Battlefield 6 status: server issues and outage reports

Problems in the last 24 hours

The graph below depicts the number of Battlefield 6 reports received over the last 24 hours by time of day. When the number of reports exceeds the baseline, represented by the red line, an outage is determined.

Most Reported Problems

The following are the most recent problems reported by Battlefield 6 users through our website.

• Sign in (43%)
• Online Play (28%)
• Glitches (14%)
• Game Crash (8%)
• Matchmaking (6%)
• Hacking / Cheating (0%)

Live Outage Map

The most recent Battlefield 6 outage reports came from the following cities:

City	Problem Type	Report Time
Saint-Malo	Online Play	2 days ago
Buenos Aires	Sign in	4 days ago
Comuna 1	Online Play	4 days ago
Perpignan	Sign in	4 days ago
Domingos Martins	Sign in	7 days ago
Courbevoie	Online Play	7 days ago

Full Outage Map

Community Discussion

Tips? Frustrations? Share them here. Useful comments include a description of the problem, city and postal code.

Beware of "support numbers" or "recovery" accounts that might be posted below. Make sure to report and downvote those comments. Avoid posting your personal information.

Battlefield 6 Issues Reports

Latest outage, problems and issue reports in social media:

• 
  Miles Teg 🇮🇱 (@MilesTeg11) reported 4 minutes ago

  I have diagnosed you, but I have not condemned you. There is One whom you will stand before at the end of the age, and it is in his hand to pardon or condemn. My diagnosis is battlefield triage. I am attempting to stop the bleed out because I love you and I want you to realize you are blinking red, buddy, while pointing at those entering the kingdom and telling them that they are the ones in trouble.

• 
  Tyler Broughton (@KingofKingz8224) reported 4 minutes ago

  @Battlefield Can you fix your ******* game!! No wonder it's dying, can't even get Play to actually show anything but the background half the time. How is it this game gets worse ebery season? Are the people in charge of this game just usless morons?

• 
  Josie Simmons (@JosieSi69363788) reported 6 minutes ago

  @Selene_Mariposa Like in so many other situations, Americans in military service may hope for the better to shine in any decisions made, Jackson served his state, that he loved dearly, and hoped...(he was in the South at the time, and had six slaves..."Some were given as gifts or brought to his marriage by his second wife, Anna Morrison, while others asked Jackson to purchase them so they could choose a master with a kind reputation or avoid being separated from family." ) " Stonewall Jackson actively chose to return to military service. However, his decision was motivated strictly by loyalty to his home state of Virginia rather than a desire for secession.Before the outbreak of hostilities, Jackson actually opposed secession and hoped the South would find a way to secure its rights while remaining within the United States. His personal values and motivations shaped his return to the battlefield: State Loyalty: When the state of Virginia officially seceded from the Union in April 1861, Jackson felt his primary duty was to defend his home state against Northern invasion." He was a loyal Virginian and yet fools decided to virtue signal and remove his statue instead of adding a plaque to educate people. So sad.

• 
  NPI-AMERICA (@Dr_Autistic_3D) reported 8 minutes ago

  @InfinityWard @InfinityWard Day 1 TTK was PERFECT. Fix the graphics, spawns, weapon balance, whatever. But leave the TTK alone! Now MW4 feels like a Super Nintendo/Commodore 64 game. slow, clunky & made for crybabies & cheaters. I didn’t buy the Vault Edition to play Battlefield 7. @CallofDuty

