Second

Uniform i can understand, it looks cool and audience probably loves it. Iäm all down with that "military should look dirty as if it had jsut returned from field, wearing only functional uniforms and equipment"... But parades and shows still looks amazing, when performers looks flashy and do challenging things with rifles, like play catch with them etc (if i would do those things my instructors would ram boot up to my arse, several times) Actors? I don't understand, as Chinese military without doubt has enough manpower to filter men with same body build and good outlooks and train them to do this kind of things. Train them to do demanding rifle drills and perform in parades and shows... Maybe this was some sort of tribute to Military from media-ministry or something? toy-guns... I don't understand. Not that audience would know... But maybe it has got something to do with law? If you have civilian actors then Chinese law might forbidden them to carry real guns. So they have to use fake guns. But choosing G36 feels odd. Not that i could claim to understand Chinese state of mind too much.

Yup. You understood 100% right. :bounce3:

Sure-sure it's fine if one likes to play 400 meters sniper-shooting and pretend that one one lives if they get caught in open. But in reality even open plains if they are not artificially leveled (golf courses and fields) will serve great deal of protection. In this both fails. Unlike original OFP, i might add. In where i could do short rushes from cover to cover and usually remain quite safe. I've played Arma2 demo and every time when i get struck into firefight out side villages first thing i miss is cover. Next thing i do is to to try to desperately shoot my enemies down. There's little i can do about that, if i start to pull back i will get shot down, if i try to move at all i get shot down, all i can do is to hope that i'm faster and more accurate than enemy. In forests there are trees which offers little cover but not sufficent from any direction (even from front). There's no root growth, no rotting trunks, no rocks, no holes, nothing for concealment or cover, but trees which serves very poorly in that task. Sure it looks nice. And it was desission which BIS made, they got rid of OFP's terrain detail system to get better streaming. But i loved more functional OFP's terrain if you had powerful machine for it. Bummer. In OF:DR videos, the grass seem/might work somewhat as making firefights less sniper fests, instead it puts importance into high volumes of fire at distant targets as one can see them just briefly and then they they vanish into grass. So that might bring some healthy firefight-feel into game. Maybe i'll give it a try after all. EDIT: Seems that Nemesis already posted that. ;)

Yeah. Me too, seems that OF:DR shares same main weaknesses as ArmA2, so it won't be anything different. Both have retarded terrain and not very bright AI. So i really don't expect OF:DR to serve any better small unit combat than ArmA2 would. Meh. That was the only thing i hoped from it. + good mission editor, but now it doesn't matter.

Ballistics are there, but are they under modeled? Could be. Overall system works like ArmA does, no sight adjustments but firing by ballistics. Reviewer i've read about is long time veteran (about 20 years in business) in these things and i know that when he says something it's pretty solid, atleast for me as he has pretty much same tastes as me when it comes to shooters. He didn't praise the campaign or mission design, but said it to be better than what Arma2 has. OF:DR's campaign wasn't even close to CWC according to him. One thing needs to be kept in mind: One reviewer which you know and who's tastes fits for you is probably worth more than several reviewers which you don't even know.

Not sim, but engine. Have met up with this point of view earlier. What it means that OF:DR has better missions and campaign and it's system requirement aren't that harsh and game/campaign ain't as riddled with bugs. While ArmA2 has better engine... I'm not sure what all this relates to but few things: ArmA2's terrain was said to be superb compared to OF:DR, ArmA2 is prettier, and atleast AI's pathfinding is way much better and i think same holds true with AI in general. Review i've red was more critical.

We bound by pairs pretty much by default (in MOUT it's different and in wilds sometimes halfs of squad are used as moving element). And rushes are always under 10 meters, rule of thumb is to keep visible for one second or preferable less, i've noticed that 2 seconds or more lasting rushes is enough to get Miles-kit to peep as mark of near miss or hit (no wonder instructors were so tough about it!). So there's potential for lots shouting between "combatpair" to cover, expacely in livefire exercises when everyone is required to wear hearing protection and for safety regulations to use his voice AND 100kg weighting slightly violent instructor is ready to test durability of his stick to someone's helmet. :cool: Outside that use of voice isn't as dedicated So in that sense ArmA2 has it right. But way ArmA2 does it isn't very immersive, i got fed up with it during my first play. I don't like to listen that kind of things in games, same with hand signals. They are mechanical and hardly ever fits with situation. True. AI should be more determed to get into that cover and fast, from there he then can look for threats and engage them. No tactical walk even if they look cool while doing so if bullets are flying in the air.

