Raven800

Airmech Review by Raven800 ----- "Airmech", a simple name for an interesting strategy game. Developed by Carbon Games, Airmech is a free to play, mass multiplayer "action strategy" game that seemed to be directly inspired by the old Sega Mega Drive/Genesis game "Herzog Zwei" and proves to be a perfect remake with a few added details. Old school gamers might already know what I'm talking about, but for those who don't know, a little history lesson: Herzog Zwei was a Sega Mega Drive/Genesis game released in the 1990's. With a name roughly translating to "Duke Two" (Though I've heard some people call it "Two Dunes" or "Two Dukes") this game was the sequel to "Herzog", another proto-strategy game released in 1989 in Japan. It was one of many RTS themed games in its time and often considered the first "true" real-time strategy game for its interesting mechanic that would keep players involved. In these games, more so for Herzog Zwei, players controlled a giant mech with the ability to transform into a fighter jet for faster travel. Each player started with a base, and from their base's they can build units to help dominate the playing field. Each map had a number of different outposts that players could capture to help move up front lines and increase economic income to build more units. The ultimate goal was to destroy the other player's base while making sure to keep yours protected, and the game didn't end until someone's anthill was kicked over. Unlike most strategy games today, Herzog Zwei had players micro manage their units when giving commands, having players give orders to individual units rather than large groups. In Jet mode players could carry units and program them with orders that they would automatically follow once deployed. Jet mode only allowed players to attack other players in jet mode and couldn't attack ground units. In mech mode, players could not attack other players in Jet mode but were able to attack ground units in an effort to help their own units gain more ground. It was an interesting and very difficult to master strategy game that I personally loved, and seemed to be an underrated gem. Airmech brings back this concept in strategic gaming, adding a few new twists in gameplay that's sure to make old school fans of the original Herzog Zwei love it even more. Just like in the original, players are in control of an "Airmech" and are capable of transforming to access both ground and air. Mechs now come in a variety of different classes and are capable of carrying multiple units at once (depending on how much an individual unit weighs), each sporting their own special abilities that players can unlock during gameplay to better their odds against their opponents. Mechs range from traditional "Striker" jets to Helicopters with increased carrying capacity and even Bombers that are capable of carrying and dropping bombs on enemies. In addition to their aerial abilities, each mech has a number of different special abilities for Mech mode as well with Striker Mechs now having an upgradeable ability that allows them to use a powerful sword and shield combo that can cut most enemies down to size and Bomber Mechs sacrificing guns for melee in mech mode, making them ideal for quick strikes against cluttered enemy ground units, just to name a few. In addition to varying mech classes, players can also unlock different pilots and equiptable items that enable buffs that can either improve their mech performance, military strength or xp and money income for the rest of the team. There is a bit of grinding to be had when it comes to unlocking better units, pilots, mechs, and deployable assets, but unlike most mmo games out there that require you to grind for money so that you can "rent" unlockable items, This game has you grind to "keep" your unlocked items, so the work definitely pays off here in the end. Every so often the game will throw players a bone and follow the "League of Legends" method of offering free trials for some items and pilots so that some of the lower ranked players can at least have a leg up against the AI and more higher ranked player, so it's good to check in every now and again to see what items, pilots and units are available from time to time. A few changes have been made to the gameplay to add a bit of balance and challenge. There's an economic system that's worth mentioning called "upkeep". Think of this as your unit cap that works much like in Starcraft with a small twist. Each team has a percentage of upkeep that affects production of the entire team, and production is the only resource that's shared amongst the team. Upkeep is used to refill your production bar and as you deploy units on the field they'll take off a percentage of upkeep penalizing the recharge rate of your production bar. When your persistent percentage increase in upkeep reaches 0%, the production bar will stop recharging, preventing you from building additional units. If there are too many units deployed on the field, upkeep will go into the negative percentages, causing you to slowly bleed production until you recycle units or send them off to be destroyed in battle. The game is divided into quarters with two overtime rounds and upkeep will increase each quarter so that gameplay can progress, but players can increase upkeep by capturing power stations or deploying power generators. Other changes were the outposts that are scattered about the maps and their functionalities. Now outposts not only give you increased income when captured, but others like factories and power stations can increase the productivity of building units, and provide additional power and upkeep for your army, turning them into key "take and hold" objectives that could make or break your team's military effectiveness. This helps add to the