Maj.Hans

http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/ViewItem.aspx?Item=377992775 Any takers? :nukem:

I'm pretty sure I still have the DOS floppy (also backed up onto a CD), paper manuals & copy protection sheet for that game. That's pretty much the one that got me hooked on tank sims when I was a little kid. Oh, and yes, your modern PC actually CAN run it if you just fire up DOS-Box. Ask me how I know! lol

I think the narrower field of view gives the impression that the round is falling more quickly/steeply than it really is. Plus, with the speeds we're talking about, a 1 degree angle of descent could be a pretty quick nosedive!

My god...When the Brits and Aussies hear about this they're going to crucify you on the nearest bustle rack! From Soviet made tanks!?

Are those last two shots ones that landed short and bounced into the targets? I notice they seem to have an upward angle.

I have played good first person shooters, but they seem to be the spectacular exception rather than the rule. The 'spectacle creep' annoys me, as does the way they increasingly resemble little more than an action movie in which the player is required to do a little bit of moving and a little bit of shooting. Yes the maps are huge, but everything is scripted so it's more a test of reflexes than of anything else because your path through the area is set in stone. I bought and played Modern Warfare. Thought it was "OK". I borrowed and played Modern Warfare 2. Thought it was "So so". I saw some youtube videos of the other Modern Warfare and Battlefield games, and I don't feel like I missed anything. Personally, if I do spend any money on a new FPS game, it's going to be on a "tactical" first person shooter, kinda like the SWAT3/SWAT4 games. Gameplay tends to be more oriented on teamwork, and far less on cinematic nonsense and one man run and gun heroism. Finally, while I'm ranting, let me touch on a subject that may only be relevant to those here who do play FPS games. Is it asking too much for video games to have an actual ending? When I was a kid, if you reached the end and beat the game you a high five, a pat on the back, somebody would tell you "Great work! Job well done!", and then all the good guys who weren't dead lived happily ever after. These days it seems like the usual ending is closer to "This is not the end! Your position is no better off than it was before, it might actually be worse, maybe we'll kill off a few characters now even though you won just to mess with you! But wait, there's more! 'Battlefield 8' coming next year!"

You forgot the most important member of the crew...

I was thinking that Erich Topp would feel rather at home in that tank.

And suddenly M1 Tank Platoon doesn't look so bad anymore.

Meh, I root for the Finns when I watch that movie.

Well, if they mix the right kind of cocktails... 6ViooSjfhpo (Excerpted from "Talvisota". Be very afraid of Finland.)

I have the feeling that your post is going to make much more sense to me, just as soon as I figure out what this "breezeblock" is of which you speak. Based solely upon it's name, I assume it's some kind of object or "block" that has something to do with breezes......Perhaps it's a kind of door stop used to hold doors open on 'breezy' days?

All I'm going to say is that forests have trees and bushes in them. Trees and bushes can have infantry in them or behind them. Infantry can have anti-tank weapons with them. Infantry hiding in a forest of trees with anti-armor weapons are why we have artillery and napalm so that tanks don't need to go into the forest of trees and infantry with anti-tank weapons.

If that were the case, and we had to select only a single routine for opening and closing hatches and we can't make the opening of the front hatches conditional, then I think it would be best if they were simply never opened, and more accurately portray the way the infantry might fight from open hatches. For example, the BMP-2 has a single infantryman sitting on the left side in front of the turret, but in SB his hatch never opens. Personally, when I'm in an IFV/APC, I like having the troops unbutton when I'm heading into a built up area, dense woods, etc. It gives me a little more firepower and some more eyes to watch my back, and in the CV90 and 113 it doesn't really effect where I can engage with the main guns. The trade off for the BMP-3 (if the troops use the front hatches) seems a little extreme though.

