Chris2525
-
Content Count
33 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Medals
Posts posted by Chris2525
-
-
I'm having this same problem too.
I'm using the Steam version of OA/CO, and i only get the kicked off server or session lost errors when I'm running the game as CO, and attempting to join CO servers/games. When running only OA, and attempting to join OA games, there's no issue.
I've replaced the mission_e pbo, applied the beta patch, but to no avail. I've also scanned my addons folder to ensure there were no extra addon pbo's in there, but as far as i can tell it's all good (though i wouldn't mind seeing a list of the files you're supposed to have in there to make sure i didnt miss any of the addons i lazily put there in the past).
---------- Post added at 07:14 AM ---------- Previous post was at 07:12 AM ----------
.....furthermore, as i said, it's only CO games i cannot join (even if i'm running the game as CO). And it's also notable that certain servers consistently give me the "kicked off game", where the others consistently give me "session lost" if that's any help.
-
[NSP]
As i was out drinking with a buddy of mine (20 year veteran of the infantry, fellow afghasnistan vet...), we had a discussion about supression, carriage of ammo, and marksmaship within the conventional infantry context, and we figured out (having had to pull up the calculator on my phone), that in a conventional, offensive secenario, .005% of rounds fired by an infantry section (barring the rounds fired by the 2 LMGs in the section, as the discussion was about a DRCD study we're working on WRT rifles specifically) are actually fired with lethal intent. The rest are all supressive. Virtually every round fired by an infanrty soldier in any one attack is supressive (and i corroborate this with real world, combat experience). I wish the gaming world would come to grips with this.....
-
Exaclty. The soldier's experience, skill and morale would all be variables when trying to define a supression model. I.E. the battle hardened veteran is going to be a lot harder to supress than some conscript who's being shot at for the first time in his life.
I suppose the built in "skill" levels in Arma2 could be a good start for dictating where in that spectrum an indiviual would fit.
I.E. if nothing else, it ought to be harder to supress a unit who's skill is set to max than one who's is set to min. Both should drop when shot at, but the higher skilled units should pop up sooner, and more frequently, and shoot more accurately when they do, than the lower skilled units.
And as an aside, the units shouldnt have to be "suppressed" in order to get them down. Most armies' donctrine calls for soldiers to get down and seek cover almost immidiately after coming under any sort of effective fire. And that's what people do (instinctively) anyway. That should be reflected in the game. There should be a very noticable reaction from a group when rounds come anywhere close to them - i.e. double tap in the general direction of where the fire came from, then scatter for cover. I find the robotic behaviour of AI units who have fire landing around them (often no reaction at all until a round comes very close to, or hits a unit) to be very unrealistic.
-
That's right. Unlike other common MGs, the M2 doesn't have innacuracy built into the barrel. The variation all comes from the tripod (relying on recoil to create spray).
I met a guy who was US sniper in vietnam and he said they would sometimes hump an M2 through the jungle to use as a long range sniper weapon. But they fired it single shot (which can be done with an M2, but not an M60, M240, or M249).
When fired on automatic though, the gun rattles and creates a beaten zone.
As an example of built in, inherent barrel innacuracy, If you take a look at this, you can clearly see how the barrel for the FN Minimi is tapered (narrower close to the muzzle). The point of this is to create vibration in the barrle as the gun is firing, which creates a cone of fire (read: spray)
-
Funny how no one complains about .50 Rifles being "too damn accurate". Is it because they look so cool with that scope? a .50 MG has to be more accurate than a .50 rifle, because it is much heavier and is fired from a much more stable platform.
That's because in reality, sniper rifles are indeed accurate. MGs are not. Theyre not supposed to be. They're AREA weapons. Sniper rifles are POINT weapons.
I think thuis it totally made up. There is no intended inaccuracy "to spray an area". MGs are supposed to hit at long ranges. Not just make noise and supress. The suppression is a result of people fearing being killed by something firing at a high ROF AND accurate shots.
No, it's not totally made up. It's fact. You say you've never fired a gun, well my niche in the infantry for my first 4 years was medium and heavy machine guns. Ive fired tens of thousands of rounds out of MAG58s (both dismounted and from a tripod) and .50Cal M2s.
Ive also instructed numerous machine gun and support weapons courses, including many theory of machine gun fire classes. It's clearly taught that the guns and their tripods have inherent innacruacy built into them. It's in the manual. And i also know for a fact that weapons techs will tighten/loosen the bolts on a tripod in order to give it a particular amount of play - as opposed to eliminating the play - in order to allow the gun to rattle about when firing. I've seen them do it.
Google "beaten zone", and "area weapons" vs "point weapons". We certainly didn't make that up.
-
Not sure whether it's been mentioned, but a "supressive fire" function for direct fire weapons would be useful - i mean one that's similar to the new Artillery system where AI units will fire at a directed spot on the landscape whether there's spotted enemy there or not.
---------- Post added at 08:34 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:45 PM ----------
....also, WRT the AI/Supression issue, not sure if anyone mentioned it, but i think a good example could be taken from Brothers in Arms (minus the fancy supression guages).
What i'd ultimately like to see is an enemy who can be supressed by fire passing or landing within 1-5 metres (depending on his skill setting), but who pops up and shoots during the lulls in fire, forcing you to keep supression up while conducting your approach. This would make for a realistic fire & movement scenario.
However, question of what does it take to actually supress a person is a tough one. It's next to impossible to quantify volume and proximity for the purpose of determining how much/how close does it take to supress someone.
Recently retired from the CDN army, I consult for an operaitonal research team who uses computer based simulations to gather data and make recommendations on weapons and equipment, and the supression question is the most impossible one to answer. Nobody (that i can find) has ever conducted a conclusive study to quantify supression because it's impossible to gather that data. You can't test on soldiers on the range, because at the end of the day, they know theyre not going to be shot, and you can't go on patrol in Kandahar and drag a team of scientists along to measure your behaviour under fire.
I will say this though, from personal experience, you don't need a round to pass within 2 feet of your head in order to get you down LOL.
/Rant
-
Agree 100%.
As someone stated, MGs, and even their tripods have a certain amount of inherent innacuracy built into them in order to create a "beaten zone". The entire point of a machine gun is to saturate an area - hence they are "area weapons". Laser-like accuracy makes them "point weapons", in which case you may as well use rifle.
I'd like to see this adjusted in a patch, but won't hold my breath.
Steam - never get out of the boat ...
in ARMA 2 & OA - TROUBLESHOOTING
Posted
Looks like i'm pretty much going to have to do the same thing. To hell with steam. I can't get mods working either, and cannot connect to any combined ops games.