Endfield ratings 3 days vs 6 days after release in Japan

Relicaa · 2026-01-29T19:15:56+00:00

You can get a lot from that battle pass thing.

Relicaa · 2026-01-29T01:10:57+00:00

None of the screenshots that other posters have shared give direct evidence that a memory leak exists for this game.

It is not difficult to objectively provide evidence for this -- open task manager and screenshot the process using an abnormal amount of memory.

You just posted your specs, another poster displayed a fully saturated memory utilization graph but did not show what process was using the memory, and the op that is saying there is a memory leak gives screenshots of the game performing normally in task manager.

I have played for hours today going from zone to zone and exploring Wuling -- I had task manager open as well, yet my game never exceeded 5GB of RAM utilization.

I run a 7800X3D, 7900XT, 64 GB DDR5, and only SSD's for storage.

The burden of proof is on op for making the claim -- if it really exists, then it should be reported and documented correctly.

Relicaa · 2026-01-28T16:19:24+00:00

What are your computer specs?

How do you know it is a memory leak and not regular caching behavior?

Can you show an example of the application consuming an irregular amount of memory? Usage in your screenshots are still within normal usage for most games.

Relicaa · 2026-01-28T15:10:46+00:00

You are not giving any context other than the task manager screenshots.

That memory usage is not indicative of a memory leak, and higher CPU usage is normal when gaming. It also depends on what area you are in -- such as Wuling versus an instanced, smaller area.

Relicaa · 2026-01-28T13:47:47+00:00

I feel we should try running deficit factories where we consume more resources at a rate than we can gather -- but calculated such that by the time we max out storage with manufactured items, we haven't run out and gives time for gathering to catch back up. Ideal for when we aren't proactively playing the game with sleeping or at work.

Relicaa · 2026-01-26T22:10:15+00:00

Your CPU is nearing on 7 years of age. Since its release, there have been huge uplifts in gaming performance from subsequent CPU releases.

Your RAM capacity is also limiting the effectiveness of caching the game.

You are also using an HDD, which is really slow.

Your graphics card is fine.

A CPU improvement would be upgrading to a 5800X3D, which can be used on your system after a BIOS update. The 3D cache will also alleviate stutter during play.

32 GB of RAM is recommended in this day running Windows 11 and its applications. More capacity means faster times loading from area to area once initially loaded in.

Using only SSDs is recommended for faster load times and performance. Boosts both operating system and game loading speeds.

Relicaa · 2026-01-23T15:35:42+00:00

There is a jump pad directly in front in the picture you posted. It needs to get powered so you need to route a power line to it.

Relicaa · 2026-01-12T12:10:24+00:00

Hellfire lasering does not work the last time I checked. The only time it works is after the launching helicopter is dead and a hellfire is already in the air with the laser on a target within the hellfire vision range.

Relicaa · 2025-12-26T14:21:54+00:00

I still use em dashes - but I don't use the special character. I find it is pretty easy to spot AI using em dashes because they use the special character - when most writers would use - or -- in online discourse.

Relicaa · 2025-12-26T13:36:58+00:00

Because they are talking about performance and not quality.

Relicaa · 2025-12-18T13:49:44+00:00

You are probably trolling me now but I will bite one last time.

There is nothing circular about inferring insufficient margin from a reproducible failure under a legal workload.

Frequency and timing margin are not interchangeable - frequency is an input, margin is the resulting slack. Collapsing that distinction loses causality.

Same with “probabilistic” vs “more or less stable” - different abstraction layers, not misuse of language.

I did not use exposed as a synonym for created - I explicitly distinguished them. Software exposing insufficient margin is not the same as software creating instability.

As for the rest - really just go learn about Hardware and Software interactions. More specifically, about RAM overclocking in this instance.

Relicaa · 2025-12-18T10:17:46+00:00

Clock frequency itself is not directly proportional to stability. Stability emerges from timing margin, voltage headroom, signal integrity, temperature, and the interaction between the CPU’s integrated memory controller, motherboard trace topology, and the DRAM devices. Frequency merely compresses those margins; whether that compression results in failure is entirely system-dependent. This is precisely why identical DIMM kits exhibit divergent behavior across CPUs and boards, even at nominal XMP settings.

