Second

Underline be mine.

Then don't throw those arguments around yourself: Now if you would have wanted outline it discuss purely of ArmA universe merely then it would have been okay. But problem i see here is that you try to give hint that same thing happens in reality as well and using top sides of hills as advantage is out dated.

Okay. I will bust one MYTHBUSTED for starter. If your on hill your are generally in better cover than guy who is lower than you. How come? I understand that if person believes that world is like ArmA universe then he doesn't see this. But in reality there's tons of cover/concealment everywhere, enough for scared guy to go hide in (reason why real firefights don't turn into bloodbath as they do in ArmA universe). This won't happen as easily if your facing enemy which can see you from much higher position. While guy in higher position finds much more hard cover for himself from every nook there is (and usually there is plenty). If your obstructed to go into wilderness to try it, try it in OFP with high/very high terrain detail and you will see it in action: One doesn't need to seek that (actually reverse slope) position where top of the hill protects him. There's enough cover in enemy's side of hill as well... Reason why it's very often good idea to have higher position against enemies even to this date and to long future. Reason why going too much downhill to enemy's side is ill-idea is that PRIMARY fallback and movement routes will be exposed to enemy's overwatch and fire. Naturally using hills/tall houses as fighting position has problems with being potentially too exposed to enemy's firesupport. Yet thru out history to this date (and to long future) top of the hills have been utilized with great success, even against highly overpowered (firepower and manpower) enemies. They offer cover, overwatch for defenders/ambushers. For opposition they offer increased firesupport possibilities but also exposure and fatigue while on their way to top. Infact this works totally differently in ArmA. As person over hill will not see a sh!t because of grass while guy in bellow sees over the grass to hill. And guy in higher position usually doesn't have anysort of hard cover which he could use as firing position... So when he sees something like head of enemy he probably has exposed his torso to enemy. So how do those bunch of idiots says it in TV... Myth confirmed?

Sounds like typical ArmA2 AI :D Apart of the moment when you shot one and another didn't respond. Maybe they weren't grouped. In far away from being expert with ArmA2 AI, but sounds classical behavior of AIs in separate groups or without group at all. Which is pretty usual way to disable AI from doing idiotic things like attacking or move around too much... Which also has downside with it's the situational awareness thingy.

And thousands of them have turned missing. Guns i mean. Like whom? Machiavelli would not agree with you. And then again respect is gained by superior firepower as well. :D Modern nations are established on principle that they have the monopoly of violence. Is it has been in older times aswell, but back then it wasn't nation but vassals of kings and nobility and all that who held title to use violence. That is why modern nations have police, armed forces, legal institutions. That is what makes any kind of leader an actual leader instead of being some comical character which rival squashes under his heel. Overthrowing governments has always build on this princible, maintaining governments is based on this principle as well. It might not show so clearly in normally working society, but when that society gets hit by crisis things change. And soon government and rebels might force it's regulations to citizens by muzzle of barrel, buttstocks and bayonets... Boot to teeth as well. Surely charisma is good thing, but charisma backed up by serious firepower is even better. ---------- Post added at 09:44 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:23 PM ---------- Ever tried to kill human bare handed eh? I don't have personal experience with humans but i'm pretty sure it will be harder. I remember my first pigeon i was supposed to finish with nice and simple whack to head. Bugger needed several whacks as i wasn't "totally myself". Shooting is way easier. Only minority of crimes with death are committed by motives and prepartions to kill something, most often it happens by accident when things go bad. ProfTournesol even gave source to back this up. Crime committed with gun is prone to go fatal for someone much more likely than without. Naturally statistics can be just one form of lie, but then again some guide lines are needed to back up arguments.