intensity of combat as players try to capture and hold key outposts that could help lead them to victory. This game seems to combine a lot of elements from a lot of different games. It's obviously a beautifully made remake of Herzog Zwei with a few strategic elements borrowed from Starcraft and other tactical games like Warhammer 40k: Dawn of War 2 and Company of Heroes while combining gameplay elements similar to League of Legends. It truly is an Impressive, fast paced tactical game, one that I recommend to anyone interested in trying it. To those who aren't interested in trying it, all I can say is try it at least once. It's free and you've got nothing to lose but a few minutes of your time. Airmech can be downloaded for free at Airmech.com and is currently available on Steam and includes both PvP and Coop vs. AI game modes for both competitive and casual players alike. Be sure to take a look and tell 'em Raven800 sent ya. ----- Sources: Herzog wiki page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herzog_(video_game) Herzog Zwei wiki page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herzog_Zwei Airmech wikia page http://airmech.wikia.com/wiki/AirMech_Wiki CarbonGames main website http://carbongames.com/index.html Steam http://store.steampowered.com/app/206500/

Well, it's been 4 days since Wargame has officially hit the market, and I must say that there have been a few changes since playing the Beta version. Unfortunately I made one mistake that no game reviewer should ever make; I reviewed the Beta as if it was the final product of the game and as a result praised it to high heaven. That's not to say that the game has worsened in anyway, however there are a few changes that have been made to this game that can be a bit frustrating. For those of you who haven't read my previous review, you can check it out here as I'm not going to be going over everything that was mentioned in my first review for the sake of saving you, the reader, some time should you have already read through it. That said, let's get started... To go over the changes that have been made since the Beta release, let's start with the "exp" system. The exp system has changed dramatically since the beta. In the beta you were rewarded for participation as well as any additional exp you earned through battles. This would normally result in the players earning at least 1,000 points or more of exp. As this was the Beta, I suppose this was meant to quickly unlock more and more units for your deck so that you can try out each one and get a better understanding of what units are better than others (an example of this was when I first started playing and foolishly spent all my stars on the U.S armory when France and the U.K. had seemingly better armaments than some of the ones I had). Since the release, the amount of exp earned has decreased exponentially as now players only earn maybe 120-140 exp or more per battle if they win, and about 84-95 exp if they loose. For those who've been playing the beta, like myself, and have been spoiled by it's high exp gain only to be reset back to square one, this can be a bit frustrating. To new players who were looking forward to the online gaming, this could also be frustrating as well, but fear not as the game developers have something to counter-act this small problem...sort of... With the reduction of exp earned per battle, Eugen Systems decided to have Solo play reward players with command stars for completing objectives, factoring an average of 12-14 stars per mission. That's nice, however this doesn't mean that this game is going to give you "free money" as these are stars that you have to work for to earn. Each solo mission has the players go through different scenarios as each faction based on historical events during the cold war. These missions, however, are very unforgiving and can brutally destroy you if you haven't a clue of what's going on, and unlike multiplayer where you're rewarded exp for participation Solo play is all or nothing. In order to earn command stars from Solo play you must complete mission objectives, and then complete the mission to receive these stars. There are secondary objectives that you can choose to complete to score bonus stars, but if you fail the mission you will loose everything, and unless you save your game often, you're going to have to spend another hour trying it all over again. Now, when I said that the game can brutally destroy you, keep in mind that this isn't entirely true, however it is still very difficult. As you progress through each scenario, your units gain experience and can be carried over from the previous mission of the same scenario, meaning that your units can be more combat effective for the next mission. This also means that if you loose any of these units, you will be left a few units short when you start your next mission. For the most part, the conflict between East and West Germany is more of a tutorial segment, however, after a few missions the game stops holding your hand and starts throwing books at you to see what you've learned. This isn't necessarily a "bad" mechanic, but for anyone who's just starting out, this can get a bit frustrating when you loose all your AT soldiers and are left with light tanks that can't put a dent in the heavy tanks that will be rushing your front line in the next mission. So take caution when sending your tanks into an urban environment or having your scout crawling around in an uncharted forest. Lastly I have to point out that even though in my last review I stated "It's not about zerg rushing your enemy, but more so how well you can use your units" I must punch myself in the face for saying it mainly because I should have known better than to think that someone who is not above exploitation wouldn't buy this