devilslayersbane

Someone mentioned the M24 chaffee having a hard time penetrating T-34's. While that's true in our universe, it's highly likely that certain ammo types, such as HEAT-FS, APDS, HESH and possibly even APFSDS, which all saw developmental breakthroughs in our real-world late WWII and early Cold War. These rounds saw widespread use during cold-war conflicts and continue to be developed to this day. It would be likely that any M24-like tanks (and it's French, British, and German counterparts) would have been upgraded with a smoothbore 75mm to help support those rounds.

I think the animation needs a little more weight to it. It looks very floaty.

I'm quite partial to the change of adding a defensive weapon the the AAPC. Especially with that lone one in the right-hand image. I don't think that the argument of "oh, this vehicle can only drive and thus isn't fun" is a fair argument for this, though. The Chinook in APB is similar, but what keeps the Chinook fun is the careful balance of the high-risk, high-reward gameplay from a successful drop. The Chinook can't be targeted by Tesla coils, but can be easily seen by ground vehicles. The biggest thing that keeps the Chinook fun though, is it's mobility. It's the heaviest helo in APB but can still easily outrun most ground vehicles that pose a significant threat. The AAPC doesn't have this mobility. But it does have many of the drawbacks that the Chinook has, which skews the balance in favor of the high-risk. The defensive gun, if mildly powerful against the main threat the AAPC faces, can skew that balance back.

Are we talking Scorpion Evo or vz 61?

This shouldn't be too much of a necro, if it is at all a necro. I finally got the chance to play the first dark souls when the "remaster" came out. Aside from FromSoft cheaping out a bit and not fixing many of the major issues that plagued the multiplayer (chain-backstabs and the like), I love the game. It's a perfect example, for the first half, on how to properly scale your difficulty without "scaling difficultly" that you seen in common AAA RPG's (see Elder scrolls IV, and V, and fallouts 3, NV, and 4). That's not to say that scaling difficulty doesn't have it's place, as it certainly helps keep the game interesting throughout the entire time you're playing when you can wait until level 99 to enter the intended tutorial dungeon. However, Dark Souls doesn't do this for 2 reasons. 1, to let new players know when they're going the wrong way without limiting exploration. 2, to give players a sense of accomplishment for overcoming a previously insurmountable task/challenge. You can even see this escalation in the latter half of the game when the Taurus and Capra demons (2 early game boss fights) become fairly common enemies in the Demon Ruins. It's also visible when you visit early game areas to discover that the enemies haven't leveled with you and are pretty easy to overcome now. Dark souls also avoids the trap of locking off areas by doors (at least at the start), by putting enemies that you aren't ready to deal with in those areas like the skeletons in the graveyard outside of firelink shrine. It's not a perfect game, and you can definitely tell where the budget/time ran out. The Bed of Chaos is less of a boss fight and more of an RNG to hope you don't get yeeted into the void below. There's the great sea of dragon ass in Lost Izalith, and copy pasta enemy placement in the Demon ruins. However, these are relatively minor complaints for an overall great game. There are only 2 points where I see players give up on Dark Souls: Sen's Fortress and the archers in Anor Londo. Sen's fortress is all about trial and error and being aware of your surroundings. It's full of traps and relatively beefy enemies. The Archers in Anor Londo is genuinely frustrating, but is also a lot of trial and error. The important thing is that they can all be overcome without making you, the player lose agency or a need to cheese (read: exploit) the game. Dark souls is one of my favorite games of all time now because of its tough love attitude and surprisingly fair challenge.

Am back, in a sense. Missed you guys.

Fun fact, if you ask Cortana about clippy, she'll actually talk about him. It's kinda cool.

Sammy, I've been trying to stick up for you in game, but you're testing all of our patience here. Get your act together, grow up a bit. We're all playing the same game/games. Your behavior is unwarranted.

