TangoRomeo

Couldn't get myself interested in MW2, but looking forward to this.

If Razor team survival wouldn't be tied to mission success, i would use them primarily to draw fire, or provide it myself.

Excellent! Although i don't applaud ED for sticking with Starforce.

:D Not bad. But eventually he's just a student compared to the real Mc Coy of martial art: Z1eFdUSnaQM

Learn from the Pros: uxkr4wS7XqY On a serious note, why ask this in a gaming forum? If you plan to run a buisness, this is hardly the place i would consult for advice. And yepp, i wouldn't mention street fight as a reference - because it isn't.

Wouldn't this work with A2, too?

X-52. CH Fighterstick + Pro Throttle& Pedals. Both setups are good, depends on how much you want to invest. I went with the low budget option (X-52). The stick also has Z-Axis twist, making additional rudder pedals redundant. As others, i don't use it with Arma but simulation titles.

You could have most of this with ArmA. A Dev of Graviteam (Steel Fury/Kharkov 1943) wrote that it's rather unlikely for an established Publisher to take on the risk of signing a PC tank simulation game these days. W/o SB Pro and military clients, there obviously wouldn't be an entertainment (Pe) version. :/

4FPGJrzzq_I

I was about to order, until i read that an active online connection is required to play the game. WTF.

amazon.de avg. customer rating (63 reviews) 2.5/5 amazon.com avg. customer rating (19 reviews) 2.5/5 amazon.co.uk avg. customer rating (29 reviews) 2.5/5 gamestar.de avg. user rating (168 ratings) 52/100 Some gaming mags are known for glaring reviews of titles that have a rather poor reception in public. Even that 92% review won't safe DR from becoming abandonware.

Proper Milkcow- and Wolfpack features come into mind.

If the comments don't get besieged by spam demons, there's a good chance of the nameless leprous internet puppets from Alpha Centauri stopping by. I like it though, you just don't have to take it seriously. Concerning DR. I just took up Risen and Drakensang, 2 role playing games, together ~ 50 Eur.

It´s a feature available to the AI, however, sometimes it appears to be somewhat disconnected, or desynced, to the situation at hand, as it presents itself to the Player. The principle of fire& maneuver is defintely a tactic the AI can access and utilize, it's the process that leads to it's employment (i.e. situational awareness +threat assessment), and the resulting execution, that isn't always comprehensible or seem an appropriate measure.

Really beautiful photos :cool: @ laggy - some serious artwork there, nice facial expression. Chapeau!

By the time A2 will reach peak performance, making full use of its potential, odds are you´ll have a new system. Even if the developer ceases support sometime in the future, you´ll still be able to access tons of community made material. That's what the series is about, always has been. So yes, if you like the core gameplay, by all means get it.

I`m currently playing PT-Boats. It`s basically a dumped down simulation, where realism has been sacrificed for what i'd call "no hassle instant action". It has some extra features like a small tactical map, enabling the player to command other assets like destroyers, cruisers, other PT-Boats that are available in a mission etc.. The implementation is rather shallow, as is system simulation of the boats itself, but it's fun nonetheless. Missions so far are varied, like evacuating the crew of a U-Boat that has been just raided by enemy PT-Boats, trying to steal documents and crypto code, scouting for for a larger hunter/killer group, on to direct attacks. Using DX10 graphics do look rather nice, especially particle effects when firing weapons are quite an eyecatcher. The sea looks good, the downside being that there appears to be only a single sea-state. Even if the briefing states foul weather, the sea always appear to be calm. Other than this, if you're only into tactical shooter type of games, how about R6 up to Raven Shield.

In comparison to E:TW A2s AI is getting progressively better with patches, that's a good thing, but it's still somewhat of a road to travel till it's getting there.

The iraqys had neither the technology, nor the training, nor the numbers in men and material that would make Stalin's quote applicable. What turned ODS into a turkey shoot since end of january 1991 was total air supremacy - supremacy, as the US had air superiority even before the war had begun, having the hardware, intelligence and training to achieve it, not only with a high probability, but almost with a certainty. That's what CentCom AF Commander Gen. C. Horner basically replied when asked when air superiority had been achieved. A loss rate of 1 fixed wing AC per 1800 combat sorties appears to reinforce this assessment. The air campaign basically pinned iraqy forces in place, denied them mobility, destroyed their C³ and essentially robbed them of any opportunity to pursue any significant military war goals of their own. As the ground forces came into play, it was a matter of rounding up the remains, and that wasn't much in terms of a combat effective force. A tank robbed of it's mobility, is just a sitting duck. Even if the iraqys had been equipped with M1`s or Leo 2`s instead of T-72`s, the impact on the military outcome of the campaign would, by all odds, probably be the same.

http://fofanov.armor.kiev.ua/Tanks/ARM/apfsds/ammo.html As with any stats on the internet, take it with a grain of salt. I think it's safe to assume that in a hypothetical engagement involving state of the art equipment, the crew who sees and shoots first, hitting the target, will have a high kill propability.

Have you tried the demo? I´d think it'll give you some general indication. Other than that, AI gotten somewhat better with the patches - for more details, check the changelogs.

The outcome of a conflict is not decided at tactical level. You can win the battles, and eventually loose the war. It happened, and still does, in our century. There's more to it than simply pitting different technology, quality and experience against each other. Without the backing of a large intact industry and sufficent resources, i.e. fuels, even the mightiest war machine will grind to a halt. That's why the US in WW2 could keep on rolling successfully on several fronts, it's industry was, unlike Germany's, not subject to bombardment. It had the capacity to even provide it's allies sufficent material to bypass bottlenecks in production, or to compensate for losses (via Lend-Lease -Act), which is regarded as a crucial factor for the outcome of WW2.

The orig. Silent Hunter was just a cheap AOTD ripoff. :D Glc_qGTTMXk For it's time, the 3D graphics and sound were revolutionary. Some people still think this was the best WW2 U-Boat game created up until SH3.

Entirely depends on your definition. I rarely post on DR and mostly withheld subjective impressions, but what i´m seeing, and reading, basically comes from a feature complete game, about to be released. Normally you'd expect the dev/publisher to kick in the 2nd gear as release is closing in. Instead, we learn more about the restrictions being imposed on the player, for technical reasons or other.

Not Acceptable. I really wanted DR to succeed, but the more details make it to public, the more i think it will be a few beers short of a sixpack :confused: