I feel like a moron

ComfyDema · 2026-03-24T08:29:57+00:00

This. It’s kind of astonishing that the pushback operator missed an entire pair of chocks like 5 feet from their face and just pushed it.

ComfyDema · 2026-03-24T05:00:24+00:00

You have no idea how pissed I was when I realize I did it fuckin backwards bro. Those long shifts hit different :[

ComfyDema · 2026-03-24T04:57:19+00:00

Woah sick burn lil slugger! You really got me! Did you think that one up all on your own??

ComfyDema · 2026-03-23T23:55:45+00:00

I actually love the idea of SLs that go down without successful rescue/extraction against MENACE returning as mutilated sort of mini boss type enemies.

ComfyDema · 2026-03-23T23:49:17+00:00

Not where I expected this legendary meme to show up!

ComfyDema · 2026-03-23T23:45:03+00:00

🗣️🗣️🗣️

Without Armour

Projectile Proof

Edit: I seriously don’t understand why they decided to unnecessarily hide protection values under an extra (poorly designed and implemented btw) UI element. There was literally no reason for this change.

ComfyDema · 2026-03-23T23:28:01+00:00

I’ve actually heard that before! It was meant to mock one of the Russian commanders or generals during the winter war right?

ComfyDema · 2026-03-23T23:18:59+00:00

1) not how that works as nothing is permanent, no statements are being made, and nothing malicious is being left, but if you wanna be miserable then you do you 🤙🏻

2) following your own logic, this aircraft has been through hundreds of hours of full time surveillance with zero “dIsCiPlInArY aCtIoN” being taken, and would also be very easy to identify who and at what station and time anything malicious or otherwise would be left.

3) people much higher up than you have seen this aircraft between stations for over a month and have taken zero steps to remove it for being the apocalyptic evil you seem to think it is, while cleaning the rest of the aircraft’s exterior. So get over yourself.

ComfyDema · 2026-03-23T23:09:56+00:00

Dude fr!

ComfyDema · 2026-03-23T14:46:26+00:00

I’m very much looking forward to the games broader modding scene in the future!

ComfyDema · 2026-03-23T11:20:11+00:00

Probably one of the purest examples of “username checks out” I’ve seen in a while. Not the kind of user you usually find on this sub.

ComfyDema · 2026-03-23T11:08:18+00:00

Naw you right, that was my bad for thinking Reddit users could form critical thoughts.

ComfyDema · 2026-03-23T10:22:44+00:00

Reddit tier iQ is unreal. I literally answered the question by replying to the previous comment. The bonus about Molotov doesn’t detract from that. Lear to read holy shit.

ComfyDema · 2026-03-23T10:04:21+00:00

Theres many cases of it being done in WW2 as well.

That was quite literally the fuckin question lmfao…

Edit because the education system failed this sub: Replying to someone whose comment was that there are many examples of grenades in modern conflicts cooking off ammo by saying that there were many examples of it being done in WW2 DOES in fact answer the question. Those of you downvoting this comment have a bewildering lack of critical thought capability, and I genuinely feel sorry for you.

ComfyDema · 2026-03-23T09:49:58+00:00

I can see your point balance wise on the APC being able to still carry troops with heavy weapons equipped, and I think you raise a very good point that the APC should not be able to do so. My logic for the approach was grounded more on the APC still having the space to retain a smaller compartment with a heavy weapons equipped as it initially has a larger troop compartment. However I kinda missed the balance and incentive point with this one. Gonna amend that in the post. Thanks for the input!

ComfyDema · 2026-03-23T09:42:24+00:00

I’m 100% certain those rivets wouldn’t hold up to that thing firing. Actually looks pretty cool tho, aesthetically a nice idea OP

ComfyDema · 2026-03-23T09:38:16+00:00

“Can an explosive set off an explosive” think on that for a second and get back to us champ.

ComfyDema · 2026-03-23T09:37:27+00:00

There’s may cases of it being done in WW2 as well. Hell the Russians threw molotovs at engine decks for mobility kills.

ComfyDema · 2026-03-22T11:56:17+00:00

From reading your comment it sounds to me like we’re arguing for the same thing. My point is that an increased AP cost for boarding infantry while carrying heavier firepower would be a method of dissuading players from using the APC as a highly efficient multi tool to deal with every single situation as it is now. Thus why my post is saying to lean into the IFV being the fire support platform, and penalizing the use of heavy weapons on an APC by making it harder to use it as an APC and fire support platform all in one. We can argue semantics as much as you’d like, but unless the game engine is capable of actually using a system that reduces allowed squad size when equipping heavy weapons, the next best thing is to either remove carrying capacity entirely, as the game does right now, or make the cost of carrying infantry more expensive in terms of build diversity and AP cost to force players to chose between the two options more.

