Jump to content
Bohemia Interactive Forums

Apocal

Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content Count

    232

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Medals

Posts posted by Apocal

  1. Posted · Edited by Apocal

    So instead of controlling deflection and elevation, you want to be able to control the point of impact? I personally think it's easy enough as is, I'm able to put rounds on a 6 digit within 30 seconds and a 4 digit within 10-15 seconds.

    EDIT: Let me step back a bit though and ask what you had problems with?

  2. Posted

    dont know i i dont understand u but arent u talking about

    init: 

    !alive bill

    on act: 

    Hint "Mission Accomplished"

    No, he's talking about centered top mission status box with all the pretty coolers.

    Here is how I set it up in my mission. On Activation of the accomplishing trigger:

    nul = [objNull, ObjNull, task3, "SUCCEEDED"] execVM "CA\Modules\MP\data\scriptCommands\taskHint.sqf"; task3 setTaskState "SUCCEEDED";

    Name of the task is 'task3', the taskHint.sqf is code internal to ArmA2, designed to make things easy for designers. Valid states are "CREATED", "CANCELLED", "CURRENT", "FAILED" and "SUCCEEDED". The taskHint.sqf only displays the taskState selected, so setTaskState must still be done for mission accounting purposes.

  8. Posted

    I understand what you're saying. ARMA II is satisfying to you. In the subject of "realism" I want my weapons to have a real world feel. If that weapon systems interface worked exactly as it does in real life, that would bring a ton of immersion to the game. So you see, realist details are the key to immersion in a video game that stresses...well....realism..... My point is, it IS important. Very very important.

    How do you suggest they incorporate a similar level of fidelity for equivalent Eastern systems? AFAIK, there isn't a "Care and Feeding of the AT-13 (METIS)" guidebook lying around...

  9. Posted

    I never heard of Infiltration and as you said its one specific field.

    Most people haven't, it was never terribly popular even in it's heyday (2004-2006). There were a lot of reasons for that, but the biggest was, despite what people on this forum claim, very few people want it as real as it gets. The sides are more or less balanced against each other for gameplay purposes in ArmA and the engine can't (as far as I know) model the subtle differences when you're talking PSO vs ACOG, reflex vs iron sight, shorter length vs longer, etc. Or even really basic stuff like why you can't use iron sights with night vision goggles. And that's OK, because ultimately all that stuff is a secondary (at best) consideration when you have full combined arms battlefield around you.

  10. Posted

    um... name one better?

    Infiltration, years ago. For infantry, more realistic grenade system, parallax-free reflex sights, better shotgun modelling, better modelling of scopes, functional M203 sights, better ballistics, etc. Everything related to individual weapons and movement, Infiltration did better as far back as 2004.

    I'll give you that flight sims are more realistic but they also don't have to accomodate command and control, infantry, tanks, wheeled vehicles, etc.

    Which is kinda the point... they dumbed down every aspect to get everything together on one combined arms battlefield.

    So I will revise my previous statement. Name one better that implements Command, Infantry, Tanks, Wheeled Vehicles, Civilians, Helicopters and fixed wing aircraft. Bonus if it has realistic tides, skies and weather and also if it is still fun to play.

    Combined arms, ArmA2.

  13. Posted

    Im confused, i have looked in the manuel and read people talk about it on sites but i have yet to ever be able to drag or carry anyone. I made a mission with some AI in my command, i wounded them and tried to drag or carry them. I simply dont see any way this can be done. Can someone enlighten me on something im missing or something?

    Haven't played single player, have you? :)

    Anyway, to setup the drag/carry system just sync the group leader with a First Aid - Battlefield Clearance module. Without the First Aid - Simulation module though, it's pretty pointless though, because the only thing you can drag/carry are dead people.

  14. Posted

    Also, since v1.03 all of the arty seems to be broken as if the Arty Module is no longer working properly. Not sure why.

    What kind of problems are you experiencing? I've used Arty since the patch, although I had to adjust for the new rectangular UI rather than the box, it's been more or less flawless.