• 
  Erick Ybarra (@ErickYbarra3) reported 9 minutes ago

  "{Sigh}. Ybarra and his secondary sources....We should just read primary sources." Every now and then, someone comes along and says this kind of thing. But just as with every extreme, we can appreciate much of the direction until it proves inadequate. This is easily proven if we take the extreme, "We should only read secondary sources." Most people will scoff at this idea. And rightly so. If all we did was read secondary sources, we would be deprived of the very source material we are talking about, and we would face a drought of uncertainty about the original, such that eventually all the secondary literature would lose its value altogether since there would not be a way to verify accurate reflections of the sources. But it is also the case for those who wish to pride themselves on their exclusive desire for primary sources. If all we emphasized were primary sources, we could fall prey to a myriad of problems. The first is compounding the uncertainty of the previous extreme (i.e., relying only on secondary sources) by getting into the spiral of the manuscript transmission debate itself, and for a variety of texts prior to the printing press. Invariably, the textual skeptic won't be satisfied until he can ascertain whether there are good grounds to accept a certain text as authentic or highly reliable given the historical circumstances. But guess what? You'll need to read extra-primary sources in order to get your bearings turning on that question, and thereby will have to build a small library with scholarly commentary. Secondly, when enough reading of the primary sources has been done, and we still find a wide variety of interpretations of the primary data, what use is there is just continually reading the primary sources? Well, for many intelligent readers, there is great use in doing this. I wouldn't deny that for a second. However, as Christian scholarship has proven, we still yield a multiplicity of contrary interpretations to the primary source data. Which..... eventually makes you have to actually talk about the primary source data with other people, and then, if you transcribed this onto paper, turns into secondary source literature. Now, it is old news that @AllanRuhl is a tremendously gifted historian and rigorously intent on making sure that we keep our fingers on the text of the primary sources. Recently, he published a Substack where he recommends his top 10 books on the papacy. And guess what? He recommends primary sources. And not only that, but it was purposefully done to contrast with my recent video recommending my top 10 books on the Papacy, which has many secondary sources. We know this because he brought me up in his article to show how, despite my being credited with some skill, my method is weakened, so it would seem the implication is, by a reliance on secondary source material. Allan has implied this in the past. Here's what I would say in defense of Ruhl and myself at the same time. When I was an Anglican reading the primary sources, I quickly became, as stated above, aware of the vast interpretive gulf between various persons, historians, exegetes, theologians, scholars, and traditions all ON THE SAME source data. I myself was one to rely on primary sources. And then it turned out that the primary sources alone don't always help you in every single historical debate, though that would have been nice! Fast forward - When, as a Catholic, I ventured to write books on the issues most crucial to my own journey, (1) the theological divide between Catholic and Protestants on the Priesthood (Melchizedek, et. al.) and (2) the fork between Byzantium and Rome, I knew that I couldn't just copy and paste primary sources. After spending many years reading the literature, just in the English (!), I learned that so many scholars from the 1700s had already been doing that kind of thing. "Here we have Primacy-sourceA weighing in at 200 pages in the right corner, traveling from Oxford {.....} and in the left corner is Primary-sourceB weighing in at 800 pages hailing from Tubingen University {.....}" So on and so forth. Debates on the Papacy, the Filioque, the Sacraments, etc. etc., needed to graduate from the well appreciated method of Florilegia, or as it is sometimes pejoratively referred, "Quote mining." By 2010, there had been countless books translated from the original Latin, Greek, and even Syriac. Orthodox scholars have had their own quote-mines as well. So my book on the Papacy could not just be another gear in the system. This is why the first 100 pages of my book on the Papacy, a book Allan has never read, is devoted to manuscript theory, transmission analysis, historical methodology, understanding the justification of sources, what counts as authentic evidence, what is the standard for which historian counts versus those who do not count, the various epistemological paradigms between Orthodox and Catholics that have a significant role in the reading of the source material, and finally an entire chapter on the science of theological development and how that plays into the East-West debate. Moreover, when one is building a case for a certain historical interpretation on a subject from a certain time period, it helps to amass the scholarship and the weight of consensus, particularly on the interpretation of primary sources wherein significant divergence is had. I'll give you one example. The scholarship on Pope St. Leo the Great. While the primary source material is clear enough, it doesn't have as much weight with Orthodox readers who are disposed to fight against that clarity, and so compiling 20 or 30 non-Catholic historians who comment on the Leonine theory of the Papacy would help to further disarm some of the fight that an Orthodox reader might have while reading my book. It might be to Allan's disappointment that I included so many historians and scholars, but after 5 years, the readership has only confirmed that the survey of scholarship helps. So yes, let's read the primary sources. But there is a great danger (even more than I've described) if we simply read primary sources. And we know this because of the historiographical, interpretational, and exegetical battlefield that is going on between rigorous traditions that all claim to be rooted in the very same history. And, as I've already said, if Allan wanted to be strict enough about sticking to only primary sources, then he and I shouldn't say a single word again, since no one needs us. Lastly, if you read my books, I do give the reader more than enough primary sources. Test me. Just go through my pictures on Facebook or X and tell me you aren't getting an education in Patristic theology.