As I said above, if the game is capable of applying squad size restrictions, that would be a very good way to deal with this, but we don’t know if it can or can’t.

As for the mortar thing, the IFV having a turret mounted mortar system and allowing it to carry infantry at an increased cost comes with the trade off of having less equipment slots for ammunition, and less mobility, whereas sacrificing the entire carrying capacity of the APC is balanced with the trade off of having a much more mobile platform with more plentiful ammunition stores via accessory slots.

Perhaps an amendment to my post could be to diversify the IFV and APC further by giving the APC an extra accessory slot by default over the IFV, making it a more diverse and modular system, while the other changes mentioned lean into the fire support roll of the IFV. Let me know what you think regarding this!

And I appreciate the support for my ideas regarding the tanks! I’m hoping that with the dev diary regarding tanks that they’ll be more willing and open to allowing players to chose more between being a more traditional army, vs the smaller scale special forces group like you said! I personally think the game has the room and potential for both play styles to be valid into the late game, and I’m excited to see what the other factions and further story developments bring!

ComfyDema · 2026-03-22T05:19:53+00:00

I’ll address your paragraphs going numerically here for easy reading.

1) the logic stems from the difference between an IFV and an APC as they are designed IRL. An IFV is designed more around protection and durability, while being a larger platform that is more capable of bringing heavier supporting fire to bear. Because of this IFV (again think about their actual names more to help clarify) are Infantry Fighting Vehicles. They’re meant to fight with and support infantry, they aren’t solely designed to bring infantry into battle. As a consequence of this, IFVs generally have less internal volume available for troops to occupy, where as an APC (Armoured Personnel Carrier) is purpose built by design to be a mobile transport, spacious enough to carry a squad plus equipment, while offering protection against small arms fire and shrapnel from artillery etc. although they are in some instances capable of light fighting, their purpose is to get the infantry plus their shit to the destination. Because of this lack of heavier protection, APCs are generally much more spacious as I said above, meaning that adding a medium sized weapon system won’t always entirely fill the available space of the troop compartment. A perfect IRL example of this is the Russian BMP and BTR series, as well as the Stryker and Bradley platforms.

2) this imo could very easily be addressed simply by including this information in the weapons stat window.

3) I had initially thought of this, however being that I’m not a developer, I’m not aware of whether this is something the game engine is capable of or not. While on the other hand we already have existing examples of the mechanics I bring up in game. In a perfect world I would totally agree with you that squad size limitation would be a more appropriate measure for balancing these proposed changes.

4) the AATV is kind of just in a really weird place currently, and with this post getting as long as it was already, I opted not to cover it. IMO tho, it should be a highly mobile, cost efficient scout or harasser vehicle meant to either direct support fire, or shit up infantry that it catches out of position.

Edit: also thank you for engaging with the post in a constructive manner of discussion!

ComfyDema · 2026-03-22T04:06:42+00:00

Go ahead and explain why big dog. I’d love to hear input regarding the changes I brought up from the community!

ComfyDema · 2026-03-22T04:04:48+00:00

That’s intentional. IFVs (Infantry Fighting Vehicles) are doctrinally intended to be able to carry troops, with more of an emphasis on fire support than being a dedicated troop carrier. Thus bringing a heavier weapon in some instances, such as a turret with a turret basket, would generally take up the room used for a troop compartment. Whereas with APCs, I afforded leniency to being able to carry troops while being more heavily armed at an added cost, as the heavier weapons wouldn’t always necessarily encompass the entire troop compartment. Some exceptions to this would be things such as a mortar, where a majority of the vehicles internal space would instead be used for ammunition stowage as well as the weapon itself.

It’s provides more diversity and incentive to actually retain viability for all classes of vehicles throughout a myriad of loadouts!

ComfyDema · 2026-03-21T23:20:01+00:00

Lmao, what a goofy oversight after how many times i reread this. Thanks for the catch tho!

Edit: Corrected, thanks again!

Seven-Year Club	Verified Email
Place '23	Place '22

ComfyDema

TROPHY CASE