  15. Posted · Edited by Apocal

    Any chance of this same being applied to the towed howitzers and rocket artillery? Loved your real artillery for ArmA1, way too underutilized addon. Oh yeah, the way we did firing tables in ArmA1 with real artillery was to fire from same elevation to same elevation. There were a few points of 0 altitude, flat ground and we'd shoot to the ocean (flat, 0 altitude).

  16. Posted

    I suppose armour penetration simulation isn't possible but maybe there is another way to make an Abrams/T-90 as powerful as in real life.

    I wonder if there is a way to attachTo an invisible object onto the tank's front armor with "allowDamage false" set and another script added to projectiles that can penetrate (which should be a damned short list) that removes the indestructable object and applies damage as normal?

  18. Posted

    I dont care a bit this a game, not real life.

    You know, CoD4 moves pretty fast, pretty sure MW2 will as well.

    ---------- Post added at 06:26 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:25 PM ----------

    not shure what this has to do with ctf feeels diif????

    Making the game more realistic made it less fun for unrealistic gametypes, I'm not 'sure' how you can miss that...?

  19. Posted

    Based on what i know, assault element was which caused lots of casualties (most others were generated by indirect fires)

    Where did you learn this? Because everything I've read (and I do mean, everything) or been taught says this is not true. We place much value on "closing with and killing" but's it's been reality that assault elements with individual weapons kill relatively few since 1904-1905 (widespread use of the machine gun). It doesn't make for particularly epic stories, but not much of actual combat does.

    But in offense escpaciely against dug-in enemy it's those who get close to enemy which causes most damage (and/or suffer most damage).

    This is what I was specifically referring to. Dunno, maybe the Finns are the sole exception of pretty much every other fighting force on Earth, but I doubt it.

    ---------- Post added at 07:06 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:04 PM ----------

    IRL sure someone grabs it when the gunner goes down if they're nearby, but they don't stay back instead of assaulting because it's pointless to attack and it's better to just wait for the SMAW guy to die so you can pick up his weapon and actually be useful. I hope it's clear now how the RL behavior is extremely different than what I'm describing that would happen in-game. IRL you don't go "bleh my role is useless I'll just wait for this guy to die and take his role".

    I've honestly never seen someone flat out hang back and wait for someone else die in-game. Especially when that person isn't likely to die in the first place...

    I'm agreeing with the problem, but not with the solution. Mission and game design is what needs fixing. Weapon restrictions alone is a half-assed fix that just doesn't really fix much anyway.

    How do you propose to fix it?

  20. Posted · Edited by Apocal
    role reversal...

    While that is realistic, that's not what's going to happen in Arma 2 when you do nothing but restrict weapons. You're going to have the A-gunner drop his ammo to the gunner (at least until the gunner has 3-4 rounds), and you're going to have non-SMAW guys follow them around to pick it up when they die. That is, unless your mission isn't designed around destroying armor, but even then the SMAW guy is the guy everyone want to be, while IRL it's probably the last thing you want to have to tug around.

    I don't know about the IDF, but SOP for most (all?) American forces is if a high-casualty producing weapon goes down (i.e. the gunner gets shot) you strip it and it's ammo off him and keep it in the fight. From a realism standpoint no problem with players doing that, since it's founded on the same reasoning as real life. Gameplay is more debatable, but if you want to take a purely gameplay stance, there are other games balanced more in that direction...

    snip

    OK, you just acknowledged that there was (generally) a very limited need for close assault in ArmA2, then you said you were against arbitrary restrictions on loadouts...

    Given the game, if restrictions aren't arbitrary, or punishments exceedingly harsh, there isn't the cost to offset the benefit of wielding a rocket launcher and/or belt-fed weapon/sniper rifle where ever you go.

    To be honest i don't know about war-time statistics too much, i've seen few from ww2, but would seem reasonable to think that on defense MG's in general are main killers, given that they have enough space to use their firepower efficiently. But in offense escpaciely against dug-in enemy it's those who get close to enemy which causes most damage (and/or suffer most damage).