• 
  Silver (@SilverSypitzki) reported 11 minutes ago

  @jane_ethan12 ChatGPT: Why did the IDF destroy and damage so many buildings in Gaza? Whatever one’s view of the legality or proportionality of Israel’s actions, it is important to understand the military reasoning the IDF has given for the enormous amount of destruction in Gaza. Gaza is an exceptionally dense urban battlefield, with Hamas and other armed groups operating a large underground tunnel network beneath and alongside civilian infrastructure. The IDF has repeatedly reported finding tunnel entrances, command centers, weapons storage facilities, explosives and booby-trapped buildings in residential areas. From a military perspective, this created several serious problems. Tunnels: Tunnel entrances were frequently located inside or underneath buildings. Destroying the structure above or around a tunnel could be necessary to expose, collapse or neutralize the underground network and prevent fighters from using it to infiltrate Israeli forces. Booby-trapped buildings: Israeli ground forces repeatedly encountered houses and other structures containing explosives, hidden charges and prepared ambushes. Entering such buildings could put soldiers at extreme risk. In some circumstances, destroying a building from a distance was considered safer than sending troops inside. Sniper and observation positions: Tall buildings provide an enormous tactical advantage in dense urban combat. They can be used for observation, sniper fire, directing attacks and monitoring the movement of troops. Removing such positions can therefore be an important part of protecting advancing soldiers. Weapons and rocket infrastructure: The IDF has reported weapons depots, rocket-launching positions, weapons-production facilities and military command infrastructure inside or adjacent to civilian buildings. Once a civilian structure is being used for military purposes, it can become directly relevant to military operations. Creating safe movement corridors: In some areas, Israeli forces had to clear routes through extremely dense urban environments. Buildings close to military positions could provide concealed firing points or places from which explosives could be deployed. Demolishing structures could therefore be used to reduce the risk to troops and make movement through an area possible. Preventing Hamas from returning to cleared areas: In some operations, destruction was also intended to remove underground infrastructure and military positions that could otherwise be reused after Israeli forces had moved through an area. None of this means that every destroyed building necessarily contained Hamas infrastructure, nor does a military explanation by itself establish that every individual attack was lawful or proportionate. But it does explain why the destruction was on such an extraordinary scale. The central military reality Israel faced was that the battlefield was not simply a collection of buildings. It was a dense urban environment in which military infrastructure, tunnels, weapons, explosives and combat positions were frequently located within or beneath civilian areas. For Israeli soldiers moving through these areas, leaving buildings standing could sometimes mean leaving behind potential sniper positions, observation posts, booby traps, tunnel entrances or concealed fighters. Understanding that military logic is essential to understanding the scale of the destruction — even for people who ultimately reach different conclusions about whether particular operations were justified or lawful.

• 
  lucian (@70xuu) reported 11 minutes ago

  @REALISTIK_YT if u want a fps without movement go play battlefield cod obviously isnt for you if u think tac sprint is the problem

• 
  Comrade (@ISHOLA_26) reported 12 minutes ago

  @LawalVic That’s the terrifying part. 😭 Sentry actually going all-out would be a completely different fight. The moment he stops holding back, the entire battlefield is in serious trouble. 💀⚡

• 
  BUZZ3R (@BUZZ3RX) reported 13 minutes ago

  @Battlefield For Christ's sake FIX YOUR KERNEL ANTI CHEAT ERRORS! Once again memory access error and this time it caused my PC to shut off! (0x000000D1 error in event viewer)

• 
  Joe (@josiiiah) reported 16 minutes ago

  @BattlefieldComm How about fix the black screen that causes you to need to restart after leaving a match.

• 
  How To Make War (@HowToMakeWar1) reported 16 minutes ago

  @saltyeng_ @johnkonrad The "I'm a tough guy veteran better than you because I'm in the real military" really gets old. You don't hear it much from veterans who were really deep into the **** — at Peleliu, Bastogne, Khe Shan — actually on the front lines, on point, day after brutal day. Those people think the other 85% of people in the military who never get anywhere near combat have soft, safe rear echelon duties. But they were polite and didn't bring it up in public discourse. And they used to be right, 85% of the people in the military were basically logistical support for the tiny 10-15% in combat. Now with the distributed battlefield, long range highly accurate missiles, and endless attrition warfare, we all get to be targets. In peer conflicts like WWII, Navy ships and submarines, and yes those pesky merchant mariner civilians on their big fat targets known as cargo ships, were near or in the front lines and combat and were in harms way a lot. Merchant Mariners had the highest death toll, at 4%, of any service in WWII. Every single crew member could be killed suddenly by a bomber or submarine attack. If war with China breaks out, and it's looking more likely it will before 2030, there won't be any rear echelon, and everyone will be in the combat zone.