game and find out how they could win using rather cheap tactics that I hope will be patched in the near future. Yes, unfortunately there are moments where you'll be setting up a well balanced team when suddenly the match starts and your methodical efforts have been thrown overboard by the enemy opponents just sending in a massive wave of gunships or light tanks backed with supply vehicles that repair their units even when they're being actively engaged. A very disappointing display as this often leads to well-undeserved trash talk. It's one thing to stage a blitzkrieg as this is a legitamate tactic, but having supply vehicles repairing units like Tanks and IFV's while they're engaged or being engaged is unacceptable in my opinion. I've heard of making battlefield repairs, but I've never seen an engineer repairing an active Sheridan Tank while it was getting shelled by 4 T-80's. It's a bit insulting to say the least, but luckily I've made friends with one of the assistant designers of the game during Beta gaming, so I'm hoping to shoot some suggestions at him that might make the game a bit more fair and understandable. Though the gameplay itself still hasn't changed, anyone who still wishes to buy this game may want to go in armed with a notepad and pen ready so that they can make a list of names of people who use these exploitable tactics and avoid playing with them as much as possible so that they may experience the game for what it was meant to be. I still like this game, even with it's exploits, and I hope Eugen Systems irons out some of these dents so that future players can enjoy it. "Wargame: European Escalation" Is available on Steam and now available for download at Amazon.com Also be sure to stay updated at wargame-ee.com

Hey everyone at VG, I just stumbled across this very interesting RTS game and figured I'd submit a personal review on it as I've been playing the beta. So far I'm very pleased with it, in fact, to this moment I've yet to have a single complaint about it. With that said I'll just get right to it. Wargame: European Escalation is a massive RTS game staged around the Cold War era, where NATO and PACT factions are fighting each other on massive battlefield maps. Each faction has up to 4 different countries in their alliances; NATO having the USA, UK, France and the BRD (Federal Republic of Germany, and the PACT have the CCCP, CSSR, Poland and the DDR (German Democratic Republic). No player is restricted to the type of army they can use as everyone is assigned a "Deck" that can be customized to the player's preferance. With the stage set each side with guns at the ready, which side will you choose? I'll start by talking about the "Deck" system in this game. Each played is started off with a Deck for each faction. each deck holding basic unit types such as AT and AA infantry, basic logistics, Tanks, Light vehicles and basic support assets like Artillery and mobile AAA. As a player progresses through the game, they gain experience points that allow them to level up. Experience points are gained not only through combat, but through the amount of time a player participates in a battle as well, factering about 100 experience points for 10 minutes plus any additional experience points you in combat, so new players aren't completely left in the dust with nothing but the clothes on their back. As a player gains a level, they also gain Command stars with each level, factoring 6 command starts per indevidual level, and 15-25 star every 5-10 levels. These command stars can be used to purchase new units that can be added into your deck, allowing you to increase your armies size and strength. Now let's get into the economics of the game. When organizing your deck you have to pay very close attention to unit skills and their deployment costs. Because there are 4 different countries fighting for each faction, there are a variaty of different units that can be deployed from each army. Some armies may have faster units that cost less, others might have units that dish out more damage but cost more, or vice versa. In addition to unit cost and battlefield effectiveness, units also come in limited supply. I'll pull an example from my personal Deck. M60A1 Patton tanks and M551 Sheridans come with 24 tanks each, where as MBT-70s only come with 12, and M1 Abrams come with 8. The M1 Abrams may be the strongest tank in my deck, but it costs 100 CP (command points) to deploy 1 tank, making it 400 CP to deplay a squad of 4 M1's, where as I could deploy 4 MBT-70s for 300 CP at 75 CP a head , or 12 shermans for 360 CP at 30 CP a head. In addition to deploying units you can also deploy units with "battlefield experience" indicated by shevrons underneath the unit image for an additianal percentage of CP, allowing them to be more affective in battle. Though it may seem like a great idea to deploy those M1 Abrams from the beginning, the cost might bite you in the ass later when they get swarmed by a platoon of T-62's. Even if the M1 can take out maybe 3 out of 5 squads of T-62's that doesn't make them immune to shelling, and they can eventually get weathered down, though there are some moments where quantity isn't always better than quality. As you fight on the battle field, you'll lose more and more CP with every unit you deploy. Gaining CP requires you to capture strategic locations on the map using Command vehicles. Command vehicles are vital to winning the war as they are the only unit that can capture strategic locations. They must be protected at all times as they are the most vulnerable units in the game. They're kind of like the flag to your fort; loose the flag, you loose the fort. Command units are also the most expencive units in the game and come in a very, VERY short supply, so do make sure to take care of them. The more