Not sure is this right sentence, even when i do agree with you that it's not amount of guns. US is number 1 with amount of firearms per capita. Then Yemen, Serbia and Switzerland. Then there's bunch of western nations such as Canada, Sweden, Finland and many others which all belong to class "Western nation with strong hunting traditions". In there cases there's something like 0.25 firearms per citizen/household, which is about half from what US has... If i recall the statistics right. Not that it really means anything as even then firearms are pretty common. I naturally speak solely for Finland. Bit what i think is different, i'd guess, is that "Western nation with strong hunting traditions"-thingy. Mindset of most firearms owners is that you need gun to hunt. So most firearms are for hunting porpuses, bolt action rifles and semiautomatic or two barrel shotguns. Unlike what it seems to be in US, where you usually get gun for some other porpuse: selfdefence or shooting hobby etc. And because of that handguns, and assaultrifles are much-much more common. Surely i might have fallen into typical BS which both sides throw out at each of other. So concerningn Finland: It is very easy to get licence for firearms suiting for hunting porpuses: Shotgun or bolt action rifle. You pass hunter's exam, pay annual hunting license for hunter's top organization and you can apply permit for firearm. If your record is clean and there's no reason to believe that you are mentally instable you are guaranteed to get licence. While those wishing to have handgun or (semi-automatic) assaultrifle has to be citizen with no criminal records and have years of history with firearms, either hunters or member of some shooting club. Being member of shooting club is rocky road to take and i personally would suggest to stat road by hunting. back in 90s getting access to firearms was pretty easy even without hunting background from what i've heard. Alot depended on what kind of policeman was in charge of looking thru apply-forms, some did give licence easily some didn't. But reality in this has changed fast and will remain to be seen as right now in Finland there's pretty hot public debate about what to do with gun laws, due couple schoolmassacres and other brutal shooting incidents. Laws probably will get tighter, but question is: how much and how. I do like the idea that if male hasn't finished his service but has dropped out in armed forces he's probably won't get access to firearms. As if person quits it usually is indicator of somesort of mental issues. That ofcourse works only if pretty much all men are expected to do their time in military, like in Finland.

I tried to zero my scope in -25 celsius... Had to buy new scope after that. :D I went to hunt foxes in same -25 degree. I was there and so was week old tracks of rabbits, weasel, fox and moose, not anyone else. I guess others were much smarter than me. ST DUX: Yeah! I've heard that in UK (or just England) you are not permitted to carry knife openly. And one needs somesort of license to buy one. Mr Burns: As a strick hunter (i don't masturbate over my guns, or even hobby guns, or even shoot for "fun". I just need them to hunt) I have 2 firearms and to be honest it's not enough: I have: -Shotgun for birds. -rifle for small and large game. My rifle packs the punch for Moose but bigger would be better, and really i would still need to get one more for cheap shooting practice. Right now i have to pay big money to keep my skills even on average level. Something like .22 LR would be great. At cost of 300 cartrides of 7.62x53r (not some shIte Wolf, but goods ammo) would get me license to get .22LR and cheap but good rifle (manufactured in east, CZ is good), decent scope and probably thousands of ammo as well. And many hunters does have one big bore, bigger than traditional .308, strictly for moose and bear. With bear bigger than .308 is something which should be required for safety issues. And Moose drops dead much more better with larger bore even if hit isn't optimal (which is good thing for game, as they don't have to suffer. And hunters don't have to track wounded game for long). So i easily get 4 different guns which one hunter would need if he wishes to hunt for full spectrum, do it ethically and keep his rifle shooting skills up in economic way. I manage to get along with 2 firearms as i have made good choices (rifle caliber is all-rounder. Shotgun is all-rounder aswell), but it will cost me lot in ammo expenses. -And ofcourse there's these shotgun/rifle combinations if one wishes to head out to backwoods and wishes to carry just one firearm suitable for most situations. -And suppressed pistols for trappers, which can easily be carries concealed. And if trapper finishes his trapped game he don't let whole vicinity to know about it. As traps usually are by lake. And by lake are also most concentrations of humans, both living there and spending their time. So it's good option for everyone if trapper do not have large stick with lots BOOM with him. So yeah i get that 3 guns is close to practical minimum amount of firearms for single hunter of full spectrum. 5-6 is easily amount where you still can have various firearms which all have their own role and none is too much. Same amount of 3 for those who likes to hobby whole spectrum of firearmsports (shotgun, rifles, handguns).

