sid_burn

This is great to hear.
I think you could maybe even include some of your Ukranian mods in Shock Force 2. The Marines have been working a lot with the Ukrainians recently (hopefully the Ukrainians were teaching them how to properly deal with Russian forces 😁), so maybe you could even represent Ukrainian mercenaries or advisers? I think it was @IICptMillerII or @Sulomon who mentioned how he'd love to see the Azov Regiment fight the Republican Guard!

CMBS: Ukrainian National Guard Mod By Oleksandr

This mod will replace standard uniform of Ukrainian Armed Forces with some uniforms of Ukrainian National Guard.

As usual I reworked all the gear, uniforms, etc.

This mod will not conflict with any of my Digital Camouflage Ukrainian Mods.

This mod will provide you with 6 variants of uniform, 3 variants of helmet, new backpack, new insignias and so on.

 
I hope that some of you will enjoy this mod and will have fun playing the game.
Good luck!
Link to download: http://cmmodsiii.greenasjade.net/?p=6449

To honour how badly this thread has been derailed, I present a poem:   I met a traveller from an antique thread, Who said—“Two vast and trunkless legs of ****posting in the BFC forums. . . . Near them, on the sand, Half sunk a shattered visage lies, whose frown, And wrinkled lip, and sneer of cold command, Tell that its sculptor well those passions read Which yet survive, stamped on these lifeless things, The hand that mocked them, and the heart that fed; And on the pedestal, these words appear: My name is Oleksander, Ukranian of ukranians; Look on my tactics, ye Mighty, and despair! Nothing beside remains. Round the decay Of that colossal Thread, boundless and bare The lone and level foxholes stretch far away.”

To be fair, it takes very little to strike fear into the heart of the ukranian army. Even uttering the simple phrase “that ridge is held by unemployed taxi drivers” is enough to turn the Azov battalion into a quivering mess. 

This is a bad argument. They keep all relevant information (sales figures, cash flow, etc.) secret ostensibly to "protect it from competition." Just pointing to longevity is ridiculous, for all you know they could have been limping along for 20 years, it's literally impossible to know how successful they are. 
I'll tell you what's not a sign of a good company, releasing an update with a game breaking bug (I consider it game breaking because it effectively makes the single player unplayable, unless you enjoy effortlessly gunning down fleeing AI troops) and charge $10 for it. Then going over a year and a half without any sign of a fix on the way. Bonus points for the fact that the update to fix 4.0 will also likely require you to pay for it because BFC loves its customers so much that they nickle and dime them for basic bug fixes. 
But hey, I gotta give some credit to BFC, they've clearly mastered the art of building up a dedicated fanbase. Paying customers are demanding some action to fix their game, and we got @IanL throwing out terms like snowflakes, because screw them for wanting to be able to play their $60 game without using janky workarounds. 
 

This is rich coming from someone who just handwaves away all criticisms on the basis that "they must know what they are doing." 
Again, you have literally no evidence to back up your own assertions, yet pull out the "get more evidence card." 
 
At this point we'll likely see the major effects of climate change before we actually get the 4.0 patch or any substantial content. But personally I look forward to the forum update:
 "Hey it's Steve here reporting from the flooded ruins of Augusta Maine, 4.0 fix will be coming soon, in the meantime here are 2 random Rome to Victory Screenshots, give us money."
 
But then we get to my favourite part
 
Smart move to run away, come at me with something a bit better next time or don't come at all. 
 
 
 

This is a bad argument. They keep all relevant information (sales figures, cash flow, etc.) secret ostensibly to "protect it from competition." Just pointing to longevity is ridiculous, for all you know they could have been limping along for 20 years, it's literally impossible to know how successful they are. 
I'll tell you what's not a sign of a good company, releasing an update with a game breaking bug (I consider it game breaking because it effectively makes the single player unplayable, unless you enjoy effortlessly gunning down fleeing AI troops) and charge $10 for it. Then going over a year and a half without any sign of a fix on the way. Bonus points for the fact that the update to fix 4.0 will also likely require you to pay for it because BFC loves its customers so much that they nickle and dime them for basic bug fixes. 
But hey, I gotta give some credit to BFC, they've clearly mastered the art of building up a dedicated fanbase. Paying customers are demanding some action to fix their game, and we got @IanL throwing out terms like snowflakes, because screw them for wanting to be able to play their $60 game without using janky workarounds. 
 