command vehicles you have on the field, the more strategic locations you can capture, giving you an increased number of CP per second. Sometimes Capturing strategic ares requires a bit of strategy as well. Capturing a strategic point only increases the amount of CP you gain per second. It DOES NOT give you a homefront advantage, nor does it give any form of boost to your units, so if there's a strategic area that looks like it doesn't have much cover or protection, it might not be worth capturing. Getting into Combat now. Combat is fairly straight forward when it comes to head to head fights. The better equipt the unit is, the better chances it has for survival. Units can be hidden from sight in heavily forrested areas, tree colums or hedges. Not only do they offer an element of suprise but it also offers the unit a better chance at engagements from enemies outside of cover, though a Bradley APC is still an APC and will get murdered by an MBT unless it catches the enemy off gaurd with an AT-TOW missle, so pick and choose your engagements carefully. Each unit has a pro and a con; some units are better at AT while others are better at AA, where as some units might be good at AA, where as other units might even better at AA depending on their stats. Somtimes a stinger is useful, but an M40 Chaparral AAA works better due to it's greater range. Each unit has a limited range of sight as well and are also effected by line of sight, so even though taking the high ground will increase your units visual range, any defilade there may be between the enemy and your unit could be used to hide from your outgoing fire. The line of sight mechanic works the same way for artillery as well. When artillery is deployed on the field it can be used to bombard anything within its range, but the farther away the target is, the less accurate your rounds are. However, if you have a forward observer, say a scout jeep or a ranger squad, they can give a more accurate firemission for the artillery team, making their long distance strike much more devistating. Ofcourse, accuracy isn't always everything. If you have enough CP you can deploy a few MLRS squads and just completely carpet bomb an entire Strategic location at the cost of Logistics. You can also use scout choppers to maximise your visual perspective on the battlefield, as well as laze targets for your gunships such as an Apache and send a hell fire right up an enemy tank's ass. The possibilites are endless. Strategies are fairly simple, yet always unpredictable. There's no set strategy. That said, go in expecting the unexpected. Deploy a well balanced army and you'll be rewarded with the corpses of your enemies. Never rely one a single unit type, and NEVER play a single roll without telling your partner so that they can make the proper adjustments to their deployment. If you're going to spam air units, let your team know so that they can focus on other assets. Another thing to keep in mind is that sometimes, it's not always about the size of your army, but how well you use it. The PACT faction, especially the CCCP, are notorious for pumping out platoons of units such as T-62s and T-55's because of their low cost, but even though they may out unumber you, a small group of MBT-70s and Pattons aided by Leapards could wipe them off the face of the earth with ease and cost the enemy major battle points. Games can range from 1 vs 1 to 4 vs 4, and though that may sound small, settings can be adjusted to increase the amount of CP you start with, so 4 vs 4 can turn into an all out war instead of a quiet skirmish. So far game modes in the beta include "Destruction" where the objective is somewhat similar to team death match; kill enemy units to collect points, collect "x" amount of points to win. The other game mode is "Time" which has you battle it out for a set time limit. This time limit can range from 10 minutes for the casual gamers, to 60 minutes for the higher ranked heavy weights of the game. The objective if generally the same as destruction, and I'm not sure if there's going to be additional game modes on release, but I do know there's going to be a solo mode, which allows you to practice against AI enemies and play a "campaign" mode, and some sources tell me that the company has much bigger plans for the game itself. I say, "Don't change a thing" as this is by far the best RTS game I've played to date, and anyone who knows me knows that I HATE RTS games, mainly because they're so mainstreamed, like Command and Conquer and Star Craft. In Warfare I feel confortable when playing against other people because the game isn't about how fast you can build your base and army or how quickly you can zerg rush the enemy base. It's about strategically placing units on the battlefield and using them to their abilities when needed. The only thing that gets in your way is lack of communication and lack of witts, and so far I've witnessed neither. Because of its massive maps, gameplay is slower paced as units take a realistic amount of time in traveling large distances, so you don't need the reaction speed of a Star Craft player to react to incoming threats. Communication and the ability to out wit your opponent are the keys to victory in this game, and I for one appreciate it. People who love playing methodical RTS games will love this game, and I'm pretty sure devoted Arma players may like it too as it uses a similar science in its own mechanics. Everything that happens in this game can be reasoned with and applied in real life scenarios. Antisipate, Counter Act, Attack, Regroup, and Dominate the enemy. This has been my point of view, and I hope anyone who ends up buying this game enjoys it as much as I have. Wargame: European Escalation is available for pre-order on Steam. Take a look and see what you think.

Hey everyone on VG. I know I haven't been on much around the Main Site but I've been pretty busy with other things. That said, lately I've been playing a lot of Battlefield 3 and have noticed a lot of things that could be, if not SHOULD be changed, and have been voicing my opinions on "Battle Log" forums. My latest one being about the Assault Class being a "Multi-Roled" class where as other's aren't; Carrying a Grenadier Kit while acting as a medic. I've posted an Idea to "fix" this "problem" and am interested to hear what other people who play BF3 think about this. That said, link's below. See you all when I see ya! http://battlelog.battlefield.com/bf3/forum/threadview/2832654624802527831/

you know, a long LONG time ago I had an idea about doing something like this....now it's actually happened and even though i'm happy to see it come to life, i'm still rather depressed...

=VG= BLuDKLoT LAN_WROTE ... ya it's almost exactly what I thought it would be, but when we get our server up, we'll control all that BS, trust me. thank god, that's all i've gotta say.

Hey guys, just another thing I felt like pointing out in the BF3 forums. You can submit your support to the forum here. Feel free to debate! Thanks. As I said in another thread, the Flashlight needs to be edited so that it's not as effective in broad day light. You can look up the recommendation here for more information. After a while of playing I noticed another gadget that proved annoyingly problematic, the "Mobile Spawner". Mobile Spawner: A gadget available to the Recon Class, this gadget allows a player to set down a spawn point for their squad, allowing them to respawn on said point instead of on a squad member who may be under heavy fire or is too far away from the primary objective. This device can be placed anywhere on the map and as far as i can tell is limited to one per squad. Pro: Provides a new spawn point and pushes up the frontline for attacking or defending teams. Cons: This gadget can be used to camp the other teams spawn point (and it often is) and can make the game unfair, if not imbalanced. Why it should be removed: Aside from the obvious con posted above, I feel that this gadget should be removed because it's already possible to spawn on your team mates, much like Bad Company and Bad Company 2. In Bad Company 2 there was no "mobile respawner" and the game was just fine, even with its slight imperfections (which I feel are slim to nil). What should be done if it's NOT removed: If this gadget is not removed from the game, I motion that the ability to spawn on squad mates be changed to only spawning on squad leaders much like Battlefield 2. It's already bad enough that anyone in a squad can respawn on ANYONE in their squad so long as they stay out of trouble and don't get themselves killed (i.e. camp out around the corner with an rpg and wait till they're reinforced) but now they have the ability to respawn on a point that can be placed behind the other team's spawn, which allows people to take out the opposing team before they even have a chance at hitting the battlefield. I really hope this thread is taken into consideration before the game releases because this is the one thing that is making me reconsider refunding my pre-order if left unchanged.

ridDle LAN_WROTE ... Pffft, I love the flashlight. Moving up narrow hallways and bad guys dont stand a chance against my UMP with a flashlight. again, the flashlight is a great addition, but the fact that they're just as effective in broad day light is problematic. however in maps like "metro" where there are dark tunnels and whatnot, that's where they can be most effective and it makes sense.

I figured I'd throw this up because I just finished playing the beta and in a way the gameplay is generally the same between PC and Console, the only difference it you're using a controller on the console version. Before I point out the negatives of the game let me first clearify that I do understand that this game is still in Beta. Any comments about the negatives of this game will be prompted as suggestions for EA and Dice to look over and hopefully fix before the game is released. With that said, let's begin. Well I'm very excited about this game. I loved Bad Company 2, even with its few imperfections and I loved Battlefield 2 before it was exploited like no tomorrow. So jumping into this I was stoked to see how the gameplay played out. Sure enough, jumping into the battle field felt great; audio sounded amazing, controls were fluid and the environment and character models looked outstanding. However one thing I noticed, and I did read about this on a BF3 forum, was that the environment looked really "pixely", like they weren't utilizing anti-aliasing. I read that the console versions of this game won't be utilizing the full broth of the graphics engine like the PC will, but maybe this feed back is coming from the Beta players and not the developers themselves. Time will tell though. With that said and out of the way, let's go ahead and highlight the pros and cons of this new mass multiplayer game. First off, the pros. One thing I gotta say is that I'm happy they're including the "Rush" game mode in this title. Ground Control is fun and all but sometimes it can get boring, so it's good to mix it up and have some variety. Honestly though, I'm much more looking forward to the massive maps they're promising for ground control. I can't wait to see that! Another pro about this game are the weapons. Finally they got the right idea, and now weapons look like they're going to be team specific much like in Battlefield 2, which is something I can appreciate because it never made sense to me why a Russian Soldier would would walk around with an M16 in Bad Company 2, or why you start off with a soviet AK-47 even as the Americans. The consistency is definitely present now (at least for the starting weapons) and much like in Bad Company 2, the more you use a specific class and earn points with them, the more stuff you unlock for them. Next let's talk about classes. It seems they took a step back and used Bad Company 1's class system, which was a smart move. Medics no longer carry machine guns as the "Assault" class is the new medic class and the machine gun toting soldiers are the "Support" class, much relevant to Battlefield 2. Like Bad Company 2, Battlefield 3 sports 4 classes; Assault, Engineer, Support, and Recon. Let's go ahead and briefly go over these classes: 1.) Assault: primary weapons are assault rifles with options to add under barrel attachments (that's right, you have to unlock grenade launchers), and they have the ability to drop health kits for team mates to heal from much like Bad Company 2 and can later unlock the shock pads to revive fallen teammates. 2.) Engineer: primary weapons are SMGs much like Bad Company 2, and have repair torches to fix vehicles (not sure if they can still solder through enemy vehicles like in Bad Company 2) and can later unlock the rocket launcher (that's right, they're engineers first and AT soldiers second). 3.) Support: primary weapons are LMGs with deployable bi-pods for added accuracy when laying prone or crouched behind cover (make your own machine gun nest), and can drop ammo for teammates. 4.) Recon: Primary weapons are a mix between semi-auto battle rifles and sniper rifles. Can call in artillery with a radio and can later deploy mines (maybe motion trackers as well, but that's yet to be seen) This is where we start to dwell into neutral grounds as we talk about the new weapon attachments. So far I haven't been able to sample all of them, but I've managed to sample a few of them, and they seem rather impressive, however there are some disappointing factors about a few of them that I'll attempt to submit and hope the developers make the appropriate changes. With that said, let's go ahead and dive right in. 1.) Flashlight: This new attachment can be mounted on the assault rifle (and I think some of the other weapons like the SMG, but I'm not entirely sure yet), and is very effective at CQC (close quarters combat) as it hinders the opponents vision by creating a lens flare effect on their screen when the flashlight is pointed directly at them. An interesting new feature that definitely spices up a firefight, however there is a noticeable problem with this new feature as the effects seem unhindered in broad day light, so you can be looking at a person standing 50 meters away and their flashlight will still blind you (by showing up as a lens flare on your screen) and conceal their silhouettes, allowing them to shoot you with more accuracy. This needs to be fixed as this is not the proper way that flashlights work. if the flashlight were turned on in broad day light, their projected light would loose its effectiveness and only give off a flicker of light that would more so give away their position than blind their enemies. Which leads us to the next attachment. 2.) Laser sight: This is another rifle mounted attachment (and also for the SMG I'm guessing). I'm not sure if it helps improve accuracy but it does give you a designation of where your weapon is pointing. The one problem I found with this gadget is that it has the same properties as a flashlight, meaning if it's pointed at you, you'll be blinding as if it was a flashlight. This is another issue as laser pointers down work like this unless they're pointed in your eye, or around the general area of your face. so far these are the only two cons, aside from the obvious beta glitches like no-clipping glitches and erratic spawn menus. These two issues will be submitted to EA and Dice in hopes that they'll see these errors and fix them. Aside from these issues, the Beta looks very impressive and I can't wait to see what the full game has to offer. The main menu displays a Co-operative game mode, so I'm a bit interested in seeing how that will play out. Until then I guess we'll just have to wait and see. Hope you enjoyed this. For anything I may have missed, you guys can check out this video by TheRussianBadger for more info. To support the recommendations posted to EA and DICE, you can go here and show your support with a few forum bumps in hopes the Devs will catch a glimpse of these recommendations.