LOL yeah! In fact when it was barely broken in ArmA and was never fixed, now ArmA2 has taken clear signs of progress... They seem to have taken it away totally atleast from demo! AI leader doesn't give hide or take cover orders at all, not even for brief 0.1 second like in ArmA. BIS amazes me even more. :confused: One probably still can script it... I've learned to hate that sentence.

OP forgot John Rambo. I'd be that. If that is not an option. Then AT-guy, as it's almost as good as Rambo... Mainly difference comes from fact that Rambo can rip off turret from tank with bare hands, while AT-guy needs crowbar. Then again AT-guy probably can take more beer and women. ... It would be though decision.

Well i don't get those MOS-codes at all, but what i ment was that every man in rifleplatoon knows how to use SMAW. Should have been more clear with that. CarlGustaffa: No we weren't ballerinas or not spriting very fastly, as weren't LMG-gunners and their ammobearers. But we were infact able to fight effectively because we were hauling enough firepower to challenge enemy's armor which was our main priority. Same thing with MG-gunner. Ofcourse our ability was tied to amount of gear we had to carry, default combat gear was 14 kg + launchers worth 12 kg (Examples: Apilas + M72 LAW or 4 M72 LAWs). We still had some degree of capacity to haul more. Some troops are having almost as heavy default combat gear so they ability to haul additional stuff is much more limited. But that ain't present in ArmA2 so it's hard to discuss of what is weight limit. Firing in volley is most inaccurate way when few guys firing at target (while being led by one shooter) is more accurate. Volley sure is fast way to fire launchers so it suits for "point-blank firing". Firing in leaded manner (usually couple guys firing and communicating) suits better to longer/harder shots and it's more economical way. There are pros and cons in each way. Many times volley just is not possible due terrain limitations. We would fight mostly in forests, so it's highly likely that only 2 guys at side of the road would be able to deal with armor there, and if armors would decide move into forest then same problem remains there. Only few guys can see and engage them, better to have smaller AT-element which can move to where armors are than not.

To give little to all is called "equality is not tactics". SMAW != M136. Not horde necessarily, but Finnish squad is excpected (they have calculative firepower for it) to face and repel three-four armored vehicles (one being MBT) + their dismounted element as that is what they probably would face if they ended up in war (hopefully won't happen). As rough border value as there are tons of other factors out side squad's influence. Yup mines are there too in platoon, but mines only halt, they don't destroy. That is part of AT-weapons. Oh and AT-guys do carry several launchers, those who get stationed in expected avenues enemy armor would use gets shitloads of it, maybe even all platoon's available AT-weapons. Like said equality is not tactics. If i can't utilize tactics which i know would be used, AND i were able to use in OFP and ArmA... Well that is bad. What is the point of giving so great arsenal of weaponry for squad? Sure some squad might end up hauling loads of shots but that is/should be away from the rest. They can't have stockpiles of sniper rifles and machineguns and armored vehicles either... Oh they do as it's MP they play...

And this makes me wonder how are you so stubborn about this. You clearly have limited knowledge how infantry platoon or squad would function, but yet time after time seems that you either don't understand or dont' care what i've told you. I think you just don't care as you seem to be pretty much concerned about balance of MP... Ofcourse this door swings in both ways, if you catch my meaning ;) . On your question: Marines 99.99% sure do train men to use SMAWs as it's one of the weapons their platoon has. Sure they aren't as good with it as are those dedicated to to use it, but at least capable to úse it. And ArmA2 is supposed to be played also in SP, not MP. Now about one point-of-view: This ArmA2's m136-system breaks one fundamental use of infantry squads as would disposable launchers which one can carry only one piece. It's situations based tactics/equipment/organization and it breaks it severely! My whole squad will be tied to antitank porpuses if i expect to face more than lone BRDM or BMP. By carrying several launchers per man, i can create small antitank-team with enough punch to halt couple armored vehicles while allowing most of my squad doing their intented role as killer of enemy's living force (=infantry). So i have two specialized teams which i can use somewhat indepently against different components which enemy wields. I find myself doing this a lot in OFP and ArmA: cutting down roads etc from enemy's armors while securing other kind terrain which is more suitable and probable for enemy infantry to use with main bulk of my men. Or sending AT-team against more or less isolated armor while keeping main part of my men focused on enemy infantry. For example, possible combinations are limitless. Humans can counter this limitation somewhat with logistics, but what if there is no (possibility for) logistics? I don't see why squad should/could have truck ready to haul AT-team additional launchers after they have sneaked into enemy's flanks, note the word sneaked and they should remain so until they get order to take out their target. Pretty much only time they can use logistics to counter that problem is when they prepare to defend or delay, so that when fighting starts they already have those launchers with them. Important factor: AI can't do that. And micromanaging AI to do so is worst thing i can imagine i would do while in firefight against enemy. And it's totally impossible if i'm not personally leading and supervising that antitank-team. Sure this piles down to fact that how much armored vehicles usually can take hits from M136 or from that Russian RPG, but seems that armored vehicles can take more damage before getting destoryed that in ArmA (i only have demo). So mostly i care that i can utilize realitic-ish tactics with my men (be them AI or humans). I'm not interested what goes on lowest levels of hell, which some call MP. I'd call it degenerated play of grotesque torsos.