They won´t release anything soon. Too busy with not talking to customers.

You really ought to reflect on some of the statements you make. I provided perfectly reasonable circumstantial evidence as to what might have increased the delay with the patch, yet you dismiss that in favour of your own "circumstantial evidence".  But what is your circumstantial evidence-  I mean you thought that the NZ business was merely some association with dating back over 12 months and I conclusively proved you wrong by providing a direct quote from Steve about the association in January. Moreover, it was ongoing at that point. But you know ... just keep digging!

 
 
Yeh but you are throwing around ad hominem attacks, calling people stupid and suggesting they need to grow up. You really do need a dose of your medicine!

 
 
To be fair to Ian, he is being genuine I think here. Ian does write things that read or are received negatively, (we are all guilty of that some more than others) but when he clarifies or reconsiders his responses, he's being genuine. It's fine to address the issue but then it's only right to cut these fellas some slack too when we move on. 

This is a bad argument. They keep all relevant information (sales figures, cash flow, etc.) secret ostensibly to "protect it from competition." Just pointing to longevity is ridiculous, for all you know they could have been limping along for 20 years, it's literally impossible to know how successful they are. 
I'll tell you what's not a sign of a good company, releasing an update with a game breaking bug (I consider it game breaking because it effectively makes the single player unplayable, unless you enjoy effortlessly gunning down fleeing AI troops) and charge $10 for it. Then going over a year and a half without any sign of a fix on the way. Bonus points for the fact that the update to fix 4.0 will also likely require you to pay for it because BFC loves its customers so much that they nickle and dime them for basic bug fixes. 
But hey, I gotta give some credit to BFC, they've clearly mastered the art of building up a dedicated fanbase. Paying customers are demanding some action to fix their game, and we got @IanL throwing out terms like snowflakes, because screw them for wanting to be able to play their $60 game without using janky workarounds. 
 

Like I said, provide an actual argument and I’ll bother to actually engage it. The Baghdad Bob routine you are pulling isn’t an argument “the 4.0 patch is coming guys, ignore the tanks rolling behind me.”  
Also lmao did you just try and throw out a little threat? Oh no I might get banned from an Internet forum, 😭 if it’s so offensive, I’ll remove it. Wouldn’t want to offend the real snowflakes, as @IanL would say
It took @Rinaldi and @IICptMillerII pointing out the 4.0 glitch for it to even be acknowledged. Gotta wonder if this whole issue could have been avoided if BFC hired some competent beta testers off indeed. 

I'll have to disagree, infantry become absolutely useless once they start taking indirect fire.
 
Its not hard to give us an update on the progress of the patch, even a simple "its taking longer than expected to fix" would be fine

The (poor) sarcasm is doing you no favors. Jackass move.

This is rich coming from someone who just handwaves away all criticisms on the basis that "they must know what they are doing." 
Again, you have literally no evidence to back up your own assertions, yet pull out the "get more evidence card." 
 
At this point we'll likely see the major effects of climate change before we actually get the 4.0 patch or any substantial content. But personally I look forward to the forum update:
 "Hey it's Steve here reporting from the flooded ruins of Augusta Maine, 4.0 fix will be coming soon, in the meantime here are 2 random Rome to Victory Screenshots, give us money."
 
But then we get to my favourite part
 
Smart move to run away, come at me with something a bit better next time or don't come at all. 
 
 
 

This is a bad argument. They keep all relevant information (sales figures, cash flow, etc.) secret ostensibly to "protect it from competition." Just pointing to longevity is ridiculous, for all you know they could have been limping along for 20 years, it's literally impossible to know how successful they are. 
I'll tell you what's not a sign of a good company, releasing an update with a game breaking bug (I consider it game breaking because it effectively makes the single player unplayable, unless you enjoy effortlessly gunning down fleeing AI troops) and charge $10 for it. Then going over a year and a half without any sign of a fix on the way. Bonus points for the fact that the update to fix 4.0 will also likely require you to pay for it because BFC loves its customers so much that they nickle and dime them for basic bug fixes. 
But hey, I gotta give some credit to BFC, they've clearly mastered the art of building up a dedicated fanbase. Paying customers are demanding some action to fix their game, and we got @IanL throwing out terms like snowflakes, because screw them for wanting to be able to play their $60 game without using janky workarounds. 
 