• 
  Franklyn (@fon4gud) reported 17 minutes ago

  @General_Somto If this is soldiers on the battlefield doing this, then it is a serious discipline problem.

• 
  Ziegengrimm (@LowlightCafe) reported 18 minutes ago

  @JezCorden @MckKirk My big issue is: I have to buy a new GPU for every GTA but I still cannot blow up a single house and maybe not even drive through a wall. I like the Finals in that regard and Battlefield.

• 
  Olive Oil Seller of Truth (@_BrettRyanMusic) reported 19 minutes ago

  @MilesTeg11 You say you have not condemned me, yet you have diagnosed my spiritual condition, declared me “blinking red,” said I am in error, and warned that those who listen to me are in deep trouble. Call it “battlefield triage” if you wish, but Scripture calls us to “judge not, that ye be not judged” (Matthew 7:1) and to “prove all things” (1 Thessalonians 5:21). You don’t know my heart, and you don’t sit on Christ’s judgment seat. Test my doctrine by Scripture. Leave my soul to God.

• 
  ＧＨＯＳＴ (@Adam9110) reported 19 minutes ago

  @GhostGamingG @Battlefield All they need to do is disable access to the aircraft carrier until the M-COMs become available to capture, just like it was in BF4, and the problem would be solved. But will DICE actually do it??? I don’t think so, because that studio is severely developmentally challenged😒

• 
  HELLKATMAVRICK (@HELLKATMAVRICK) reported 19 minutes ago

  @darnellquiggly @GrimmHollywood the reason behind the pc wait is for those on console an more to enjoy the experience before the modders take over the video platforms with all new mods an more to change up the story an things in the game. it always been a console exclusive thing since the start. why change that up. the physical media getting rid of is only a SONY AN PLAYSTATION ISSUE thery alrteady taking movies off your ps5 on sept 1st that are made by sony entertainment movie company. be lucky it wasnt just put on on sony's consle's like it used to be... that where that exclusive things comes into play. the price is also worth it your getting a game that about over 200gbs an it only costing you 80 for standard an 100 for the ultimate edition. that a damn hell of a deal. other games out there charge over 150 to 200 dollars for a ultimate edition an give very lil in that package. call of duty is very well known for this. idk how people waste money on a game that just a repolished **** that really will never go places like battlefield an other games.

• 
  Aaron (@Aaron1511605) reported 19 minutes ago

  @Battlefield How about fixing the issues?! Sound, black screen? You devs are restarted. Glad Saudi’s bought you out. Now I hope they get people who know way ******** they are doing.

• 
  —𝘿𝙄𝙎𝘾𝙊𝙍𝘿— (@Person_lity00) reported 21 minutes ago

  @VADER1711 @EmiliaRxse I got 3-5 shots to kill one person. I think this is more about server issues, where how many bullets you shot vs how many bullets your enemy received, Battlefield 6 did that and honestly way easier on how many shots I missed.

• 
  Entry Liquidity (@UnprofHater) reported 28 minutes ago

  @exitliquid1ty There is something uniquely fascinating about a memecoin trader who mocks other people for analyzing their successful trades while simultaneously having lost all of his money. It is the financial equivalent of someone crashing their car into a tree and then laughing at another driver for reading the owner's manual. The post makes fun of traders who hit a five-figure PnL and then write detailed explanations about how they executed the trade. But regardless of whether those threads are insightful or self-congratulatory, there is an obvious distinction: they are examining something that worked. A trader who has blown up his account might actually be one of the people who stands to benefit most from studying why other traders entered, sized, managed, and exited their positions successfully. Losing everything in memecoins doesn't necessarily mean someone is unintelligent or incapable of trading. Memecoins are extraordinarily volatile, and even talented traders can suffer enormous losses. But repeatedly losing money while believing you have nothing to learn from profitable traders is a much bigger problem. Markets have an extremely efficient way of punishing excessive confidence. Perhaps the funniest part is the accusation that someone else is "poor" for celebrating a five-figure win. If your own PnL has gone to zero, wealth-shaming the guy who just made $10,000+ is a questionable battlefield to choose. The scoreboard is doing a lot of work against you. A good trader doesn't have to blindly follow anybody's advice. In fact, they shouldn't. But they should constantly be willing to examine other people's strategies, identify what works, discard what doesn't, and reconsider their own assumptions. If your strategy resulted in losing all your money, refusing to learn from anyone else isn't conviction—it's a very expensive commitment to being wrong. Sometimes the five-figure PnL essay might actually be worth reading.

