COH: Europe In Ruins

You call that a trailer/teaser? I didnt see shit in there.

It was a pretty bad trailer. I don't know why they didn't just hold off until the 27th, I mean it's what? 5 days away?

Hey! Don't diss the ships! Being able to drive Ships and Submarines in Battlefield 1942 was awesome!

No, just no.
Ive been on too many ships to allow you to say that.

Wait there's a way off that rock?

WE NEED A QUARANTINE

Trailer is tempting but its made by EA so we'll see

Y'all looking at games with nostalgia glasses...

Y'all looking at games with nostalgia glasses...

Dwarf Fortress

Black and white 2.

You know what Never has Nostalgia glasses?

X-Com: Enemy Unknown/UFO Defense(Depending on geographical position it has a different name)
(I'm talking the 1994 one for anyone that's confused.)

I Still play that on a quarterly basis, and it never gets old, never gets dull.

Looks like BF3 to me

Same engine, same boring 'modern' conflict, some new vehicles and perhaps ships and there you go, new sequel.

That character is carrying a Rifle, a Shotgun, a(very large) Grenade Launcher, and enough ammo to not care what he shoots at

I can tell exactly what this will be.

We will have huge landships as someone finds a way to drive the ship on land. Then we will have bugging ragdolls, massive graphical glitches, very lame story.

Also someone already mentioned, naval warfare will be a DLC and it will be a very shitty one at it too.

This is a big shitty DLC with a full game + extra pricetag which will have same shit as BF3 with a new ribbon on each gun. Well done to those who preordered it.

I'm not picking up another battlefield unless it's cheaper than $20, bad company 3 or battlefield 194X

the reasons being...i dont think bf2 or bf3 for that matter is worth more than $20, especially with all the x-packs

Just once I'd like to see a game where Straya saves the day.

But no its always rushins are bad and mericans are good.

What about the other 180 odd cuntries around the wurld.

America did not win every battle, they kinda won every major battle, but not every single fight.

. But Just like in Vietnam US soldiers did their job and did it with amazing results. Being constantly outnumbered 3:1 is no biggie for us.

And some of the other countries hated us, even though the guys i served with were some of the best people the human race has to offer.

And some of the other countries hated us, even though the guys i served with were some of the best people the human race has to offer.

Might have had to do with some of those friendly fire incidents. Not sure, but bombing some guys might not be the best way to go about making friends.

Ruskies are bad...they have Putin as President.

Would you prefer to be fighting Swedes invading all their neighbors, trying to restore their long lost empire?

I would think invading a random country under the false pretense of nuclear weapons is somewhere up that 'how to make other people hate us' list too...

I want to fight Iceland! They only have a poulation of 1 :P

Poor forever alone IcelandicManiac vs the world.

Yes, I'm sure that was the only reason.

Make some bad guys in some of the supposed "Good countries". Say, America loses it's shit for a seemingly legit reason and the EU steps up. Challengers and Leopards having to square off vs Abrams would be interesting. Now throw in some questionable reasons to just confuse the fuck out who is actually supposed to be the good guy and voila.

I'd quite like to fight on home turf. Go prowling through the streets of London, Manchester or some other UK City would be fun. It'd also be fun to actually fight against a technological equal - Russians and Chinese are always portrayed as having decent, but decisively lower tech than either US, UK or EU forces and it gets kinda old.

Make some bad guys in some of the supposed "Good countries". Say, America loses it's shit for a seemingly legit reason and the EU steps up. Challengers and Leopards having to square off vs Abrams would be interesting. Now throw in some questionable reasons to just confuse the fuck out who is actually supposed to be the good guy and voila.

Shit, could even get the Ruskies to join in with the EU after some persuasion and be "Good guys" too.

Just do something fresh! Something interesting!

For several reasons that will never happen, ever, in a game published by a big company.

^ your forgetting that they have so much air cos they mostly just bomb themselves, so need lots to try and make some bombs hit the other side and deal more casualties than they inflict on themselves.

A massive Air Force isn't good when it mostly attacks yourself :P

No it wouldn't, it would be GG in tank engagements involving the Challenger 2. The Abrams will fail to penetrate cos of the awesome armour, and the Challenger 2's would blow them away.