This is a bad argument. They keep all relevant information (sales figures, cash flow, etc.) secret ostensibly to "protect it from competition." Just pointing to longevity is ridiculous, for all you know they could have been limping along for 20 years, it's literally impossible to know how successful they are. 
I'll tell you what's not a sign of a good company, releasing an update with a game breaking bug (I consider it game breaking because it effectively makes the single player unplayable, unless you enjoy effortlessly gunning down fleeing AI troops) and charge $10 for it. Then going over a year and a half without any sign of a fix on the way. Bonus points for the fact that the update to fix 4.0 will also likely require you to pay for it because BFC loves its customers so much that they nickle and dime them for basic bug fixes. 
But hey, I gotta give some credit to BFC, they've clearly mastered the art of building up a dedicated fanbase. Paying customers are demanding some action to fix their game, and we got @IanL throwing out terms like snowflakes, because screw them for wanting to be able to play their $60 game without using janky workarounds. 
 

This is rich coming from someone who just handwaves away all criticisms on the basis that "they must know what they are doing." 
Again, you have literally no evidence to back up your own assertions, yet pull out the "get more evidence card." 
 
At this point we'll likely see the major effects of climate change before we actually get the 4.0 patch or any substantial content. But personally I look forward to the forum update:
 "Hey it's Steve here reporting from the flooded ruins of Augusta Maine, 4.0 fix will be coming soon, in the meantime here are 2 random Rome to Victory Screenshots, give us money."
 
But then we get to my favourite part
 
Smart move to run away, come at me with something a bit better next time or don't come at all. 
 
 
 

This is rich coming from someone who just handwaves away all criticisms on the basis that "they must know what they are doing." 
Again, you have literally no evidence to back up your own assertions, yet pull out the "get more evidence card." 
 
At this point we'll likely see the major effects of climate change before we actually get the 4.0 patch or any substantial content. But personally I look forward to the forum update:
 "Hey it's Steve here reporting from the flooded ruins of Augusta Maine, 4.0 fix will be coming soon, in the meantime here are 2 random Rome to Victory Screenshots, give us money."
 
But then we get to my favourite part
 
Smart move to run away, come at me with something a bit better next time or don't come at all. 
 
 
 

This is a bad argument. They keep all relevant information (sales figures, cash flow, etc.) secret ostensibly to "protect it from competition." Just pointing to longevity is ridiculous, for all you know they could have been limping along for 20 years, it's literally impossible to know how successful they are. 
I'll tell you what's not a sign of a good company, releasing an update with a game breaking bug (I consider it game breaking because it effectively makes the single player unplayable, unless you enjoy effortlessly gunning down fleeing AI troops) and charge $10 for it. Then going over a year and a half without any sign of a fix on the way. Bonus points for the fact that the update to fix 4.0 will also likely require you to pay for it because BFC loves its customers so much that they nickle and dime them for basic bug fixes. 
But hey, I gotta give some credit to BFC, they've clearly mastered the art of building up a dedicated fanbase. Paying customers are demanding some action to fix their game, and we got @IanL throwing out terms like snowflakes, because screw them for wanting to be able to play their $60 game without using janky workarounds. 
 

This is a bad argument. They keep all relevant information (sales figures, cash flow, etc.) secret ostensibly to "protect it from competition." Just pointing to longevity is ridiculous, for all you know they could have been limping along for 20 years, it's literally impossible to know how successful they are. 
I'll tell you what's not a sign of a good company, releasing an update with a game breaking bug (I consider it game breaking because it effectively makes the single player unplayable, unless you enjoy effortlessly gunning down fleeing AI troops) and charge $10 for it. Then going over a year and a half without any sign of a fix on the way. Bonus points for the fact that the update to fix 4.0 will also likely require you to pay for it because BFC loves its customers so much that they nickle and dime them for basic bug fixes. 
But hey, I gotta give some credit to BFC, they've clearly mastered the art of building up a dedicated fanbase. Paying customers are demanding some action to fix their game, and we got @IanL throwing out terms like snowflakes, because screw them for wanting to be able to play their $60 game without using janky workarounds. 
 

