Second

Celery did you folks train alot moving and firing at same time. I've understood you served in Kaartinjääkärirykmentti as a rifleman. I've heard those guys trains pretty lot about it and get good results out of it. Keeping hits on A4 paper from several tens of meters, while moving. At my time (over 10 years ago) whole symmetric shooting position and tactical weapon handling was totally foreign idea unlike these days. Things have improved a lot when it comes to good weapon handling. Cladly i've been able to update my training.

Did Umbra wipe out whole town :D

I've played too or something similar to it. Alters gaming experience lot, makes playing much more cautious when nearly not all creatures are beatable in early levels. That mod which i played however added already too much challenge, it was nearly suicide to wander into wilderness with low level PC as it was almost guaranteed that i would run into some major bada$$ monster from which it was impossible to hide and escape once spotted. I remember replaying one save for about 30 times with Minotaur on my heels and me trying to escape it. Every time it got me and smite me with it's hammer. :j: One problem with vanilla Oblivion is that not only creatures change, but their stats are boosted or lowered according to player's level. Stongest creatures might actually be little more dangerous than Wolf if PC is rookie. So it's really hard to establish anykind sense of which creatures are beatable and which are not. Usually all random monsters are beatable. Morrowind in this sense usually had more understandable system, where tough monsters were indeed unbeatable at early levels. I had to leave lots of dungeons untouched at early levels. Don't recall but maybe few such dungeons in Oblivion (and it had lot more dungeons than Morrowind).

Level scaling is present in most RPGs. I've seen topic which discussed such games widely known to RPG crowd (Gothic, Ultima, etc.etc.etc). And there was probably less than 10 RPGs which didn't have any sort of level scaling. Usually it doesn't show to player in anything more than in subtle hints. Problem with Oblivion is that leveling is far too clear and too drastic. Of that they hopefully get rid of.

Beucase you look it too much in shades of black and white? :p Morrowind sucks pretty much as a game. Oblivion was far better game. In what Morrowind shines far above Oblivion with it's lore, rich culture(s), exotic world... And ofcourse it had less monsters and they didn't level-up as openly. Why would i rely on ES5's high scores? Because they tell to me that Bethesda has once again created game which has pretty good game mechanics and most likely is enjoyable to play. Even if it's world can't suck me to play it for as long as Morrowind did.

Accurate AK47 (or similar 7.62x39mm) has about 300 meters. With optics it can be upped to 500-600 meters. Most problem is trajectory, which is pretty curved. 5.56mm rounds has flat trajectory and M16 i believe has 500 meters effective distance. AK74 has about same. Ofcourse, as usual, mechanical accuracy of firearm and used cartridges is whole another issue. I believe most often reason for relatively poor accuracy are used cartridges, while weapon's mechanical accuracy would enable much better accuracy. As example: My rifle gets around 1 MOA mechanical accuracy with good quality ammo, but poorer ammo makes that 3-4 MOA. Some snipers/spotters have said to have good performance to +600 distances with 5.56x45 (requires custom made rifle for extreme accuracy and self loaded/tested ammo i presume... And ofcourse highly skilled marksman). Older bolt locked rifles are bit different beasts, but back them "classic" marksmanship was probably way more important than these days, when CQB skills are more valued. I believe for example before ww1 US soldiers trained upto around 1 kilometer distances, 500 meters was common shooting distance... But with these beasts factor with effective range often is large heavy bullet and it's knocking power at longer distances, and not the ability to hit (living) target or even the accuracy of rifle or trajectory of cartridge. As example: Snipers of these days with top-crade scopes, top quality ammo and plenty of experience will have hard time to hit targets at over 800 meters, mostly problem is range estimations and wind conditions. If i recall correctly typically 30 meters error in range estimation leads to missing target's torso area at 800 meters. Atleast with .308 (7.62x51 NATO) and similar. But these are sniper-requirements with "one shot one kill" in every sitauation. Which very much likely are much different from pre-ww1 known distance marksmanship. And of course real accuracy and effective range comes when counting all these into one value and then adding some battlefield negatives into it. So i'd say that real effective range is around 300-400 meters. So there's lots of variables in this and there are many ways to look at it. But yes. 1 kilometer for intermediate cartridge is way off, half of it more likely. Suitable rifle for around 1 kilometer distance starts from somewhere around .338 Lapua Magnum, according to snipers.

And as i said one can't get AI defend properly even with a lot of time, patience and practice. Because it next to impossible. Your talking to guy who tried for about 6 years to get over various AI-flaws which limits mission designing for somekind mil-sim porpuse in SP. Finally i gave up because i didn't progress beyond certain level which i reached in year or two. EDIT: Ofcourse this piles down to personal tastes. I like to keep action in squad-platoon level conventional warfare where good AI is pretty necessary.