hmm... What is 1st world modern military? Looking at current progress in Europe says that they specialize almost completely in low intensity conflicts waged by few troops outside their borders. Almost every country in Europe is currently considering or on it's in way already for that option (Sweden, Norway comes to mind), if they haven't chosen that option already (UK, France comes to mind). Now, i'm not expert on India's affairs, how much conventional warfighting ability it wields but saying that India is not average or what ever is not totally clear as there are many ways to look at this. Ability to accomplish mission inside and/or outside it's borders is one big factor and it's very diverse factor in which not everything can be reached well with same setup (progress we see in Europe at the moment, conventional warfighting ability with-in own borders is being sacrificed for better ability to work on global level). India also seems to send rather good quality peacekeepers to world (i've heard talk that they have served in Kashmir before earning their relax + additional pay in peacekeeping missions).

Damn. I need to get da patchez (and i though i have fully patched version!?!?!?!?). My experience from Stalker was that increased damage does bad for game. AI isn't enough fast or smart for that kind of fighting, game gets a lot easier. It could have been great game. But too small playing area, too canalized terrain and too unfinished and i'm not talking about bugs: You can see how great plans dev-team had for it and just how mind blowing game it had potential to be. But i enjoyed it enough to play it thru twice, not bad game, not bad at all.

Have seen few footages of Pakistan troops where they train with live fire, some sort assault-course done by individual men. Guys running across mountain ranges and engaging targets as targets popped up. Seemed to be tough as terrain was what it was (rough mountain) and distance they needed to cross was long, and one was expected to run it thru only pausing for engaging targets. Guys seemed to be pretty fit like mountain folk usually are, moving fastly along steep cliff sides. Ofcourse it's hard to draw any conclusions such as accuracy of shooting from that video as it lasted few minutes, but at least fitness level and ease of movement of men made impression to me.

Respawn was created by the Devil himself. Once there was MP-paradise, then players took bite of respawn. It's now doomed to limb as degenerated form of it's former self.

Didn't think of that :D , but "this is 3, out of ammo!" sprang to my mind

I at least got the tone from posts that Rhammstein's background isn't taken with full acceptance. Usually bringing military background too visibly to crowd makes crowd to suspect a phony. General tendency to do that doesn't seem to be now that bad unlike during ArmA's release, lots of phonies seemed to be around. Heck some were even requested to show they military passport or what ever they have in US military :D (well that was more about which unit and branch one served if i recall) JackandBlood: Reason why you would like to go antimatrial in ArmA2 with M240 or PKM or similar is that they have volume of fire. Barret aint' much more damage producing weapons. Barret my cause 2-3 three times amount of damage per hit than MG can, but then again M240 can pour more damage to target in much faster time AND shooter still has enough rounds left. M2 is totally different beast of course, as it should be.