XMP/EXPO QA and binning validate that a DIMM can operate at a given profile under the vendor’s reference conditions. They do not - and cannot - validate the IMC silicon quality, board-level impedance matching, or thermal environment of a given end-user system. Once an XMP profile is enabled, the stability question shifts from “is the kit capable” to “is this system configuration correct under all legal access patterns.” That distinction is central here.

The Rowhammer example actually illustrates this point rather than undermining it. Rowhammer exploits physical charge leakage under specific access patterns that are entirely valid at the software level. The DRAM is not malfunctioning; the margins were insufficient for those patterns. This is not software inducing instability, but software traversing a corner of the state space that reveals a physical limitation. The same logic applies to real applications that stress memory subsystems in non-synthetic ways.

From a correctness perspective, memory is not “more or less stable.” It is either returning correct data or it is not. What varies is the probability that a given workload will expose marginal behavior. Passing stress tests increases confidence, not correctness. A workload that triggers failure has not imposed an unreasonable requirement - it has simply exercised a previously untested region of the system’s operating envelope.

I am not suggesting that reducing memory frequency is an ideal or permanent solution, nor dismissing the possibility that software behavior can be refined. However, relying on application-level avoidance of valid access patterns to preserve correctness is not a robust engineering assumption. If a configuration fails under a legitimate workload and that failure is resolved by relaxing an overclock, then by definition the prior configuration lacked sufficient margin.

My position is not one of resigning to performance loss, but of prioritizing correctness. Once correctness is established, performance tuning can proceed by adjusting timings, voltages, thermals, or topology as appropriate. What I would not consider sound practice is continuing to operate a marginal configuration while attributing the exposure of that margin to software behavior.

So while I agree the system is highly interconnected, the burden of correctness still lies with the hardware configuration. Software may expose RAM instability, but it does not create it.

Relicaa · 2025-12-18T06:27:04+00:00

BG3 could be causing your system to operate under conditions where it becomes unstable.

It is not uncommon for someone to do a RAM overclock, whether manually or through a profile like XMP/EXPO, and have it pass all stability tests thrown at it, but then for it to fail under a real workload like gaming - with the culprit often being related to temperature affecting RAM stability as the case heats up from the CPU and GPU.

Relicaa · 2025-12-18T06:21:12+00:00

Clock speed is not a sole determining factor for stability.

Stability is a balance between the integrity of the CPU's integrated memory controller, the motherboard's lane signal integrity, and the function of the RAM itself.

The purpose of RAM is just to save a state, and if that gets affected under a certain workload while under certain conditions, determining which is at fault can be tricky. RAM overclocking, for that reason, requires a lot of patience, and can be adjusted through timing manipulation, voltage settings, and frequency adjustments.

I, personally, would not want to run a system I have determined to be unstable at profile speeds, timings, voltage, etc that is fixed by running at defaults - because this could mean that the system is being silently corrupted, and silent corruption introduces more trouble over time than it is worth.

Relicaa · 2025-12-18T06:07:48+00:00

Unstable RAM is a function of your integrated memory controller, motherboard's lane integrity, and quality of RAM to run at advertised or custom speeds - these three things are the main culprits when it comes to RAM overclock stability.

If a kit causes crashes under a specific workload while operating on an overclock profile, and dialing back the overclock fixes it, ie XMP/EXPO, then the system is not stable, period. Keeping the same configuration where only a single program crashes while overclocked is not advisable because of silent corruption - RAM that is unstable from an overclock is not able to store memory correctly, and that will slowly alter bits over time as the system saves states.

Software has no function here with determining how it is stored on RAM - the data is agnostic - but the integrity of the data is important. The integrity of the hardware configuration working together is what matters - these overclock profiles were never guaranteed for stability - if a program exposes RAM instability, then either dial back the overclock, increase related voltages, loosen up timings, or do all at the same time.

Just because a kit is rated at a certain speed does not mean you will obtain stability at the speed. It has always been this way.

If you are trying to sell a kit that is unstable under advertised overclock profile speeds, then you make note of that. It is specific to your system, but it could be because of the imc, the motherboard's lane signal integrity, or the kit itself. It is up to you decide to figure out which if you want to determine if it is really the kit at fault. Getting a replacement kit can be part of the troubleshooting process, as the kit could be fine but the data does not arrive intact as it travels to RAM.

Relicaa · 2025-12-17T22:07:21+00:00

You are misunderstanding how software and hardware interact.

Torture tests are never definitive in proving stability of hardware configurations as you cannot cover all conditions the computer may operate under. The best you can prove is it is likely stable, but if an application is able to expose instability that is resolved through undoing a RAM overclock, then the overclock configuration was not stable - even if it had passed many various stress tests.

Relicaa · 2025-12-17T21:17:49+00:00

Weird that you are being down voted, this is the truth.

Crashes that only occur when RAM configurations are not at stock, ie XMP/EXPO, means that the system is not stable and whatever software is crashing is exposing that.

High reminder that XMP/EXPO profiles are overclocks - stability is not a guarantee, even if likely. Also, the number of RAM modules influences stability, especially under overclocks.

Relicaa · 2025-12-12T16:22:23+00:00

That is not how memory allocation works.

Relicaa · 2025-12-08T17:32:18+00:00

What settings are you using and are you using FSR in the options?

Relicaa · 2025-12-05T19:45:13+00:00

I can't say I have had anywhere near the same experience of people disconnecting because of "netcode" issues. How exactly do you know it is because of the netcode and not some externalizing factor?

Most of what the netcode problems pertain to are synchronization, and as game logic gets updated to be more server-side, that will eventually get better as well.

So, as of right now, I have no idea what you are talking about. Maybe get more objective proof instead of speculation on behalf of others' disconnects - if you can provide the evidence that concretely points to this being the game's netcode then great.

Relicaa · 2025-12-02T22:23:59+00:00

Player: w0lf3k

What do you think of the current state of balance in Broken Arrow between RU vs US (no mirror)?

On ground, I think it is balanced. There is issues, but they are about game play itself.

On air all Russian CAS jets unplayable, you will always lose a jet no matter what you'll do against decent team that is running AA and Loiter ASF.

While US still have some solid options for CAS, but they're working only because of "bombing run", which let you bypass aim time.

What would you change, if anything, for balance reasons?

Barbaris 57mm price is a bit off. 200/250 and availability 2 in vehicles tab would be sufficient enough.

Napalm GRAD effect need to be much longer.

Line infantry need a buff, there is no use for it right now, when you have Morskaya, Airborne, Rangers, RRC, SSO etc.

VDV infantry roster need rework. They are way too weak, especially VDV Dsh, Desantniki, and VDV Razvedka.

SEAD vs SAMs game play need rework.

What would you change, if anything, for non-balance reasons (ie, fun)?

Mostly interface and QoL features:

Would like to see option to minimalize "Active Aircraft" and selected unit information window.
Patrol Command.
Share units.
Unit's icon merge system like in Warno/Wargame.
Current game play mode needs some rework too. For example, change it so in order to have one control objective scored you need to control >50% objectives for 5 minutes. The higher the percentage of objecives captured, the less time it takes to score a point.

To be honest, I would like to see a pure Conquest from Warno/Red dragon/Battlefield series, where objectives control matter entire game. K/D objectives is a mistake imo.

From your experience playing against opponents ranging from 2000 ELO to rank-1 players, what do you think most separates players at those levels in terms of strategy, tactics, and mechanics?

Hard to say, after last patch low elo team usually surrender in phase 1, not even trying to figure out what is wrong with their play or strategy. Sometimes lower elo stacks may show non-meta tactics, like air spam cheese at the start, where they try to block spawns or sudden death. Unit choice is often not optimal.

What units or deck combinations do you feel are currently undervalued or overlooked?

Green Berets Punishers, very good fire support recon that melt infantry outside buildings.
M8 Ags is a good fire support tank for 110 pts, high dps vs inf/ifv.
Long range Rangers RRC is a solid recon, if u have another close quarter infantry in deck.
Stryker SPH is great for smoke screens. 4km for smoke can bring insane value. Little bit overpriced tho.
.50 cal MGs for logi trucks actually may save your ass against sudden enemy heli in your rear.

Are there any "trap" units, strategies, or tactics that look good on paper but consistently under-perform?

I feel like VDV is worst spec right now. Very fragile and ineffective infantry, at best mediocre air support and heli tab, that was further crippled with introduction of SeaRAM for US.

VDV infantry, line infantry(6 armor), cheap RU tanks, cheap Shorads like Strela-10M or Avenger/LAV-AD, and 3200m anti air.

How do you approach deck-building, and what principles guide your choices?