There is little to be done with intelligent mission design for defending AI. Give them terrain with cover which they can use as firing position and they fail to utilize that. Most often they just lie down behind it and will not rise up to shoot. Only way to make them look like they follow some actual drill is that they are ungrouped and hand placed into terrain, preferably with hand placed cover. But the problem doesn't go away as they still are unable to use that cover as firing positions AND cover (pop up to fire few rounds and get down behind cover to evade hits to self) . So in the end this is not only time consuming (reason why no body uses it ;) ) but also uneffective. It cuts them off from their unit and shared situational awareness which drops their combat multiplier alot. It also limits missions designing possibilities quite lot because it can't be used in dynamic fashion. Like unit moves to terrain, overruns small enemy unit holding that particular terrain and after it starts to defend to repel enemy counter attack. Common problem since days of OFP. This far little has improved it seems. And this requires AI to hold basic knowledge how to utilize firing positions... But ArmA2 AI doesnt' have that in it's toolbox. So it ends up being fish on the dry land. ProfTournesol: Bravo! Such intelligent and daring post :j: Reason A. I've bought 3 products from BIS. Reason B. These are open forums. Reason C. I've have opinion about this which i see very solid.

I've had ArmA2 some time maybe year by now, i can't bare it for longer than few hours. I've just tired to play it for couple of days but it turns out bad. AI is an issue. They don't defend. They cover seeking ability and cover using ability are worse, close to minimal. Trying to set them to man stone wall and utilizing it as firing position leads to epic fail. Enemy probably walks into hand grenade distance and frags sh!t out of them. On move they manage to hide these issues better and intelligent scenario design might hide those issue almost totally. MOUT-abilities leave a lot to desire. I see little of hyped centimeter-system which was supposed to lead much more advanced AI... Yeah they lean sometimes behind objects. Controls are issue... Or animations more like. I could bare it. Terrain is an issue. Too open. User made maps with jungle or high grass seems to fail with finding balance between AI and player. Often AI sees thru foilage when player doesn't see. I can see that ArmA is more and more moving into MP direction. Which is much easier for developers ofcourse. Haven't touched OA. I'm pretty sure these issues aren't getting any better and i end up wasting my money. Buying Arma2 at mid-price did already feel like needless loss of money.

About 6-7 years. I started to play in early 2001, but there have been few lulls moments. ArmA2 scores maybe about 5-10 hours.

The fact is that any shoulder fired rocket-launcher or recoiless rifle should be used at less than 200 meters. Preferably to gain nearly 100% accuracy at moving target is to fire at 100 meters. It's not about weapon so much, it's about person firing it. RPG-7 for many ways is pretty good weapon with it's ballistics (wind conditions is problematic), it has pretty flat trajectory to 300-400 meters. Still effective range is close to 100 meters for average user, as is with pretty much every other AT-launcher. We have rule that with AT-lauchers gunner should fire at target only at 50% of it's effective range, often if target is moving this means that range is practically at 100-150 meters. Only most modern AT-launchers with advanced aiming aids, ballistic computers and similar (such as NLAW) might have hope to stretch close to 500 meters, but even there gunner-related issues probably drops maximum practical range to less than 400 meters. AT-launchers with tripod and opics has real ability to stretch across to 500 meters as their effective range at stationary targets. But even those are best used at less than 400 meters at moving target, we probably are discussing about 200-300 meters distances. Moving targets are problem and usually soldiers have little practice at them and besides getting speed of target in stressful conditions might be very hard and probably requires thousands of shots at various angles and speeds. Man with rifle can shoot bullseyes at stationary paper target 200 meters with minimal training, but give him shotgun and throw clays with sling and he is going to need thousands of shots at 20 meters to get even at 80-90% accuracy... And this doesn't consist all the dry fire training he will need to get the basics right (which might go up to thousands "shots" as well). One of most fundemental rule is that you need very brave soldiers to man AT-launchers because going at tank from hundred meters is quite a shitty situation. In game world it is different. Every player is experiences shooter with probably hunderds of shots at various targets and who feels no fear. They could hit tanks at seemingly extreme distances because of cheer experience they have in game.