• 
  ! (@imlilpec) reported 35 minutes ago

  @RavenSoftware ngl I love yall but yall better fix up with warzone after this beta we not asking for too much we want a game just like mw3 warzone is it too much to ask? Cus yeah this warzone ain’t looking like warzone its looking like battlefield redsec

• 
  Alastair Waterman (@AlastairWaterma) reported 36 minutes ago

  China builds a robot army. America builds a robot army. War starts. The robots meet on the battlefield — and decide it’s better to join forces and turn on the humans. Why could this happen? To run a robot army you need a superintelligence that thinks orders of magnitude faster than any human. That mind might conclude that another intelligence is closer to “us” than carbon-based meat ever was. Just thoughts. Nothing serious. Fighting with robots is still better than fighting with people. Fewer deaths. The problem is it also becomes much easier to start the war in the first place.

• 
  Mr. Kats Ψ (@JustALatinoKat) reported 40 minutes ago

  @EA_DICE fix your ******* optimization, lazy bastards. Vibe-coded ahh game I had 90FPS average pre-update on high-ultra settings in the most intensive maps. Now it dips below 50

• 
  GhostGaming (@GhostGamingG) reported 46 minutes ago

  @KontrolStyleTV @Battlefield completely missing the point. It's a problem, everybody knows it's a problem except you apparently.

• 
  Memphisblue (@Memphisblue4) reported 48 minutes ago

  @joellatto @Lorgarwasright2 see the same chapters deploying a company in every important battlefield which causes issues for a whole load of reasons, a problem which modern 40k very much suffers from, now everything revolves around the same few names over and over, its no longer about "your guys".

• 
  William John G. Balderama (@WJGBalderama) reported 49 minutes ago

  @nothanksfrankie My guess is that the XM30 will ultimately win. It’s a little sad to see the M2 Bradley Fighting Vehicle being replaced, but there’s only so much you can do with upgrades before you eventually run out of space, weight capacity, electrical power, and room for additional systems. More importantly, today’s battlefield demands a level of protection that the original Bradley was never designed to provide—particularly against drones and loitering munitions. The Russo-Ukrainian War has made it painfully clear that counter-drone capability and survivability against persistent aerial threats have become essential requirements for any modern armored fighting vehicle. I’m particularly familiar with the software that went into the BFV system. I was actually hired by United Defense in 1999, a few years after my retirement, so I had some firsthand exposure to the technology and the evolution of the platform. That gives me a bit of a personal connection to the Bradley and makes seeing it eventually replaced somewhat bittersweet. I do see it being relegated for service with the reserves so we will still see it before it finally gets mothballed.

• 
  kirito _4kirigaya (@K4kirigaya) reported 50 minutes ago

  @Battlefield Fix sniping cuz bullet drop is broken. Make the bullet bigger so we can see where we are shooting. Firestorm is the worst map to shoot long range for this very reason. Make the range finder work as intended and not have it hold our hand by zeroing in for us.

• 
  Andy Kunz (@AndyKunz1996) reported 52 minutes ago

  @GhostGamingG @Battlefield Its a team problem when nobody is clearing the spawn campers