What about instead of a flip phone, change it to the 1980's motorola dynaTAC (of course, a small LCD with something along the lines of "Automated structural repair v1.1" would be nice to have so it's not an exact copy). Of course, there's modeling, texturing, rigging and animating, though I'm sure with the correct placement the existing animation could be used. However, as far as how the repair tool works, I always imagined that the buildings in APB had an automated repair system that needed the ConYard to self activate, due to the individual buildings not having self repair AI (essentially, the ConYard acts as a mainframe controlling all auto-repairs); however, due to using a somewhat flawed parallel connection, it is slower than the wireless repair tool which would would initiate the protocols inside the structure itself (thus giving the technician his name). Finally, of course the engineer can use the automated repair, but his wrench acts a representation of his toolkit to repair buildings. A similar principal takes effect at the service depot, where the auto repairs are actually directed by the vehicles interfacing with the SD much like the repair tool but using the SD's specialized vehicle tools and repair systems.

AZ-Stalker, while I understand your frustration, the colloquialisms that have arisen with the evolution of RenAlert and C&C Reborn into Red Alert: A Path Beyond and Tiberian Sun: Reborn will not be erased by such a move. It almost sounds like you're trying to make it a rule that no one can even mention "Reborn" when referring to TSR. This is something I do not support, though I admit, I could be stretching your meaning a bit. However, your adamant comments make me believe that I am not, especially since the topic at hand is over server rules. You cannot change how people refer to one thing or another (I say pot(ae)to, you say pot(aw)to). The only thing you can do is call it what you want and brush it off if someone doesn't want to call it that. Intentionally derogatory names aside, I'm not at all for speech police and I will leave the community immediately if something like that were to ever arise.

I still have those documents and pushwall, ICE, or anyone who's up for it can send me a PM in order to help update them. Or we could just throw out all of the detailed information about unit stat's altogether and just leave them as-is without. I had a lot of fun creating them. Actually, ICE should still have edit perms. We are still missing many of the vehicle pictures for both documents and on top of that we are also missing an image for the RPG trooper.

This file fixed the issue for me, though the first time it did crash the launcher. Will update if the problem comes back. https://1drv.ms/u/s!AtYA5536lndTgZoMxI7N4wgvGnRyQA

The versions of the launcher post 7.0.2 crash when I try to view the server browser. Visual Studio offered to run a debugger and came up with the following exception and to break the operation when this occurs Running with visual studio did not bring about this error.

In reply to nospoons and those who want a community "made" map. While I feel like this is a good idea, one also has to remember that game design does tend to dictate otherwise. The biggest issue is that we all have our own ideas about what would make a map "good". There are a few maps that I feel are great because of their superior focus on one of the core tenants of APB. Fissure is heavily focused on infantry based combat, so much so that it leaves out all other types. Were the map any larger or smaller, it just wouldn't work out very well. But the map itself is well designed enough to make a short-lived exciting kill-fest that while not many people appreciate because of flamethrowers, should be better due to the recent changes to the medic (though I'm not sure if it's even in rotation). The same thing goes for Ridge war. It's about expansive ground-based combined arms combat. Everything in that map serves to build on that single focus. One could make the argument that air combat negates this, but I disagree. The heavy inclusion of SAM/AA forces air units to supplement ground forces until they have been taken down. The lack of a power plant makes sure that the loss of a single building wouldn't negate this, either. It's a well designed map that really comes down to unit balance after that point. I enjoy siege. I think the only thing it needs is an alternate vehicle route. My suggestion? make a vehicle route along the topside of the castle, the long way of course. It would come with a cost: being more visible, but it's exit should come with a benefit: less vulnerable to base defense fire (e.g. only one FT/PB/Tur should be able to attack at once. It would assist vehicles trying to take down cannons, and still make for interesting gameplay.

What if we made pillboxes/flame towers have be man-able until destroyed? Battlezone II: Combat Commander did this and it would allow players to override the autonomous target prioritization. For example: A HT is rushing an enemy base supported by infantry, and allies are in defensive mode. The Heavy tank is the prioritized target due to the high risk factor as determined by the AI, but the rocket soldiers bought by allies mean that they are much more effective against it, but have reduced effectiveness against infantry. Thus, the soviet infantry have easier targets. However, if the pillbox was able to be manned, the Heavy tank could be prioritized by the rocket dudes, while the soviet infantry could be targeted by the pillbox.