Though I am a patriot by nature, I won't spout off about America and how great a country it is due to the fact that this community is a global community and not everyone agrees with the government and people of the United States. So instead I invite those who wish to pay respects to this day to view my submission to the memorial of the World Trade Center attacks on my Facebook page. http://www.facebook.com/note.php?created&¬e_id=10150362071004254 Let us morn the fallen, but appreciate what we have, regardless of how little it may be.

A few suggestions in light of last nights hacking that happened last night at 4:30am EST. 1.) These hackings (most of them anyway) seem to be provoked either to promote other servers, or because people want to wine about how Opfor is not playable while the option to join Opfor is still available. I think we might see less of these incidents if we make Blufor specific Insurgency maps where Opfor isn't even an option. It's actually easier than it looks. All you have to do is delete the 4 playable characters from the map and Opfor will no longer be an option to play. "Opfor can be disabled in the parameters though." True, but this doesn't prevent people from joining Opfor, they just can't choose to spawn on the map, so now you have people in Opfor, waiting for a spot for Blufor to open up. This can get annoying as the VG server has grown quite popular over time because of these maps, which leads me to my next suggestion. 2.) Have a second Insurgency Server. People seem to love the VG server now more than ever after finding a way to edit the maps without breaking the scripts (it's something that I still haven't figured out myself, and no one has really told me how when asked). This has obviously lead to packed a packed server with no open slots for seemingly hours on end. So, why not open up another Coop Insurgency server? A lot of people seem to like the VG name when it comes to coop, and I think if we have a secondary server running it could increase popularity. well those are my suggestions. thanks for taking the time to look them over.

1.) Re-enable Voting. Apparently there's a glitch where if someone starts a map vote it will continue to initiate a map vote if the vote fails for the rest of the round. Honestly i had no problems ignoring Map votes i wasn't interested in, and i can't see why it should bother anyone else. To solve the problem, =VG= admins decided to disable Voting, and this poses a new more annoying problem that can be explained through the following phrase: "When the cat's away, the Mice will play." I know admins are able to kick disruptive players, but nine times out of ten there will be an increase in disruptive and non-cooperative players when admins are not present, and with voting disabled there's no way for players initiate a kick vote to rid themselves of this disruptive player. Re-enabling this feature would definitely make for a more enjoyable experience. 2.) Randomizing the Map list If possible i recommend randomizing the map list a bit, maybe once a week or once a month at least, that way, should the server crash, we're not forced to rejoin on the Muttrah City Map over and over again. And though admins can willingly either run the next map or change maps to which ever they want, sometimes admins won't be there to do this. setting the default map or first map on the list to "Operation Barracuda" or "Karbala" followed by another random map would help change up a bit so it doesn't feel so redundant and repetitive. 3.) Broadening the Map list horizon we've seen Kashan Desert, Rameil, Karbala, Al Basrah, Qinling, Gazah Beach (at least more often than before), Jabal, Muttrah, Lashkar, Beirut and Barracuda. I haven't seen Asad Khal, Kozelsk, or Operation Archer. Also, Fools Road seems to be a rarity as well. I think it would be a bit refreshing to introduce some of these maps into the map list. a slight change in scenery at least. 4.) Limited Mortar use After the holiday season I've noticed an increase in Moronic Mortar use. What do I mean by this? Simply that people people who don't understand what purpose these mortars serve operate them and either hinder the progression of the team by hammering the current objectives that need to be captured or not announcing where the mortars are going to land resulting in the team walking into incoming shells and raging at a mortar team for their ignorance, resulting in more unhappy gamers. I'm all for equal opportunity and everything, and i don't mind teaching people how to operate mortars, but mortars are more of a supporting role than an assaulting role and i think there should be an enforcement on limiting the use of mortars. I'm not sure what a good solution for that would be other than just simply preventing the creation of mortar squads, and I'm not about to support that, but if there's a way to limit the use of mortars to only the competent players who know how to use them properly, that would help prevent a lot of rage. These are just a few suggestions i thought I'd throw out there in hopes of improving my gaming experience on the PR VG Coop server as lately my experiences haven't been as positive as they once were. One thing I'm hoping would be restored is the voting system. too many people now a days are being disruptive/disrespectful, teamkilling, stealing/wasting assets, non-cooperative and forcing people to team kill them. i think reinstating the vote system would help weed out these people. thanks for taking the time to look these over.