Well, I wouldn't call these things stupid, but just something that I disagree with or find odd. I notice that when multiple artillery or mortar teams are told to execute a fire mission, the crews operate with incredible precision. In fact, they seem to fire at pretty much exactly the same time, and continue to do so for the whole fire mission. I wonder if this is intentional, to simulate some ideal of synchronized fire, or just accidental. In any case, I think it would be nice to see a little randomness in the way crews fire, even if it was only a random delay for their first shots, so that they didn't appear to be a bunch of robots. Just so that all six mortars don't fire every shot simultaneously. This doesn't really effect anything other than looks so I guess it's no big deal. Second, I noticed that if you order the infantry of the BMP-3 to open their hatches, the crew opens the front hatches and the gunner has to center the turret and cease all engagements. I wonder if it might be better to have the infantry only open and fight from the rear two hatches, and leave the front ones closed. It seems to me like the front two hatches would be most likely left closed unless the turret was busted. I always thought that infantry hatches were provided to allow the troops to cover the sides, rear, and top, and I habitually order them to get off their butts and fight if I'm in a CV90, M113, etc. As the BMP3 is an AI vehicle currently I guess that it's no big deal again, just kinda odd.

World War II, day by day: European Theatre and eastern Africa. WOVEy1tC7nk Personally I find the Soviet Union's activities to be quite interesting. In the US, the Soviet involvement in WW2, including both their own belligerant actions against neighboring states (Finland, Romania, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia) and their cooperation with Germany in the invasion of Poland remains relatively unknown. Pacific Theater: 8C4XozKtEXA Personally, I didn't realize that major Japanese forces (I knew about the holdouts on the islands) in some areas kept fighting after the surrender in the mainland. Another thing that strikes me as odd, perhaps because the geography is less familiar to me from a "northern hemisphere" perspective is that I keep forgetting just how close the fighting got to Australia. And finally, for those of you who haven't had enough... A time lapse of all known atomic detonations up to 1998. LLCF7vPanrY It starts real slow, and the first three bombs are shown in isolation, but things get really crazy, wait till the 60's roll around. (Same clip, sped up three times here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_W_lLhBt8Vg)

Oh that actually would be nice! I bet the engine doesn't support digging, but maybe they could be used to "dig" firing positions by simply spawning them at a location?

You know for a moment......Okay this must be an Aussie English vs. American English thing but when I read that my brain went somewhere else.

The trouble I run into is that so often I use the "equip all" checkboxes and accidentally re equip the scouts with RPGs! If they were to change the system so that the BRDMs and similar carried special scout teams, you could still dismount them and then change their unit type if you needed them to pack an RPG. Or they could just add "scouts" as a separate unit so that we could do the opposite.

Somebody really should have let this kid know that there isn't any O2 in helium! http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=145_1382633748 Oh shoot, I forgot live-leak has hotlink protection so that's not going to work for forever. But yes, helium makes you sound like a chipmunk, you just can't pull that trick three times in a row or you'll pass out.

Two new infantry unit types. "Scouts" carrying only small arms, so that we don't accidentally create one-man RPG teams riding around in BRDMs. And the opposite end, "RPG Team", like a rifle team carrying a second type/load of RPG for situations when we want teams to have both HE-Frag and HEAT rockets for the RPG-7, or have a team that's really loaded for bear. Perhaps a squad that's set up shop in a building or bunker along with a crate of LAWs or etc.

Yup, makes it sound like the problem is on the server side. HAH! Found a work around! The link in the recent files section takes us to: http://www.steelbeasts.com/Downloads/p13_sectionid/340/p13_fileid/2535 And of course it throws the error. If we manually browse to the Leopard 1 section, the file isn't there either... If we replace the 340 with the normal code for the Leo 1 section: http://www.steelbeasts.com/Downloads/p13_sectionid/292/p13_fileid/2535 We find the file we're looking for. Link to download: http://www.steelbeasts.com/Downloads/p13_sectionid/292/p13_fileid/2535

Don't you worry about it, I'm blaming the site staff for this one!

Oh man this is killing me... It's right there but I can't quite seem to reach it!

Weird, I see it in the latest files but when I click it: "Download Manager This section is currently offline or does not exist." Everything else seems to be working. Is there some kind of glitch in the Leo1 folder, or perhaps a failed attempt at separating the new versions?