This game has some long learning curve: Half year of ArmA didnt' work. Worst thing was that if i played OFP and then switched to ArmA i was ready to cut my wrists open. But luckily each time i understood to go back to COD-or-similar and felt that i start to enjoy my life once again (just kidding. Really i played Vietcong) Problem in my opinion is that even when player can learn to live with the controls. However when player feels that he want's to play COD or some other gam elike OFP, and goes back to ArmA he will notice that ArmA is way much stiffer, even bugged. And it's not controls as much as animations and their transistions. Those small things like you don't know will character start running, jogging or walking. True ArmA2 is already better. It's almost as good as how controlling character usually in shooters feels like. Buu-uut it could be better. Funniest thing for me is that i realized this whole control issue with ArmA after one recon/ranger exercise. Truly i hauled just about 20 kilograms of kit at worst if radio was issued to me. Which seemed to be issued to me quite often :mad:

I just don't understand what you gain from it? Mostly target moves and anyways will still be better by looking thru ironsights or optics than blaze without aiming. And we had requirement that you don't have to do nothing to your gun once you have achieved proper firing position. You shoot, weapon pops up, comes down and is still pointing to exactly same spot on target as it was before you squeezed the trigger in the first place. Even after reloading weapon was expected to point pretty much to spot we were about to shoot at. Sure whole ArmA-series is quite rubbish in my books by now, but still i don't see this being so much of an problem.

-fast instict shooting in short distances. Proper weapon handling. -Stacking while preparing to enter room. -Movement in streets and in building. -Entering methods to building There are opinions that soldiers don't have to train for MOUT but little if their skills other wise are good. Most important feature of MOUT-specialized training is movement on streets. Modern MOUT training programs often are more about COIN-ops than actual hot shooting wars with low civilian population in vicinity. But ofcourse there's tons of tricks which work in both ways... Room clearing by far is not one of them in my opinion. It often has too much value placed on it and often it's imagined to be main way to deal with opposition while i reality it works mostly if you have element of surprise favoring you. If you don't have to worry about civilians youd better to deal opposition with explosives, AT-weapons, grenadelaunchers and pretty much anything highly exploding/burning firepower you can muster. But as you asked about room clearing methods: What i know and am familiar with is that you have door man and 2-4 stormers, usually room size is rather small. Room of appartment. I don't find familar method from Serclaes's link, so i will try to express it by words. Last man in stack informs that he is ready to guy infront of him, who when he's prepared informs guy in front of him. (usually by strong squeezing grip of arm) When first guy gets informed that guy behind him is prepared he give small signal to door man. When he slams/breaches door and at that moment stack moves forward. Idea is that all guy lean into guy infront of him. When frontal guy start to move forward guy behind follows him by gravity and so on. That way stack starts to move more like one unit instead of long column. This is basically one of most vital aspects for whole thing and i'm pretty sure you can't do it in ArmA. From there tactic and movement can be suitted for need. We often sent 1st guy to opposite corner of room and he basically checked all directions while fastly storming thru room, right front, left were his sectors. Sounds pretty risky but i think he has to keep on moving because he's first one to get shot at. Guys behind him took closest two corners, checking them and then starting to provide overwatch for 1st guy, right front or left front were sectors here. Idea was to get remaining opposition which didn't get wiped out in first seconds for clearing into crossfire from 2-3 sides. After that all guys report that they have clear sectors and from there room clearing process moves on to next door. But movement and firing sectors can be swapped along the way... But it naturally it requires some large amount of drilling to get to point when you can change tactics on the fly and still expect guys to reform reliably and fastly. We never got that far, but were happy if we could do the drill with multiple rooms in varying outlets and perform almost flawlessly. There was always problems with sectors and directions where men were expected to move. Along with obstacles, such as couches or tables, on the way. Safe weapon handling is vital. all but first men keep barrel aimed at floor, and lifts it along with removing safety only at door. He also has to make sure that in room he doesn't point his gun anytime at friendlies while he swaps his sectors. We had small web-camers attached to barrel and instructor expected that friendly team mate never were visible in camera-footage. Tricker than what it sounds and 1st guy (as he was in opposite wall of room) often ended up in footage. sh!tty business to be the first guy :D