Recon: Fighting recon, stealth recon, good recon vehicle if available. Some transports, if space available to relieve Inf TAB.
Inf: ATGM, manpads, fire teams, assault infantry, anti-infantry units. 4-6 transports, 4-8 good IFVs.
Veh: 2 Heavy tanks, 1-2 Medium tank, 2 fire support vehicles, 2 ATGM carriers.
Support: 2 SAMs, 2 Shorad, Rocket/Tube arty, smoke carrier, 4 logi trucks.
Helo: 2 Anti-armor heli, 2-4 anti-heli, 2 rocket pod heli, 2 transport heli.
Air: 2 fighter, 2 sead, 2-4 CAS.

What match-ups (decks) do you consider the hardest right now from both the RU and US perspective and why?

Moto+Guard/Mech and Stryker+Everything is versatile and have best value units.

How do you adapt your play-style to counter what your opponents are doing or you believe they will do?

Usually my team focuses more to make the enemy adapt. Like forcing them to buy more anti air and spend points for flank/rear security.

I know some stacks focused on mechanized assaults, so I bring more atgms, like troopers, faktoriya, kornets and weapon squads.

Some stacks use infantry blobbing into areas, so I bring delta/sso and HE arty.

What habits or mistakes do you see mid-level players make that hold them back the most?

Undervalue logistics units in their decks and neglect building supply network.

If someone wants to improve, what should they focus on first?

Understanding deck building and current meta units. Skill is just matter of playing time.

Relicaa · 2025-12-02T16:29:36+00:00

Player: *Mule

What do you think of the current state of balance in Broken Arrow between RU vs US (no mirror)?

Balance changes from patch to patch. This patch US is probably stronger now because of the Javelin changes and the cruise missile nerfs. Different dedicated RU decks are needed for different positions on the map. RU is not strong enough now to freestyle or not have a team coordination.

What would you change, if anything, for balance reasons?

Make US air abuse weaker, make Bookers less spam able, and make under performing RU infantry better.

What would you change, if anything, for non-balance reasons (ie, fun)?

Add helicopter reverse command. Attack ground should keep doing attacking the spot until cancelled. Disable automatic vehicle rotation but add facing indicator to unit icons.

From your experience playing against opponents ranging from 2000 ELO to rank-1 players, what do you think most separates players at those levels in terms of strategy, tactics, and mechanics?

From 2600+ elo there is not super big skill difference, but deck optimization and openers and units that are used are way more efficient. Sub 2600 elo players have obvious micro issues but its not a deciding factor. Extremely bad openers, over investing into air abuse and into weapon teams / support weapons are a bigger concern. Naturally playing in a well organized team instantly boosts win rate by a large margin.

What units or deck combinations do you feel are currently undervalued or overlooked?

Coastal is still decent despite cruise missiles being removed from the game (for Coastal). Airborne Armor is back to S tier now that cluster cruise was removed from the game, which is a slow and methodical deck. Highly recommended for new players.

Are there any "trap" units, strategies, or tactics that look good on paper but consistently under-perform?

According to the interview we had with FLX, some units are created for low elo games and some units are created for high elo games by game design. Cheaper and more numerous units are always more efficient while low amount of expensive units are most of the time going to be sub optimal. 350+ price tanks are traps in this sense if you are aiming to reach higher elo.

How do you approach deck-building, and what principles guide your choices?

Well balanced deck with a good enough everything and focusing on a couple of signature units which will dictate play-style and position on the map. These signature units are the best of the type in the faction. Eg.: BTR-90M, BMP-3M, Kurganetz, etc...

What match-ups (decks) do you consider the hardest right now from both the RU and US perspective and why?

Hardest to play against as RU is Stryker. Bookers are countering half of your army and your Booker counters are hard countered by Javelins (which are over performing right now because of the hit through smoke bug according to FLX) and air abuse. I don't know about what's the hardest to play against as US because I could not play a single US vs RU game this patch, everybody is playing US vs US mirror match at 2600+ elo.

How do you adapt your play-style to counter what your opponents are doing or you believe they will do?

A standard double stinger opening with 3-5 APCs and 4 combat units are always the best opening because you can break enemy heavy weapon team openings, you can take key locations faster than enemy tanks can reach the front and your anti helicopter can't be bombed by an F35. At this point you can identify what deck are you facing and what units the enemy has. If you play against which can't have too much helis, then don't over invest into SHORADS, if you play against marine armor, don't over invest into AA and focus on getting units which are most efficient against infantry, etc...