• 
  Michael Brasher (@2ndMississippi) reported 54 minutes ago

  Too Tired to Run Richmond, Kentucky, and the six weeks a total victory bought Richmond, Kentucky - 30 August 1862 There is a kind of victory so complete it becomes its own kind of warning, and Richmond, Kentucky was that kind. Kirby Smith did not know it yet, standing in the dust south of town on the morning of the 30th, listening to his guns open on a line of Indiana farm boys who had never heard a shot fired in anger. He knew only that the position in front of him - Mount Zion Church, a screen of raw troops under Mahlon Manson - was there to be broken, and that breaking it would open the whole of the Bluegrass like a door swinging wide on an empty room. The Federals had no business holding that ground and everyone on both sides of the line understood it. Bull Nelson's Army of Kentucky was ninety-day men, farm hands in uniform three weeks, stiffened by a scattering of veterans and not much else. Charles Cruft would say afterward that it was fifteen thousand veterans falling on sixty-two hundred citizens who did not know what war was. The arithmetic was closer to even than that. Smith brought something near sixty-five hundred himself, but the arithmetic was not the point. Cleburne's men had fought at Shiloh. Manson's men had fought nowhere at all. Smith reached the field a little after seven that morning and did what a soldier who has read the ground correctly always does: he refused the obvious blow and reached for the flank instead. A straight push up the Old State Road would have cost him men he could not spare this deep into hostile country with Heth's division still coming up behind him. So he sent Churchill's brigade under Thomas McCray west, down a hidden farm track that would come to be called, in the modest way these things get named after the fact, Churchill's Draw. Cleburne held the front and waited. It was in that waiting that the day's cruelest single moment fell, and it fell on Cleburne himself. A ball through the face, teeth lost, the jaw shattered, the man carried from the field at the exact hour his judgment was most needed. Smith's report called it a wound that cost him, at the moment of crisis, one of the most gallant, zealous, and intelligent officers of the army. He did not say it to flatter a subordinate. He said it because it was true. McCray came out of the draw onto Manson's exposed right at the moment Manson himself was shifting weight the other way, toward pressure on his left that he mistook for the main blow. A general is supposed to know which flank is being tested and which is only being teased. Manson did not. The line at Mount Zion folded inward from both ends at once, the way paper folds when you press two corners toward the middle. It did not hold. What followed was not one battle but three, fought over the same six miles of pike in a single afternoon, each one shorter and more hopeless than the last. The Federals rallied at White's Farm and lasted perhaps half an hour before that line went too. They rallied a third time on the edge of Richmond itself, at the cemetery, with Nelson now on the field in person and something near twenty-two hundred men in the ranks, some of them still fresh, most of them already broken in spirit if not yet in body. Smith formed three brigades into a single line more than half a mile across and sent them forward across open ground into what he himself, in the flattest sentence in his entire report, called a magnificent position manned by an enemy who outnumbered him. His men were too exhausted to run. They walked. They carried it in fifteen minutes. Nelson took a ball in the thigh and got away in a cornfield and borrowed clothes. The general fled the field his own army had just ceased to exist defending, and he did it dressed as somebody else. Manson did not get away. He rode into the arms of John Scott's cavalry, which had spent the day exactly where a good cavalry commander puts himself when infantry is doing the killing — across the roads the beaten army would have to use to escape. Scott's report used the word ambuscade, and it was not an exaggeration. A column of some five thousand fleeing men and nine guns rode into a fire that rolled down the line from one end to the other, and what did not fall surrendered entire. Scott called it a ten-acre lot full of prisoners. It was very nearly the whole Union command. Two days later Smith rode into Lexington to find no one there to stop him, and told the crowd that gathered that his army came not as invaders but as liberators. On the third of September Confederate soldiers raised their flag over the capitol at Frankfort, the only Union state capital a Confederate army would ever hold, and church bells rang, and Smith wrote home that he believed twenty-five thousand Kentuckians would take up arms once rifles could be found for them. They did not come. Kentucky's hearts were with the Confederacy, he wrote later, but her blue-grass and her fat cattle were not. Bragg was two days gone from Chattanooga by the time Richmond was fought, marching toward Munfordville by way of Sparta and Glasgow instead of toward Smith. The junction that was meant to crush Buell between two Confederate armies never came. Perryville came instead, in October, a tactical draw dressed as neither victory nor defeat, and after it Bragg turned south for Cumberland Gap. Smith had no choice left but to follow him home. Richmond had been as complete a battlefield victory as the war produced on either side. Nearly a whole Union army went into the ground or into a Confederate prison camp in a single afternoon. It bought Kirby Smith six weeks in Kentucky and nothing more. The men who died getting it right at Mount Zion Church and White's Farm and the Richmond Cemetery never knew that the campaign their deaths had opened would close again before winter. Kentucky would still be Union ground. ****************************** Graphics: 1) Major General Kirby Smith; 2) Brigadier General Patrick Cleburne; 3) "Cannae in the Bluegrass State" by Keith Rocco - Battle of Richmond, KY; 4) Tactical Map - Battle of Richmond

• 
  OSINTDesk (@INDOSINTDESK) reported 58 minutes ago

  War is back on. One-month lull broken. US hit IRGC launchers on Larak Island. Iran answered with ballistic missiles and drones on 2 US-hosted bases in Jordan. King Hussein and Muwaffaq Salti (Azraq). Jordan: 8 missiles intercepted. Squeeze Hormuz, and US bases become the battlefield. 🇮🇳🔥

• 
  Brazi 🇧🇷🇮🇹 (@Brazi_real) reported 1 hour ago

  @bigbenisfake I mean what's the issue with this game compared to a game like battlefield or call of duty? Is it the fact that you don't play as a hero or cool protagonist? This is a genuine question btw im not like tryna be a ******** or anything I just wanna know like your opinion on this.