glorious cheap shot from the peanut gallery from this particular user. C2 is great in CM, and really there's few competitors. Graviteam is about the only other game of this vein who's C2 remotely pleased me as much as CM's. @Michael Emrys strikes a good point with flying column cover; became pretty common in a relative sense. I think they managed to maintain at least 2 birds for a combat command doing attack-recce's when the weather would allow it. Kind of makes me wish the WWII titles had dedicated Forward Air Controller roles that allowed for more robust ground-talk than what we have now (re: Planes report back on the invisible contacts they often engage). Also kinda makes me wish the UAS concept was cannibalized to abstract spotter-planes. These would enhance the game, but there's certainly no hole left by them not being in.

I'm starting to hope for it myself. If they release a Shockforce II that's just a straight upgrade of the current scenario I quite naturally won't complain but if they try to reflect the current world situation or tie it into Black Sea somehow (doubtful) I'd sprain something reaching for my wallet.

More toxic verbage that I can only describe as waste from you. I wasn't aware the Russians lacked T90s and Kornets that the Syrians get . As for the game, if you don't want to pay for it - don't. Steve isn't the man with the gun. Everyone else wants more modules as well, all caps hammering on the keyboard and hairbrained rants don't make them come any faster. Have a shred of class.

Hopefully you still have the scenario file, I'd love to take a look at what you have thus far with your permission.

You've gotten excellent advice from some of our best community mappers. Bottom line; create a scenario you yourself would want to play and move from there. All the contextual hogwash isn't important unless you decide to make it so.

I wouldn't have minded AVLBs, MICLICs and Mine Rollers for designing a classic breaching mission, but you can still do one without; given how fluid the fighting is meant to appear in the Black Sea game its easy to 'write-in' the fact that niether side has time to dig in so completely and wholly. Mine rollers are definitely still on my wish list. Its tough to do a proper anti-tank ditch with how an action space is 8x8 anyways. That's pretty wide for a proper AT ditch. They're usually half that width.

Shameless plug

Some very good advice. Will have to give it a try when the Afghanistan itch gets scratched.

My thought as well. The graphic seems to imply a high attack profile rather than a true top attack; which isn't what the Javelin does at longer ranges. Regardless, a bit of RnD based around a potential adversary isn't exactly a bad thing either.

Have another save for you too, from the same match. This one's a bit more cut and dry, as there's no direct fire mixed in. PM me whenever you're free.

What battlefront can't do in scenarios for all the reasons of business you just stated Steve, community map makers can step in and do. They don't get a paycheque either way, or risk going out of business, so they can experiment.

It's almost certainly off-board artillery. Myself and Miller are doing a PBEM in CMBS at present and my infantry (who are in rather extensive platoon fighting trenches) were doing fine against direct fire weaponry, holding their positions. The moment a single spotting round fell, 3 teams broke cover out of the trenches and got wasted. Mental state was at "rattled." Save file will be PM'd to anyone interest with the pw needed to unlock the turn for anyone interested. I'm going to be re-installing a v.104 copy to see if I can't quantify things, but I think Slysniper has gotten to the heart of the issue. It's annoying, but not game breaking, but it'll wear me down before long. In deliberate defense circumstances like this, it makes little sense for what is otherwise a welcome change in AI behavior. As much as I love running rough-shod over a well prepared defense, I like some 'bite' from my dug-in opponents. It seems to have disappeared with the current update.

lmao, here we go. This should be good.

This. When GeorgeMC gave you all a legitimate recon mission (straight down to the "don't get effing spotted") in his latest RT campaign a disturbing number of you all came back with game-grumping about how you got poor results because you got spotted; either because they couldn't be bothered to read the briefing or couldn't wrap their heads around the idea that you may not want to be spotted when doing a zone recce ("but the Russias will all be dead!"). The crowd's fickle. Turns out most people like Company-level tactical puzzles because everything else is too frickin' complicted. More's the pity, because that can get old fast. Those same people, of course, are also the first to groan about map size being too small or "artifical"; as they proceed to lead their 100 odd something men to take a single objective and praise the scenario.

I agree, nothing to discuss; but plenty to quantify. Care to do so?

Usually I just re-open the file in MS Paint and save it as a bmp there if there's any wonkiness. MS Paint .bmps tend to always be compatible.

At a guess and if I had to assume, you didn't save it as a 24 bit bmp.

Lmfao, @LUCASWILLEN05 I'm split between feeling pity for how painfully obtuse you are and admiring your predilection for stating the obvious. Stop cluttering up these forums with your honey-sprinkled garbage. You're ignorant. We're all well aware of the shorter distances the Russians have to travel, thanks Napoleon. That doesn't affect my point. If the United States wants to fight a strategic war, it can. The Russians cannot. They have not been capable since 1989. End of story. Laugh. My. Ass. Off.

The US Military dwarfs the Russians in overall force size and budget...a complete strategic reversal from the mid 1980s. Go to the library.

1) Way to circumnavigate the Stryker locked thread. One would probably serve to be a bit more cautious with these jokes, given that quite a few of the constituent realms of the UK are debating leaving it at present :^); who knows what might happen? 2) What @HerrTom said. I'm much less worried about what NATO as a whole would do and much more worried about what individual nations may or may not do unilaterally - on both sides. It's hard times for every country and the last thing any sane person should want is armed conflict; regardless of your opinions of certain governments. With luck, the deterrent holds as it has for 75 years.