But it can be done in the field, sometimes it's even necessarity when army chooses night vision sights and their mounts for rifle which has to be zeroed each time they are inserted into rifle... Like every night. Which is like bit retarded gadget already even on military grade. Set target to proper distance, get spotter with binocs. And start shooting and tell your spotter to tell you where did bullets go. Adjust sights by his feed back unit they hit the target. Sandy soil is good. In vicinity of enemy: Not so good idea. Surely on ArmA's horizon this shouldn't be problem, but it can and should be done if there are worries if rifle has lost it's zero. My service rifle, old and used, lost it's zero pretty soon after adjustment, something between 5-10 cm at 150 meters. Otherwise good firearm, but i guess front poles adjustments (side ways adjustments) had some severe looseness in them. Laser boresighting is unaccurate. When my bore and scope gets collimated by professional i don't hit even my target, looking thru bore and adjusting scope by so already brings hits to target. Only way you can know that your rifle hits what you aim is by shooting it. And on top of that each different bullet type will deviate from another's trajectory. My 7.62x53R Sako Range hits 20cm lower and few centimeter to left than my Lapua Naturalis.

It been there atleastin ArmA and ArmA2. Problem is that it's very hard for player to know who is his pair, what his pair is doing etc. And there's not even most basic communication methods for AI pair. Player quite basically can't teamwork with his pair. Which renders it to be pretty useless. It sure looks and at start feels good to have someone along your side when your advancing by rushes in low stress situation when you have luxury to just admire AI... Until the point when you get shot at and mechanical SOPs can be threw to trashcan. You should be able to inform your buddy and teamwork with your buddy, not just follow/mimic some pre-scripted AI behavior. Ofcourse this is problem of all shooters. I can't think even one shooter which would have even most basic-level combat pair/combat buddy system installed.

My have strong picture in my memory that i tested patterns of shots at wall from different distances. Could be some mod thou...

Control over weapon is just soooo false for clay shooting... well for any shooting at moving target really. Shotguns does have pellet shells in ArmA2.

I did some tests with ArmA way back. And impression i got from it is that full zoom gives player pretty much 1:1 real life scale. Narrow FOV just makes it look absurd. Estimation was made with standing man from 100 meters and it gave similar amount of mils which would be given in reality. Haven't bothered to do that with ArmA2 (well haven't bothered to play the game :D ) with my current monitor and screen resolution. I don't have an idea how those things affect to scale.

No wonder reviewers and people in general said that it's claustrophobic. Many people here have seemed to be unaware of it :D I did notice and use the flashlight, but it wasn't most pleasant experience even by then. :bounce3: Btw. Did AI see lightless player as if he had flashlight turned on? During night-maps i drew conclusion that AI isn't much affected by darkness, maybe slightly but not much. My defined favorite for whole original game was the moment when they found out French scrap tanks which inter thought to be Soviet T-34s. Trench clearance fighting with Arty support was one best moments in computer gaming i've ever had. Another was that Marsh area, where there were PSyOp chopper shouting propaganda and human wave assault at US lines. Then slow progress to enemy held territory to clear pockets of resistance. But overall whole campaign was good from start to finish, leisure time at base now and then: mostly shooting practice to feel of new weapons and going thru intel.