To put it in perspective, an Abrams can be penetrated by a single close range RPG (unless armour grating is put on), whereas a Challenger 2 has taken 70 close range RPG's before, and then the insurgents just gave up. The only Challenger 2 ever taken out of action was from a freindly she'll hitting the open commanders hatch and killing the crew, the tank survived though.

They should make a game about West Germany versus East Germany and have a corrupted USA General be the cause of the conflict.

Pfft, you're both talking about the Challenger 1 which was the same as the Abrams in every aspect (both had Chobham armour), except that the Challenger had a bigger gun, and the Abrams more horsepower, but the same speed (Don't get any ideas about copying, the Challenger came first).

Now, the Challenger 2 is 95% different to the Challenger 1. The biggest difference is that it has Chobham Dorchester Level 2 armour (while the Abrams has just resorted to putting on depleted uranium plates, though it does have a gun of equal size now). Basically the Challenger 2 has the edge in a fight due to it's superior armour, sure the Abrams has extra plating, but they only cover the weak sides and rear, the front is less defended than the Challenger 2 now, and the Challenger 2 doesn't need the extra plating as it has more side and rear armour than the Abrams.

Not really, both the Challenger 1 and Abrams have about the same weight, length, width, height, armour, and speed, also they look very similar (again, no funny ideas about copying, the Challenger 1 came first). So I'd say the requirements were the same.

Also, despite the Challemger 2 having 95% different parts to the Challenger 1, it's still nearly the same in all stats, it just has even better armour. So in a fight the Challenger 1 would be an equal fair fight, but the Challenger 2 would have the edge due to better armour.

No it wouldn't, it would be GG in tank engagements involving the Challenger 2. The Abrams will fail to penetrate cos of the awesome armour, and the Challenger 2's would blow them away.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1551418/MoD-kept-failure-of-best-tank-quiet.html

Wargame, European Escalation?

Why not? Wargame did have a good idea as a conflict. West vs East Germany and it was a new idea in a sense. Two same nations fist fighting with one another while recieving support from outter world.

Yes, but that was a close range rpg? Tank fights tend to happen at longer ranges?

Yes, but that was a close range rpg? Tank fights tend to happen at longer ranges?

Kinetic and HEAT rounds are less effective vs Ceramic Armour btw.

Similar to every British tank since the Centurion, and most other British AFVs, Challenger 2 contains a boiling vessel (BV) also known as a kettle or bivvie for water which can be used to brew tea, produce other hot beverages and heat boil-in-the-bag meals contained in ration packs.[9] This BV requirement is general for armoured vehicles of the British Armed Forces, and is unique to the armed forces of the UK.

Cos this is the internet and we have nothing better to do? Specially me who will say some things, find out I'm not completely correct, then just change my argument cos it's stupid to argue for something which is wrong, but my argument still holds some truth, so it's fine to argue on that (even though people for some reason think it's bad to change your argument, yet also think it's bad to fight on something wrong, and as such believe you should accept defeat when something is slightly wrong even though it's perfectly reasonable to just accept the wrong bit and cut it from your argument and argue your point from a better position. Cos you know, who finds out all their facts the first time they do something?). Anyway, i now know the fight will be a lot closer than previously thought, and it would be kinda fair, though the Challenger 2 will just have an edge.

Trust us to make it an industrial standard in our tanks to have a kettle on board rofl.

Yes and that's why my opinions change as what i know changes?

Butt pics should be enough as well.

+1

I enjoy large posteriors and I am unable to deceive

You can't rape the willing!

Nice to know.

It just reminds me of "it aint rape if she cant say no" but no, what you wrote is quite correct.
only mildly pervy but oh well, you know all about that.

No there isn't, just like there is no difference at all between you all loving Halo cos i say so, and you all willingly loving Halo.

+1

I enjoy large posteriors and I am unable to deceive

I say tigs booty is always on topic.

I say tigs booty is always on topic.

I like the attention, but this is just getting too creepy XD

I say tigs booty is always on topic.

sigged

It's not really creepy until I show up.............