Andreas3

Suuuuuuuuuure

Nazi all the same.

A grammar nazi as well I see?

Sometimes one needs to go there. Especially when it comes to people like you, Arargon. Afterall, you have quite a habit of historical revisionism on this forum with regards to the holocaust and other nazi crimes of WW2. You have also stated your fascination with the SS serveral times, and I seem to remember you declaring that you almost exclusively play as the germans in Combat Mission, going so far as to refuse even playing as the americans or russians? Back in 2016 you even went as far as declaring your approval of David Irving, probably the most well known and notorious holocaust denier in the world. So yeah, Arargon, personally I would go as far as calling you a nazi fanboy. The absolute worst part of having WW2 history as a hobby is sharing it with scum like you.

Bad guys. They were fanatic bad guys.

John Kettler: "it's big brain time".

Much appreciated, thanks for the update!

Blind fanboyism at it's best. Not very "grown up" in my book...

I agree completely. The developers have developed some bad habits concerning marketing and support of their games, and these habits continue to go unchallanged by the community, thus ensuring the continuation of said bad habbits. If their product sucked I obviously wouldn't care one bit, but since the product is pretty excellent this constant lack of communication and broken promises and deadlines (in regards to the patch) is getting on my nerves.

This is going be awesome, I love me some old timey soviet weaponry!

The OPs post screams "learn to play" so loud that my ears are bleeding. Whatever meaningful points and observations he acutally manages to raise are drowned out by his ramblings consisting of opinions disgused as fact, influenced by a complete failure (or will) to understand even basic premises behind the design philosophy of the CM2-series, nor the subject matter covered by CM:BS. Waste of space.

Yeah okay, I guess you're right, but SOME information is certainly much needed!

Why have the news dried up on this? Just release it already, or at least give us a date!

Bill just lost an easy-eight! I must admit that for the longest time the match looked as if it would be a total walkover for Bill, I felt annoyed at Baneman for picking what appeared to be such poor force for the map, so naturally I was rooting for Baneman since his force seemed to be the underdog, so the fact that he seems to be absolutely wrecking Bill feels really good indeed.

Baneman has only knocked out the five M18's armed with 76mm guns, Bill still have his M36's with the 90mm's in reserve.

If he only have the two Panthers and the Jagdtiger then you are gonna win for sure, I fail to see how dismounted infantry will stand a chance against your armor heavy force on such a large map, and I dont se where he could be hiding a company of tanks himself, or why he would hide them from you in the first place?

Make your own AAR...just a suggestion from a Forum Member.

Wait, that doesnt mean that the match cant continue, right?

Seriously dude, all of the CMx2 games have demoes available for you to download (and they're quite exstensive too), download and play them and if you find the game(s) really enjoyable you'll end up buying them despite not being on Steam (cuz the games are just that good), if you, however, find the games mediocre or downright bad you obviously wont end up buying them at any point in your life since you wont find a CMx2 game on Steam summersale for 15 dollars. Please just accept these facts and spare the rest of us your pathetic bull****, the issue you're trying start a discoussion about have been debated countless times on these forums before, and the developers have made it absolutly clear that Steam is not the right platform for them, that sucks since the battlefront website and their ways of handeling buying and downloading are ancient and sucks in a lot of ways, BUT the people on the forums (me included) obviously find their games so bloody good that we're willing to look past such, in the end, rather small inconveniences, in order to enjoy their games in which they put in a lot of work and passion. So to summarize: the points you are trying to raise are bad and you should feel bad, it's a pointless discussion and therefore no one gives a **** about you in here. Dont let that bring you down though, in the end of the day you're only discussing a video game on a forum consisting of people you will most likely never meet, and who's opinion on you will have no effect whatsoever on your life, so just walk away and focus your mind on something more entertaining/rewarding/important/interesting.

How the **** would I know? Im guessing here, maybe targeting works on two levels, one with spotting modifiers (representing spotting and targeting equipment) and one where the gunner and commander simply looks out through their respective periscopes with the same spotting values as a normal rifleman in the game? I think several people have posted sufficient evidence suggesting that US vehicles might have a slightly too big of a spotting advantage compared to their russian counterparts, but I seriously didnt consider this to be one of those cases, 400 meters really isnt that far away and the Tonguska began to move and thus exposed pretty much it's entire turret compared to just the top.

Main gun is still green, I assume they spotted and killed it the old fashioned way, was only 400 meters away after all.

The Abrams tasked with hunting down the Tonguska fails to spot it and gets the same treatment as the Bradley Luckily the elusive Tonguska tries to turn and the movement is spotted by the Abrams crew, and finally the Tonguska goes down! Though the Abrams is still completely combat ineffective for the rest of the game, so I might have gotten my revenge but it's still a pyrrhic victory at best.

I had absolutly no idea I knew it was more heavily armored than, say, a BMP-2, but that well armored? And it's probably safe to asume that the ammo loadout of the Tonguska mostly consists of HE-I rounds compared to the APFSDS rounds carried in most IFV's for anti-armor work, so that would explain how the Bradley survived. Is it realistic that none of the reactive armor blocks went off? I mean they individually disappear from the model when they explode, right? It said "Hit: Reactive Armor" a couple of times I asumed that meant that the ERA-block would explode, but that didnt happen.

I think it used up all it's smoke grenades, it received a ton of laser warnings when I tried to get it in a good position earlier in the game, but the smoke dispensers might simply also have been taken out by the first volley.

Playing the Rolling Thunder scenario from the demo. My Bradley moves up from a flanking mission which have already seen one BMP-3 blown to bits when suddenly, at the start of a turn, a concealed Tonguska opens up with it's 30mm's, the Bradley doesnt spot it before being hit and the rounds immidiatly takes out it's optics and what not and combined with the smoke from the impact the crew of the Bradley never spots the Tonguska at all! The result is that for one ENTIRE turn the Bradley just sits there, getting showered with 30mm shells eventually taking out every single component, the next turn I order it to reverse out of harms way, it succedes but continues to get hit during the first half of the turn before reaching cover. In the end this Bradley have endured one and a half turns of continuous Tonguska fire, suffering what must be a couple of hundred hits...BUT NOT ONE SINGLE PENENTRATION! How that is possible I do not know, I never thought the front armor of the Bradley to be this strong