pooroldspike

I've been playing AA2 mission "Medical Emergency v3.0" back-to-back for the past few days; 12 times I've led my team in to rescue the lady doctor, and 12 times I've been beat, I wonder if Klickit (or whatever his name is) could save her?

(vanilla Comb Ops) I just ran some tests- Burn baby burn! FULL SET OF TEST PICS HERE- http://www.thefewgoodmen.com/thefgmforum/showthread.php?6239-Shoulder-launched-AT-weapons-roundup

Hey wtfisMIA, come join us at the Few Good Men if you like, we're a discussion club as well as a wargaming club and would like to hear your views on world affairs and stuff, for example should NATO send ground troops in to get Gaddafi? http://www.thefewgoodmen.com/thefgmforum/forum.php? PS:- Same invite applies to anybody else reading this, come join us, I'm second-in-command and look after the place when the boss is at work or down the pub; he leaves a list of things for me to do like put the cat out, run a mop over the floor etc..:)

Scroll down to the Laser Bombing screenshots and watch the Secret Police HQ go up- http://www.thefewgoodmen.com/thefgmforum/showthread.php?7486-Calling-in-airstrikes

Yes but luckily I've always regarded AA1/AA2 primarily as INFANTRY combat games, so the fact that the armour side of it is not so hot doesn't bother me all that much anyway, as I like playing mostly inf v inf. If we want a realistic armour game we can always buy one of the titles out there such as 'Steel Beasts Pro Personal' http://www.thefewgoodmen.com/thefgmforum/showthread.php?723-Steel-Beasts-Pro-Personal-Edition Or if we want a realistic flight sim, something like 'Wings over Europe'- http://www.thefewgoodmen.com/thefgmforum/showthread.php?3351-Wings-over-Europe

My respect for AA2 has definitely dropped a few notches after seeing that the armour penetration side of things is about as realistic as a mickey mouse cartoon..

Yes the front, here's the full set of pics, (I can't post them here because of the 100kb size limit)- http://www.thefewgoodmen.com/thefgmforum/showthread.php?6239-Shoulder-launched-AT-weapons-roundup

Hmm....AA2 consists of '3 games in one', namely infantry, armour and aviation, but it seems the developers bit off more than they could chew by combining them all into one game as it meant they had to cut corners and compromise on realism in certain areas..

Yeah this test I just did confirms that a tank fires at your last known position, it doesn't try to 'predict' where you're going to reappear- Blue guy is behind house- He sidesteps out and sees a T-90 down the road- He bounces a few bullets off it to wake it up- Then sidesteps safely back behind the house and watches its tracer whipping into his last known position. The tank fired several bursts all at the same spot, then held fire. (Incidentally I was surprised the tank didn't use high-explosive shells; I suppose it's standard AI policy not to waste them on infantry)

Absolutely, wargamers also call it 'Borg spotting'. That's why my tests are usually one man against one man

But if you could see them, they could see you..:) PS- it's getting late here (3 a.m), I might run more tests tomorrow but for now I'd sum things up like this- 1-Putting something hard between you and the enemy (eg stone wall) is the only guaranteed surefire way not to get shot. 2- But a bush is much more risky because no way will it stop bullets if the enemy fires through it.

But if he can't see us, why will he shoot through the bush?

So if we get shot through a bush, it means we're not behind the centre of the bush? We just have to guess where the centre is, and hope we've guessed right?

Wait a minute, you said this earlier- "The middle of a bush is almost always safe, just stop hiding behind the edges of bushes.." What do you mean by 'almost safe', does the middle give 100% LOS block or doesn't it?

Hmm this thread is getting more complicated the longer it goes on and I fear for the spiritual welfare of noobs who might be so confused as to seek counselling or take holy orders.. Are we agreed on this- If you're behind the centre of a bush the chance of the enemy spotting you is very small, but if you're slightly off centre the chances are greater, and if he spots you he'll fire through the bush?

Thanks, the video confirmed what we already knew, namely that sometimes the enemy will fire through the bush, and sometimes he won't, so bushes are never guaranteed to block LOS..:)

When your man in the video ran behind the bush, why didn't the enemy fire through the bush? Here are two screenshots from one of my tests, and we plainly see the enemy fire through the bush- I decide to taunt Red, so I move Blue sideways out into the open, and Red INSTANTLY BEGINS FIRING- So I run Blue back behind the bush but Red KEEPS FIRING THROUGH THE BUSH, ouch that hurt- And the fat lady sings..

Sorry, I couldn't understand exactly what the video was trying to demonstrate..

HUG THAT TREE! (vanilla Comb Ops 1.08/1.57, Regular difficulty) In this test I started Blue guy behind the tree, then sidestepped him out to reveal his position to the Red rifleman up on the slope (circled), then quickly stepped back behind the tree as the bullets began coming in. The tree gave him total protection; you can see the wood dust and chips flying as the bullets smack into the tree- PS- 'Cover and concealment' test thread here- http://www.thefewgoodmen.com/thefgmforum/showthread.php?7915-Cover-and-concealment

STONE WALL COVER TEST Anything that stops bullets and completely blocks line of sight is real cover (such as this wall), but anything that won't stop bullets and may only intermittently block LOS (such as a bush) is not real cover. Blue guy is safely prone behind a wall, he can neither see nor be seen- The 3rd person view reveals an enemy machinegunner (circled)- I order blue to stand up and the MG immediately spots him and begins firing, and Blue gets wounded- So I order him to drop prone again. The MG keeps firing for about 8 more seconds even though he can no longer see Blue, and his bullets splatter harmlessly against the wall-

Saddam was a madman, he'd already invaded Kuwait and gassed the Kurds,and was continually spouting anti-US rhetoric so he had to be taken out, WMD's or no WMD's..:) (Incidentally speaking of WMD's, a few thermos flasks of chemical/biological stuff could have wiped out millions of homeland Americans; my guess is he hid them under his bed and the weapons inspectors forgot to look there) As for political systems, it'd have been okay if the people of S.Korea and S. Vietnam had freely voted to have communism, but they didn't; the commies tried to impose it on them by force, so they asked for US help and invited them in. As for the Balkans mess, I long ago gave up trying to figger out who was in the right and who wasn't, it's such a tangled ball of string over there. But the only war I consider unjust was Israels military occupation of the West Bank in the 1967 Six Day War, it stirred up a hornet's nest that has been buzzing ever since. Bin Laden says it's one of the prime causes of Arab unrest, and he sees the West as supporters of Israel which is why he hates us too. "We declared jihad against the US government, because the US government is unjust, criminal and tyrannical. It has committed acts that are extremely unjust, hideous and criminal whether directly or through its support of the Israeli occupation." - Osama bin Laden - to CNN in March 1997

Hmm it depends on how we'd define 'just and honourable'. The Commies invaded South Korea so we went in and booted them out. Same with Nam, the Reds invaded the South, so we gave it our best shot and tried to stop them. Saddam invaded Kuwait so we evicted him, then later he was rumoured to have WMD's so we went into Iraq and got him. Were all those causes just and honourable?

Does it also happen when you're not playing Fallujah? If you tell me exactly which gun you're using I can set up a test in vanilla Comb Ops and see what happens

If I was a soldier could I (or anybody else) give our 100 per cent in a war we didn't believe in? For example I'd seriously question our involvement in Afgh; I heard Obama say on TV a while back "Our aim is not to defeat the Taliban but to contain them and prevent them spreading their influence.", so I wonder what the hell we're doing there? ---------- Post added at 11:33 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:28 AM ---------- Which war are you talking about mate? Every one is different, but the bottom line is that if the cause is just and honourable, surely nobody has any beef with that?