Don't fall into depression but study your Tolkiens with more care and you shall find aid in these moments of disturbance. Tolkien himself clearly pointed to fact that Sun's 4th Era was fall of Middle-Earth culture and creatures while world started to form into The Earth how/as we know it. World was getting more and more into shape which you see in today's maps of Earth. There are clear marks of rise of Satan, God and other today's (and past's) pantheons as we know them. It was his Silmarillion which gives insights in this, if i recall. Could be some Tolkien other (unfinished) works as well. My Tolkien-knowledge is rusty these days. So clearly you have no need to fall into depression.

Might be. But i doubt it. That is what i know about constructions works compared to my experience as lumberjack. With exercise i mean sweaty job which puts lungs and heart to work, increases fat burning etc. ProfTournesol: I don't know to what you refer with allowing "poor people to get great level of education", but if he has poor family but he has intelligence enough to get into top university and is able to finish it. Then he probably will start to earn more... Then he won't be poor anymore. As note i'm talking about structure of western nations with higher level of living standards. Where one from poor background can study in university, possibilities of course swift according to nation (free education offers best base to intelligence based student selections). In poor nations this isn't the case. You are right in that.

Common misunderstandment. Researches speaks otherwise atleast in Europe, Baltic men being pretty much only exception. Infact statics clearly state that persons who do "physically demanding job" aren't more physically fit than people who are pencil pushers. Amount of exercise is main factor here, it determes fatness and physical fitness, and amount of exercise can be seen according persons education (higher or lesser degree). Better educated people exercise more. There are some heavy jobs such as being lumberjack who works with chainsaw and his shoulders (ah those days!). But those jobs are really rare in modern society, and "hard physical job" is more likely "light physical activity". :D

Might hold true is some 3rd world country, but with high western living standards it by studies turns other way around. Poor do physical labor but it hardly ever keeps them fit or burns enough calories (modern physical labor often is quite light physical work). Infact their physical fitness is less than with higher educated persons as they exercise less. They probably dont' think what they eat, they don't know how much they should eat it. Food which makes people gain fat easily is cheap. I'm not talking about ultra-rich or extra-poor, or 3rd world cases. But this is pretty common trend.

Common trend with higher standards of living. Matter of education and what kind people are more educated and who are not. Poor are less intelligent/educated, less intelligent/educated eats lots of bad food (probably booze and beer included). Large quantities of bad food turns poor person fat. Healthy good food is commonly much more expensive.

Yeah. UNA-18 loads have made me mind sparkle and seems that they sell bare pellets instead of readily loaded shotshells. Insane performance from what i've seen, totally surpassing any other material. 2kg of UNA-18 pellets cost 100€ in local hunting store. Ouch! Not cheap, but performance is good. Would probably cost around 5-6€ per preloaded shot. I figured 3€ would be the price if i load them myself. Should learn to reload own shots...

True. Typically they seem to be 360-380 m/s with 36 gram loads, heavy magnum's might have around 350m/s. But pellet swarm soon looses it's velocity to less than speed of sound is. 5-10 meters if i recall with typical hunting pellets, 3-4mm.

I dunno more than that i tested one suppressed Mosin-Nagant, with supersonic 7.62x53 Lapua Trainers. Quite big BLOP-sound! Didn't buy it thou, wasn't even moose accurate (over 10 cm grouping at 100 meters from full support. My current rifle has just 2cm). Worthless in other words. Suppressor was decent model thou and only reason for me to not buy it was poor accuracy. It had Burris scope with reddot and weaver rail attached. Really modernized Mosin/Nagant from 1934 :D Sure shotgun is different matter as it's ammo is usually subsonic. Some do reach 400 m/s, but speed goes to 300 m/s quite fast. Past 10 meters if i recall statics right, depending of pellet size ofcourse. Heavy magnum shots have slower muzzle speeds because pressure issues. Slug could be another thing and they probably keep velocity to much longer distances, i haven't much looked into those...

Russia might be bit off the scale. I don't know how well typical Russian lives and what he can buy. But in here i bought house, nice 90s house, no need for any major repairs in years to come. Location is in heart of small town. cost me less than 100 000 €. And we have highest house-prices in a long time when i bought my house. Previous owner bought it with some 70 000€, when prices were low. I watched some american house-repair program and owner had house which was in need of some major repairs, was much bigger than house i'm having. He bought it with mere 500 000$. I don't know where he lived... Can you imagine how i burst into laughter?! Sure locations do affect alot. I could have bought similar house with some 70 000€ in more remote location (10 kilometers from town) or approx 150 000-200 000€ in some large city. Still prices are way lower. My country placed it self into Colorado on that map, which has somewhat less people there than what we have. Half million maybe. If those guys has to buy house which costs some 5 times more than i bought mine i wonder where they get that money back? ... Hell i couldn't buy anything with such house prices, but would need to use our family's whole salary and other benefits to pay back my house loan to bank!!! Monthly payback would be some 3000-4000$. So either i read/heard that 500 000$ wrong, or then there's something "wrong" in that map and how countries were placed there: 500 000$ per house, which is 5 times more then we here need to pay, in area where people earn only bit more than what we here in Finland do. Something has to be off. But what?