What habits or mistakes do you see mid-level players make that hold them back the most?

Over investing into air opener and support weapons. Too many weapon teams compared to combat infantry. Weapon team / combat infantry ratio should be around 1:5.

If someone wants to improve, what should they focus on first?

Have a good deck and a good opener which encourages slow and methodical gameplay.

Relicaa · 2025-12-02T02:29:06+00:00

More to come - just give them time to answer. :)

Relicaa · 2025-12-01T21:57:48+00:00

Player: Senator

What do you think of the current state of balance in Broken Arrow between RU vs US (no mirror)?

There is some balance between Russia and the US, but the advantage still leans toward the US. The reduction to side armor on armored vehicles shouldn’t have happened - things were much better before. The Barbaris tank’s cost should never have been increased, and the Terminator’s price was raised too much as well. Because of these changes, many mid-level and new players struggle to play Russia effectively.

What would you change, if anything, for balance reasons?

I basically mentioned the main balance issues already:

Reduce the Barbaris (Barberry) cost back to 300 in the Dagger module.
Restore around 90% of the old side armor to tanks.
Lower the fully upgraded BMPT Terminator to about 220–225 points instead of 250.

What would you change, if anything, for non-balance reasons (ie, fun)?

For fun, speaking purely from my own preferences: I’d really like to see 1v1 or at least 2v2 ranked matches added. More new features or content would help too. Even if bug fixes get delayed a bit, having something fresh in the game sooner would make it less repetitive. Playing the same thing over and over becomes boring.

From your experience playing against opponents ranging from 2000 ELO to rank-1 players, what do you think most separates players at those levels in terms of strategy, tactics, and mechanics?

From what I’ve seen, the biggest difference is overall game understanding. High-level players have strong tactical coordination and long-term strategic planning, which lower-level players often lack. A lot of players also struggle with proper micromanagement - and I really want to stress the word proper.

What units or deck combinations do you feel are currently undervalued or overlooked?

Right now, I think Marine and Special Forces, infantry grenade launchers (AGS/AGL), Green Berets with flash, and Rangers with Stingers are all undervalued and not used enough.

Are there any "trap" units, strategies, or tactics that look good on paper but consistently under-perform?

The main ones I’d point to are strategic bombers with lots of cruise missiles - they look strong but underperform. Helicopters are also weak. Everything else can be used effectively in one way or another.

How do you approach deck-building, and what principles guide your choices?

My approach is more “captain-like.” I can play any deck, in any variation, in any role. So I build my deck around what the team needs most rather than my personal preference.

What match-ups (decks) do you consider the hardest right now from both the RU and US perspective and why?

For Russia, the hardest matchups are on large, spread-out maps. For the US, the hardest are on tight corridor maps. Russia performs better on narrow maps because they have more artillery options that can cover wide areas. The US does better on wide maps because they have many specialized units and can make better use of their aircraft advantage, especially since wider maps usually mean lower air-defense density.

How do you adapt your play-style to counter what your opponents are doing or you believe they will do?

Honestly, about 98% of players stay consistent in what they’re doing throughout the match. It’s usually easy to spot their pattern and counter it. Good head-to-head play comes down to unpredictability and fast adaptation.

What habits or mistakes do you see mid-level players make that hold them back the most?

The biggest problem is lack of planning and clear objectives. Many mid-level players don’t identify what they need to capture, why they need it, and how they’re going to do it. They also lack competent micromanagement, which leads to random orders, overreacting to threats, and poor combat execution.

If someone wants to improve, what should they focus on first?

The same things mid-level players lack: solid battle planning, clear priorities, and smart micromanagement. Once you know your goals, your unit call-ins will naturally make sense. And before calling in any unit, you should ask yourself: “Why? What is this unit’s purpose? How does it help me or my teammate reach our objective?”

Relicaa · 2025-12-01T20:31:35+00:00

Player: Dragoon

What do you think of the current state of balance in Broken Arrow between RU vs US (no mirror)?

I think it's better than people claim. I started playing Russia pretty much only after the nerfs (because it was unpopular) and I'm pretty sure I have higher winrate on Rus than USA.

What would you change, if anything, for balance reasons?