    I've never read anything that suggested this, for the most part they suggest the exact opposite, such as with the Israeli experience during the 1956 war; that assault elements of each squad could be tiny, two or three men out of eight, with the remaining five serving two LMGs. And I think we all at least have a passing knowledge of WWI and how well things went when the assault elements (pure riflemen) were 90% (or more) of the troops on the attack. Less well known is that the Germans attempted to integrate light machineguns into their storm detachments. Even back then, when a "light" machine gun was around 50lbs., they felt the advantage of having it's firepower the attack offset the penalty it's weight imposed upon the squad (half the men were dedicated to employing it).

    MG's "just" burns powder so that enemy would keep their heads down, which of course is very important thing for assault element and reason why base-of-fire element is part of successful infantry unit tactic.

    Which is why the we have two, preferably three supporting for every one advancing. Sometimes you don't get that luxury and have 1-1, but less than that is considered Navy Cross type stuff.

    Mortars actually, for WWII at least.

    Indirect fire of all sorts. I was only referring to an infantry company (that being the absolute largest formation ArmA can handle) and being quite simplistic at that. The numbers they taught us were 50/40/10 (open terrain) or 60/30/10 (closed). Mortars, machine guns, everything else combined.

    But being blown apart by mortars half of the time is rather... unappealing in a game. And it's not really fun having a single unspotted or unsuppressed machine gun tear the guts out of an entire platoon either.

    Ontopic: Hmm... Should SMAW guys be handled like MG-gunners SMAW taking both weapon slots leaving gunner with pistol

    Juuuust a thought.

    No, that's just ridiculous. It's heavy, but it's not that heavy.

  21. Posted

    I know, aswell as a S version.

    I meant in the Russian faction's troops. Or in the multiplayer games on the Russian side. Often times it is not.

    Ah ok. I was like "wtf" for a second there, because the first enemy weapon you run into in the game is an AKM...

  23. Posted

    Restricting weapons by itself is not a real solution, as like I already said it turns it to a "support the guy that did get a SMAW and follow him to take the SMAW when he dies" game. That's not realistic.

    Yes, it actually is. They work in pairs, a gunner and an A-gunner. A-gunners spots for the gunner, carries extra ammunition and helps him load it. The rifle squad or platoon they are attached to lays down rounds to support them.

    If you make the SMAW guy have worse movement abilities like he should have IRL, then suddenly there's a purpose to being a regular infantryman as well, as there are actually things that the regular infantryman does a lot better than the SMAW guy.

    I certainly agree here. On the other hand, due to a lot of factors, there isn't as much a need for a close assault element in games; odds are you can kill everyone from way way back with supporting fires.

    Restricting roles is bad if it results in some roles being more desired/useful/important than others. You don't go far when you try to encourage a realistic behavior by implementing features that only encourage that behavior in the game and not IRL.

    Are you arguing realism here or gameplay? For gameplay purposes, I can see how it would suck to constantly be the supporting effort, whereas guys with belt-fed or HE win the firefights and rack up the kills. Realistically though, the biggest casualty producing weapon in the "rifle" platoon is a belt-fed (technically) light machinegun. The rifle company lives or dies on effectively employing it's machine guns and mortars. Reality is that the rifle by itself has not been decisive in warfare since around 1904-1905, and virtually all successful infantry forces have organized themselves around crew served weapons, with riflemen functioning in the close assault role and as security for the heavier weapons.

    So while you could just force people to not take DMRs, the result will not be good.

    Why wouldn't the result be good? And once again, are we talking realism good or gameplay good? Realistically, even if I thought I was going to have to shoot it out across 500m of pool table flat ground, they wouldn't myself and everyone under me DMRs. Gameplay wise, you have a better argument, but if the enemy has comparable capabilities, it's still interesting for the iron-sighted rifleman.

×