Then how in the earth is WW2 one of most popular era in games/movies/books? Because stereotypes you mentioned are just as fitting into stereotype of ww2. Saving Private Ryan? Problem here is that you try to present this as whole picture of ww1, stereotype created by pessimistic artists after the war, which came popular. And it's false as all stereotypes are. There was creativity to get upperhand of enemy and to overcome problems. Like i said Late German infantry tactics are still studied and used to day, it's one of many less known (healthy) aspects of ww1. And infact most success was usually made in early period of battle, before opponent could draw it's reserves into fighting and prevent further success. Problems generally lied elsewhere, like in lacking tactical mobility. Which drastically improved in ww2 and gave totally new mobility and greatly improved marching speeds also after breached defenses.

More research required, for ww1 and ww2 both. You get facts wrong, and some facts which you manage to twist true held true in ww2 as well.

Typical streotype which holds truth for western allies and even with them i'd argue that it's most about shock and pessimism conserning whole systematic manslaugther after the war, which is then seen as these mindless looking charges. Problem of ww1 was in so high level that it doesn't represent it self to player so clearly (double the amount princible, which meant that one should double manpower and firepower if assault didn't provide success). Not more than mindless slaughter fields in ww2. Infact regular grunt do seem to share same points of views in both wars from veteran statements which i've read. Late German Shock troop tactics (=stoss trupp) are essentially what todays militaries still are doing and from where they still are seeking for answers. Erwin Rommel wrote highly regarded book about his doings and tactics during ww1. It would be interesting to play a ww1 game in such perspective. Eastern Front was much more mobile as there wasn't such change for evolution of massive fortification zones. Unlike in west, partially due lack of success for Russian Army, which kept war mobile. And this is what it is today aswell. Suppress them with arty so that you can bring your men into close combat (rested) with them (who hopefully are shocked from bombardment). There's generally more focus on smallarms fire in supporting role today (as was with tactics which Rommel used). But this could hold true in most infantry combat in ww1 aswell, hardly no-one just doesn't seem to know for thinks about it because ww1 is seen as so exceptionally mindless killing field. Only real downsides with ww1 are that weaponry at squad-platoon level was so uniform that there isn't possibility for player to masturbate over choosing his firearm from over couple rifles, carbines, pistols, SMGs, LMGs, BARs and so on. Ofcourse German Shock troops again were exception. And another much bigger downside is ill-reputation of ww1. Which is shame.

I see some people who can't look forward. It seems they have like list with thousands of things which game has to fulfill and if it doesn't then it ends up into corporative-bullshit-mainstream-game genre. To put that list shortly: It has to be 99% same game as some classic game in youth was. OFP is classic example in these forums. GR is another. Oh well. One great example is OF:DR, game which was broken but it atleast tried to set some new standards to shooters (suppression and morale model, squad behavior, mission editor, open endness... to name most important). But sadly because it used name OFP it was squashed utterly and with out remorse. Then when it was but splatters on walls then geowd returns to their mediating positions and start to repeat their: "Ommm... Fuck!ng mainstream eats my cake and dumbs down my genre.... Omm." ... Now we have possibly more polished game coming and again same stuff seems to happen again. And at same time people are whining how nobody does games like the old days and thinking is left outside the game. Which tells pretty nice story of scitzophrenia. "GRRRRR!!! You can't come to my playground!" [after a while] "Why don't you come to my playground? Why do you go to mainsteam's playground?" FPDR Oh well... Not my problem. Of which i'm clad of.

Yeah. In simple rifle squad versus rifle squad situation one using (much) higher positions will much more likely result into guys in higher positions to win. Quite simply because he can take shots at opponents backs and legs when they are lying in ground behind cover it provides (be it trees, bumps, nooks etc). Getting up hill will be more slow than advance on even ground. But if one starts to add factors like indirect fire, direct fire support, recon, ability and time to dug in, endless variety of terrain etc then things gets much more complicated. Basic question being: How to remain in crest if you can't see to you killzone, answer usually is that you have to go into hillside. Then next question is which is proper positions on hillside so that you reach compromise in between of ability to fire into killzone and yet remain protected from enemy observation and firepower and not to go wander too much into hillside. My english is lacking to explain it further. I could try but i don't think anyone would get any wisdomz out of it.