Yeah. There's things in engine which makes Vietcong The Vietcong. Vietcong maps were lush with microterrain, that is something which gave alot more feeling to firefights, and i received several orgasms only by moving in there and staring those details. To this date i don't know any game which would offer as much. Crysis gets close with it's "jungle"-models but it's terrain forms are too round and flat and it had generated stamped on it. Unlike in Vietcong where all paths had sunk into soil etc. All told about mapmakers which really did pay attention to what they were doing. Which is one reason why Vietcong 2 was reviewed as partial flop. They got rid of thing which really made Vietcong the best of it's genre. Ofcourse i was also in love with that Vietnamese pointman and how he moved and acted on point. He's name escapes from me, sadly. Then again that design forced them to make small maps which were corridors. But corridors hardly ever bother me that much, so for me it really didn't matter. Terrain it self offers so small seeing distances usually that corridors doesn't feel or see that much, terrain was also rich in forms so it offers much more alternative routes and tactics in much more smaller space that usual. Very often there was sufficient amount of movement space and terrain forms to get into flanks or even evade enemy presence if wanted. I must have played demo-mission (get thru bunker-zone after chopper crash) in tens different ways.

One of all time favorite for us with disposable recoiless rifles was to use combatvest (or more like belt with straps) as a support. Very fast and always around. With little training guys quickly adapted to it. Ofcourse terrain is filled with weapon supports. Horizontal or vertical (like trees). And good old strap support (which you would use with SVD) is always there, what ever the shooting position is. I don't handle it and my rifle's strap doesn't suit for it so i haven't been able to test it out properly. Stiff simple leather strap which can't be set to enough short lenght. Instead i've been focusing on using monopod (basically just long pole).

It's shooter with wide open space and pretty complete editor. I'm SP guy with strong tactical wargaming background which affects quite lot my tastes. There's few sides which must be taken part and analysed seperately. MP is one, SP is another, controls and inside game feeling is one, i also count editor in. As i'm SP player purely i'm not interested in MP so i leave that to others. In SP... Well very basic drills, like line-formation during contact, hold fire until i give permission to open fire... or something like that. Very-very basic. And usually micromanaging shoots it to knee as AI doesn't work (automatically). One thing which i really hate in ArmA2 really much is that when you give men stealth behavior they start to move in rushes... Gees, i thought it's about slowly moving and trying to avoid alerting of possible hostiles at same time you try to maximize yours senses and awareness of surroundings. Move slow, halt often, look, listen, smell etc. Yeah... well... i wouldn't have patience for that in-game. :D Oh and communications just don't work, but i'd like to see tha genius who could produce such speech system that i can have even semi-intelligent communications with AI. I don't like that way ArmA2's shooting is done, well it's okay, but not great. I don't much like it's animations, i don't feel that i'm in there. Something wrong with terrain even if BIS is improving it: still it's golf course with minimal cover. But day and night cycles are nice, and game looks good. Still soldiers do stand out bit too easily all the time i must add. And ofcourse it's just a virtual world, but i've get better immersion with some other games, such as good old vietcong. For some strange reason it sinks into me like knife into grandma. And i like the fact that branches and all that change direction of projectile so shooting thru fir or pine in half way to target isn't much good, but you can get lucky. So it has good sides and bad sides when it comes to looking things from grunt's point of view. Realistic? Well yeah i suppose it is to degree which virtual game can be (not very much). Just as any tactical shooter is, pretty much. One thing which stands out with mission editing is that it's pretty hard to setup scenarios in such realistic manner that i could look at it and say that i'm satisfied. In here i probably look ArmA2 more with my wargamer eye than soldier's. I never learned to lead company or even infantry platoon. If scale is enough big and i don't start to look at details but instead go with the flow is fairly alright. But that doesn't mean that it would be realistic, it's just that i don't care. There's problems using crew served weapons in game, all of them. I'm TOW guy so i generally don't use that particular hardware in-game as it's presented pretty much wrong: static weapon system which you can't operate (move around) in realistic fashion. All in all i just can't say that it's realistic, it has few nuts and bolts set about right. To me doing soldier things is related to so much more than what game can portray. Physical and mental stress (days without sleep or proper rest), scents, outlooks and voices of wilderness, all the rest which happens before ad after missions portrayed in the game. I was okay with these lacks before with OFP which i once considered a proper simulation of soldiering (being young and naive + iron sights was enough back then to make game super tactical), but now i'm much older hopefully wiser and maybe i've noticed that those things are not enough for me personally.