My AI is smart as well. I tell my AI mates 2 and 4 to get into HMMWV and move to back up LAV-25 engaging enemy infantry on his own. My squad at this point is full mess. One LAV-25 isn't moving (later i discover it has tripped and is lying on it's side, driver still happily trying to drive it...). Another is, like said, engaging enemy infantry and is running out of ammo, which already is second time during mission. Those sods were effective. My dismounted element is spread around map, due somesort bug which probably is related to warfare's fast travel. So i told 2 and 4 to get into HMMWV. Their response is "negative". I tell them again to get into vehicle. Their response is "negative". Next i tell them to come to me (they are 300 meters away behind hill). They say that they are on their way. [i start to plan how i organize firing squad and give them orders to shoot both [b]2[/b] and 4 on sight]... I wait and i don't see them. I check their position and i see them moving AWAY from me. Distance is already 700 meters and rising. Number 4 seems to run faster, 2 is requesting 4's coordinates. Anyways i take HMMWV with MK19 and decide to pay them a visit. So they weren't enough smart. Well story has been made bit more lively and probably sound funnier than it really was. In fact i went to that LAV-25 which was lying on it's side (still crew inside, driver trying to drive it), reloaded my SMAW with proper round and scorched whole god damn mess. Surviving crew members i chased down with HMMWV. It was almost like they would have tried to run away with their tiny little legs.

EDIT: Blah.

It is weapon's zoom, same effect as with iron sights and all. It's annoying as hell. I always bind those functions (zoom&report and hold breath) under different keys. Easy way to prove that it's weapon's zoom: With maximum zoom with weapon you won't get extra zoom when you hold breath. Ta-da!

Well that is not exact reason. As said TOW has various competent warheads, Tandem warhead isn't that bad, sure it's not 100% sure that hit would cause even severe damage to tank but it has it's changes and atleast we believe that we are able to mostly engage armors from their flanks. Top-attacking warhead for TOW is up-to today's standarts etc. There are other more important reasons which favors systems like Javelin. Fire-and-forget, ease of use and training, less expensive missiles (yup that is true!), operating it on foot is much easier: US Army and Marines doesn't seem to even bother to use TOW on foot as they don't have manpower for it in their AT-units, so it's basically bound to be used on vehicle. We tie 7 guys for each TOWs to make it able to use TOW on foot... As comparsion Euro Spike requires three and is much faster to get into firing position and evade from firing positions (affecting directly to survival of missile system and it's crew if they get spotted and shot at). Back in my time of service we still had Soviet AT-4 as another ATGM-system along with TOW and it was the same, they were much faster to move around. But back then TOW had clear edge on warhead and resistance against enemies countermeasures. Basically only thing favoring TOW nowdays is it's range. Twice as much as Javelin or Euro Spike has (Spike MR)... In my country engagement distances are usually 500 meters, rarely stretching out to 1 kilometer. Then again if i remember it correctly Spike has longer minimal effective range than TOW has, atleast in top-attack mode and direct mode isn't effective enough against MBTs... Few times in exercises i've had to order my squad to put TOW into positions from where opponents tanks would be just out side out minimal range if we would face them, simply because there weren't more open areas available :D So there's few things which springs to my mind.

It takes just about 0.001 seconds to start holding breath, by that point one big thing moving barrel has been negated. It's simple reflex to drive into one's spine. Sure they won't reach accuracy they would in range (unlike sniper could) as situations are far from shooting range conditions. Quite many who describe their (usually first) kill seem to state that they did what did the what they learned in shooting range. A clean accurate shot. That if they have exposed opponent at which they can take accurate shot. Sure probably not everyone can do it if they can't control their nerves. Firing in volume against unseen enemy is another thing, which probably shouldn't get mixed with actual shooting skillzors, or marksmanship.

Was this post directed at me? Blah. I just would blow tincans up with TOW. :rolleyes:

Soviet era tanks does save the weight in making tanks smaller. Granted Russia might lack in quality armor materials which west is using, so their protection level in good old fashioned armor is probably smaller. They do have DU is use in KE-shots... Why they don't make more armor for their tanks from it? Lack of funding? ---------- Post added at 08:06 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:49 PM ---------- SP Pro has to use public sources as reference or it might just find itself to be sued by some manufacturer/military. ;) Then again public data probably gets enough close to have realistic representation of things. Or then not as those things usually are classified for reason... Besides militaries don't care too much of small inaccuracies in simulators (they don't exactly know everything them selves). And those inaccuracies can be corrected other ways if some instructor feels that there is such need. On other hand at least our tank crew members don't value SB Pro too highly, it's just cheap tool to get men understand the basics of how tank is handled. Rather fast they hit exercise grounds with real tanks (and real combat simulators) and don't look back. Computer simulators on gaming forums are seen in far too high esteem.