安装 Steam
登录
|
语言
繁體中文(繁体中文)
日本語(日语)
한국어(韩语)
ไทย(泰语)
български(保加利亚语)
Čeština(捷克语)
Dansk(丹麦语)
Deutsch(德语)
English(英语)
Español-España(西班牙语 - 西班牙)
Español - Latinoamérica(西班牙语 - 拉丁美洲)
Ελληνικά(希腊语)
Français(法语)
Italiano(意大利语)
Bahasa Indonesia(印度尼西亚语)
Magyar(匈牙利语)
Nederlands(荷兰语)
Norsk(挪威语)
Polski(波兰语)
Português(葡萄牙语 - 葡萄牙)
Português-Brasil(葡萄牙语 - 巴西)
Română(罗马尼亚语)
Русский(俄语)
Suomi(芬兰语)
Svenska(瑞典语)
Türkçe(土耳其语)
Tiếng Việt(越南语)
Українська(乌克兰语)
报告翻译问题
Nah, engine limitation. Best I can do is give them two separate "weapons", which they can switch between their rifle that fires ball ammunition, and the one that fires the 40mm underbarrel launcher.
And I'm a genius. There's not much balance to worry about if I don't attempt to do that in the first place. Rarely any plan survives contact with the enemy and not uncommon for ♥♥♥♥ to go hectic. The mod is meant to be suited more for real time small unit tactical action, direct control or not (tho flexible for most purposes really, but that's the main thing). It ♥♥♥♥♥ with armchair generals with deluded perception on conflicts and chaos and how things usually work. As long someone knows the fundamentals of base of fire and maneuver elements, combined arms formations, using whatever works, and not to copy whatever playbook Russian high command has in Ukraine (Afghanistan, Chechnya, Georgia, now Ukraine... it's like they keep unlearning what happens if you rush vehicles unsupported?), they should be doing fine.
As for multiplayer, I can't do anything about it because that's base game issue. DMS is currently doing open bets test for engine updates, however. Hopefully that brings out good things.
Thanks for the support.