This is a bad argument. They keep all relevant information (sales figures, cash flow, etc.) secret ostensibly to "protect it from competition." Just pointing to longevity is ridiculous, for all you know they could have been limping along for 20 years, it's literally impossible to know how successful they are. 
I'll tell you what's not a sign of a good company, releasing an update with a game breaking bug (I consider it game breaking because it effectively makes the single player unplayable, unless you enjoy effortlessly gunning down fleeing AI troops) and charge $10 for it. Then going over a year and a half without any sign of a fix on the way. Bonus points for the fact that the update to fix 4.0 will also likely require you to pay for it because BFC loves its customers so much that they nickle and dime them for basic bug fixes. 
But hey, I gotta give some credit to BFC, they've clearly mastered the art of building up a dedicated fanbase. Paying customers are demanding some action to fix their game, and we got @IanL throwing out terms like snowflakes, because screw them for wanting to be able to play their $60 game without using janky workarounds. 
 

This is a bad argument. They keep all relevant information (sales figures, cash flow, etc.) secret ostensibly to "protect it from competition." Just pointing to longevity is ridiculous, for all you know they could have been limping along for 20 years, it's literally impossible to know how successful they are. 
I'll tell you what's not a sign of a good company, releasing an update with a game breaking bug (I consider it game breaking because it effectively makes the single player unplayable, unless you enjoy effortlessly gunning down fleeing AI troops) and charge $10 for it. Then going over a year and a half without any sign of a fix on the way. Bonus points for the fact that the update to fix 4.0 will also likely require you to pay for it because BFC loves its customers so much that they nickle and dime them for basic bug fixes. 
But hey, I gotta give some credit to BFC, they've clearly mastered the art of building up a dedicated fanbase. Paying customers are demanding some action to fix their game, and we got @IanL throwing out terms like snowflakes, because screw them for wanting to be able to play their $60 game without using janky workarounds. 
 

This is a bad argument. They keep all relevant information (sales figures, cash flow, etc.) secret ostensibly to "protect it from competition." Just pointing to longevity is ridiculous, for all you know they could have been limping along for 20 years, it's literally impossible to know how successful they are. 
I'll tell you what's not a sign of a good company, releasing an update with a game breaking bug (I consider it game breaking because it effectively makes the single player unplayable, unless you enjoy effortlessly gunning down fleeing AI troops) and charge $10 for it. Then going over a year and a half without any sign of a fix on the way. Bonus points for the fact that the update to fix 4.0 will also likely require you to pay for it because BFC loves its customers so much that they nickle and dime them for basic bug fixes. 
But hey, I gotta give some credit to BFC, they've clearly mastered the art of building up a dedicated fanbase. Paying customers are demanding some action to fix their game, and we got @IanL throwing out terms like snowflakes, because screw them for wanting to be able to play their $60 game without using janky workarounds. 
 

This is a bad argument. They keep all relevant information (sales figures, cash flow, etc.) secret ostensibly to "protect it from competition." Just pointing to longevity is ridiculous, for all you know they could have been limping along for 20 years, it's literally impossible to know how successful they are. 
I'll tell you what's not a sign of a good company, releasing an update with a game breaking bug (I consider it game breaking because it effectively makes the single player unplayable, unless you enjoy effortlessly gunning down fleeing AI troops) and charge $10 for it. Then going over a year and a half without any sign of a fix on the way. Bonus points for the fact that the update to fix 4.0 will also likely require you to pay for it because BFC loves its customers so much that they nickle and dime them for basic bug fixes. 
But hey, I gotta give some credit to BFC, they've clearly mastered the art of building up a dedicated fanbase. Paying customers are demanding some action to fix their game, and we got @IanL throwing out terms like snowflakes, because screw them for wanting to be able to play their $60 game without using janky workarounds. 
 

God help us all if those "experienced combat soldiers" ever have to deal with an actual Russian force, Russia will be at the Rhine in 72 hours. 
As @Rinaldi has said, most NATO forces are in pitiful states, but Germany is singled out for being in an especially poor state. I'm pretty sure the spinning corpses of Frederick and Blucher could power all of Europe if they were to see the state of today's German "army."