Blatant error, decided not to buy the game over it

[JWW]

ORIGINAL: Bleek

This has got to be a wind up, surely?

I think you chaps have been trolled!

I considered that before posting earlier, but I decided the thread was too much fun not to get involved. I think several others posting had the same thought.

[OldSarge]

ORIGINAL: jwarrenw13

ORIGINAL: Bleek

This has got to be a wind up, surely?

I think you chaps have been trolled!

I considered that before posting earlier, but I decided the thread was too much fun not to get involved. I think several others posting had the same thought.

Guilty as charged! [:D] It was just too tempting not to add a little humor and watch the ball bounce around.

[larsieman1988]

Yeah this is one of the weirdest most off base forum posts i've seen in a long while.

[KingHalford]

YOU'RE USING THE WRONG NATO COUNTER FOR THE VELOCIRAPTORS!

[jimwinsor]

I made an improved NATO counter for Arachnids, Vic is free to use!

You're welcome, everyone!

[jimwinsor]

I'm on a creative streak today, here's the NATO symbol for Sentinels:

[Jace11]

I guess not everyone can look past the presentation issues and 1990’s graphics, all the typos, grammar etc.

[JWW]

ORIGINAL: Jace11

I guess not everyone can look past the presentation issues and 1990’s graphics, all the typos, grammar etc.

No, some can't. The rest of us, however, are embracing the standard but evolved Vic game presentation and "1990's graphics," which anyone who looked at Vic's previous games or the development blogs or the youtube videos or anywhere else that had pictures of the game up before it went live would have been fully aware of before buying, and are making note of typos and grammar problems in the initial release of the game to improve a great game. Or one could argue why standard 2020 English grammar and spelling should be expected to exist in a game set in the distant future. Maybe Vic has it right.

[kneecaps]

Okay. I've worked intel at BDE level...so have a view on this.

TECHNICALLY....it's a bit of a mistake to have the Armored symbol for what is clearly a motorized (not armored) unit. However given the mixed nature of the unit it's always going to be an approximation at best. In fact NATO symbols are not intended to represent every facet of a unit. Artillery units will have all sorts of other capabilities (even organic mortar and TRUCKS!) but will still be represented frequently with the dot.

Things are a bit flexible...

I would put this in the bug category, Vic as a developer has fantastic attention to detail and the Blitzkrieg series shows an unprecedented level of accuracy.

To the OP...if this kind of thing grinds your gears in a V1.0 release then maybe wait until a little way down the line. It seems very petty to miss out on a great title due to something like this.

[Malevolence]

ORIGINAL: OldSarge
Guilty as charged! [:D] It was just too tempting not to add a little humor and watch the ball bounce around.

Bravo, Sir. [:D]

[Crimso]

I, for one, will not be buying the game if jimwinsor's arachnid symbol is used. It has six legs.

[Cassini]

Found this 'dead' thread that somewhat addresses what I want to post - so I resurrected it.

If at all possible, PLEASE, PLEASE utilize the following NATO symbols for 'bikers' (Cavalry symbol) and 'buggys' (Armored Cavalry symbol)

This would (in the spirit of the original poster 2 years ago), help to easily distinguish these unit types without having to spend time selecting them to differentiate them from actual 'armor'.

[DasTactic]

While this was a fun thread to read, I agree with Cassini. Lumping the Armoured Cars in with Armour is always a bit off putting - also in the end-of-turn reports when you see multiple armour killed and then find out it is just some cars.

[CaptBeefheart]

I missed this thread the first time around. Funny stuff.

While this was a fun thread to read, I agree with Cassini. Lumping the Armoured Cars in with Armour is always a bit off putting - also in the end-of-turn reports when you see multiple armour killed and then find out it is just some cars.

I fired up an Advanced Tactics Gold game recently and armored cars are treated like armor there as well in terms of loss categories. It would be cool to differentiate. That would be in the "nice to have" category, though, for me, rather than "must have."

Cheers,
CB

[BlueTemplar]

The mentioned picture dug out from the Internet Archive :

Optimized-logistics.jpg (493.89 KiB) Viewed 577 times

Archived review :
Emergent Mage loves Shadow Empire!
https://web.archive.org/web/20201205101 ... decisions/

For those that have missed it, constructive discussion about a related issue happened in this thread :
Beveled Units Mod (v4.1) - Critters Update
https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/view ... 3&t=352278

ORIGINAL: solops

Is there any reasonable way to get mech inf to show as something beside regular inf?

So, currently, we are limited to these NATO images:


Those NATO images are applied as shown in the Image File and Orig Image columns of the following table.
If I change a NATO image, it is applied to every formation that uses that image.
It's quite a puzzle - if anyone can see a better combination, I'll be happy to modify the mod!






Thanks to DTurtle for his excellent work listing all the formations in SE - that gave me an invaluable jump on this effort.