Yeah. This. It's not very immersive for me to storm defensive positions when AI can't take any kind of advantage of cover it has. I've used couple of hours to try to remake my take cover scripts from ArmA, but seems like BIS disabled set of scripting commands from ArmA 1 and right now i'm out of ideas how to even script AI to take cover... If it's even possible anymore.

AI hiding in bush or behind rock or wall or anything? And i mean actually hiding, not just using it as temporary cover while they move on to die glorious death. I mean i think most people don't know what defending is for... Because there's not much talking about it. I see it's been talked about, only by few guys. Well it's not biggie, it just ruins about 90% what you are supposed to do while you are in battlefield. Well maintaining formation and looking cool for screenshots is always better way to do things. Have you ever seen AI actually taking firing positions when they halt or see hostiles but are not moving them selves? You probably haven't. I know i haven't, and i've tried to make them do that for like last couple of days in editor. They lack ability to use sandbags, trench-objects, buildings or anything. And if you place sandbags in front of them they do not rise to shoot, they just lie in there and wait for bad men to get tired and go away. And i'm staring game released in 2009... And they say it has advanced AI... And i stare back and say "oh reaaaally." I just wonder how this is possible, i really can just nod my head out of cheer wonder. Why in earth BIS keeps disabling things which has been there before... Atleast they could have kept it if they don't feel that it's good idea to improve it. But no. This is like between OFP-ArmA, other testicle grows while other shrinks. Soon it has just another testicle and i wonder how it's going to be then...

Don't know about you in persona, but most who play ArmA2 do play it because it's: A: Shooter (it has gun which says boom + it has iron sights) B: It's good game Those are the main reasons and those facts happens to be pretty mass-appealing stuff. One of most saddening stuff in nowdays gaming industry is lack of risk-taking and innovation attitude. You get working package which sells and you stick with it as long as it sells... Because gamers like to stick with relative and familiar concepts. I'm quite fed up with these modern tactical shooter games which don't offer any major improvement since 2001-2003. Now twisting X-com series into shooter style is semi-innovative idea in my books. There's scifi. Ofcourse there's changes that it's generic shooter clone with space aliens and high-tech... If there are persons who wish to get UFO/X-Com feeling from their youth back in modern form (lots of bitter old hags after their sweet maidenhood here. Again) i'd suggest UFO: Aftermath and it's successors. I don't love the genre that much but have heard good things from it, shoul dbe more Apocalypse style.

Baikal IJ-27 (or is it MP-27 nowdays). Over-under shotgun. It's butt fits perfectly for me. Bit heavy but that makes it good swinger for me. I've had it soon almost year, from which half year i have hunted with it. I just like it. Mosin-Nagant's bolt, new black plastic stock, new barrel. Shoots averagely around 1 MOA. Decent rifle, with very much enough accuracy for my needs. Haven't had change to shoot any prey with it yet and i've had i just for couple months so there's not really much to tell about it. Now i'm having Luger PRO NA 1.5-6x50 scope with red dot on my rifle. It's in same level with US scopes and Tasco scopes with it's low-light performance, which isn't very good... Sadly one my main target are fox and other predators which are most active at nights. But i simply can't afford to put over 500€ to one scope (besides rifle cost only 400€). Docter and Meopta were option but sadly models fit for my needs were generally way over 500€. I don't afford to even dream of Zeiss Diavari or any other European top-brand. Damn. :mad:

Lol That is like years old post. :D Good points anyways but i personally do give them (cavalry) charge order. That way they scatter enemy ranks and keep them tied while my infantry charges at them. coherent mass of infantry is very destructive when it faces scattered formation. Suits well for my Rhodok army with only handful of cavalry, while i my self fight mostly with infantry.

"Typical sovietic dialectics" Should say "Typical super-power dialectics"