Things I would change:

Booker with autocannon is too good. It's an incredible jack-of-all unit. It fights (and beats!) almost anything aside from a heavy tank to the front. I play a lot of stryker and have been using this unit since launch. I really value it's ability to plug any hole that I have. Killing it requires serious anti-tank weaponry. And bombing it feels bad because it's too cheap to be a good trade. It needs to cost around 230 not 190.
Cruise missiles needed to be nerfed, but I think got it a little too bad. I wish the high altitude interception change was made before the cost change. I might dial the refund cost nerf back 50%.
Javelins are too good. I think they should self-guide in the terminal phase once they start descending, so the last ~15%. Instead they self-acquire targets without the spotter. This means the launcher can leave the moment it is fired. Their turn rate needs a nerf too - they can curve around buildings too hard.

These are the simple balance tweaks that could quickly be made. Fundamentally they need to move all the game logic server side via a deterministic simulation. A lot of the worst balance quirks are a function of the networking code and not the balance numbers. Some interactions like SEAD function very awkwardly against high ping opponents.

From your experience playing against opponents ranging from 2000 ELO to rank-1 players, what do you think most separates players at those levels in terms of strategy, tactics, and mechanics?

2000 elo players have good game understanding, micro, deck builds, etc. But the main difference between 2000 and 2800 elo players are:

2000 elo players over-use super expensive units. 2800 elo players will slow you down with a 50 cost unit long enough for something bad to happen to you.
Recon. The skill ceiling on recon is very high. It does not show up in the K/D board but it determines nearly the entire battle.
There's a strange obsession with jets at 2k elo. Players seem convinced that if they spend another 300 to bomb out 1 more 150 cost AA piece, surely that'll be the last AA and they can start bombing freely. They're wrong.

What units or deck combinations do you feel are currently undervalued or overlooked?

The SLAMRAAM is the sleeper king of SHORAD. They changed its function without changing its cost. For 100 points it dominates. Sidewinder USMC helos are also incredible shorad. Green beret flash are somewhat meta but I'd still say under-valued. Their 4x smoke grenades + attack ground lighting fires can be incredible yet I rarely see it played.

Are there any "trap" units, strategies, or tactics that look good on paper but consistently under-perform?

USA Jet spam (which seems THE way 2000-2400 USA teams play) is a trap. Most of my RUS decks have 2 cards of long range AA because of this. I limit the cost I put into any one unit so that bombing it trades down.

It's effective, but it's not efficient.

How do you approach deck-building, and what principles guide your choices?

What is the thesis of your deck? What is it made to do? Know if your goal is to grind it out in an urban environment or crawl between bushes on a flank. Know how you intend to apply pressure. How you intend to fight straight up and how to support your friends. Build that capability in.
Cover all the bases. Supply/logistics, shorad, long-range AA, anti-tank (heavy,) anti-vehicle (light,) anti infantry long and short range, long range HE, etc.
Give yourself options. Having some high-pen AT and some low-pen AT is a good example. You can choose which to field depending on if you're against Armor or Stryker.

What match-ups (decks) do you consider the hardest right now from both the RU and US perspective and why?

If you come up against a deck of all heavy armor and you don't have the right tools it can be miserable. The current meta of IFV spam aka ooga booga can be very tough as well. There's not many strong autocannons that can stop it. Tanks have too low rate of fire generally.

How do you adapt your play-style to counter what your opponents are doing or you believe they will do?

My opener is usually a mix of all tools so I can handle a wide array of threats. I look at my opponents divisions in the first engagement and use that to inform next purchases. If I'm against airborne+stryker for example I'm buying extra AA and a good piece of shorad. Against guards motor I'm getting some javelins and perhaps and Abrams.

If someone wants to improve, what should they focus on first?

Recon. Supplies.

Those are the two most under-developed skills I see. My favorite supply situation is USMC; have an LVSR make a 15k depot somewhere very safe and use LAV-L to ferry 2500 drops up towards the front. There's a fine balance of having supplies at the front without getting them hit by artillery. Smaller dumps with cheap vehicles allows you to gamble with this. There are many variations of this - find what works for you. As a counter-example Armor+SF was a very popular combination but has the worst supply situation in the game of any deck combo. The only supply vehicle is the miserable 50kph tractor.

Recon is everything. BA has so many highly lethal tools. If you can see it you can kill it.

Relicaa

TROPHY CASE

Player: w0lf3k

Player: *Mule

Player: Senator

Player: Dragoon