Jump to content

General Jack Ripper

Members
  • Content Count

    1,948
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    11

Everything posted by General Jack Ripper

  1. That was Tom Sizemore. Tom Hanks is your squad leader who always gets shot first.
  2. The difference between the technicals lies in the composition of their crew. Pickup trucks with weapons on them are the same as other pickup trucks with weapons on them, regardless of the credit score of the owner.
  3. Oh god, I thought that was dead and buried by now... LET IT DIE!!
  4. Indeed, it does seem the game manual is in need of a rewrite.
  5. So... The Abrams tanks have absolutely nothing to do with the point being made. The engineers work would be exactly the same if the tanks weren't there. I care not for your analysis of my tactical acumen, because I found and dealt with the mines, and apparently you were unable to do so. How can you 'Mark Mines' if you haven't detected them yet? What game in existence allows you to activate a context-sensitive command when the context necessary for that command is nonexistent? Notice how no one is complaining about their inability to 'Acquire' weapons and ammo out of thin air? That's because it's self-evident one must be in a vehicle or next to an ammo dump to use it. WHY ARE PEOPLE MAKING AN ASSUMPTION THAT 'MARK MINES' WORKS DIFFERENTLY? You have to be standing near the mines to have it work, and in order to stand near the mines, YOU HAVE TO KNOW WHERE THEY ARE. The manual also makes it explicit that anti-tank mines do not harm infantry, so you can draw the logical conclusion that having infantry walk around and among the AT Mines will allow you to detect them without any possible risk. I would say the scenario is designed to hold your hand by telling you where the evil scary minefield is, and also give you all the tools you need to overcome the obstacle. Imagine for a moment the anguish you would feel, if the game DIDN'T tell you there was a minefield there! If there is any problem with marking mines, it is the ambiguous wording in the engine manual which makes it seem like 'Mark Mines' is a movement command, but by referencing the bolded spots of the game manual section quoted above (emphasis mine), one can easily see the technique by which one detects and marks an anti-tank minefield: Anti-tank mines cannot be set off by infantry on foot, Troops moving through minefields have some ability to notice the mines without exploding them. Engineers have the ability to mark known minefields. See? It's as easy as 1, 2, 3. Now just wait until you get to a scenario where you are told, "There may be some minefields somewhere," but are NOT told where they are, what type they are, or how large they are...
  6. You know, you guys could just go play the darn game... Just sayin'.
  7. That's gotta be one of the coolest jobs in the world, "Let's build a vehicle, then shoot at it all day!"
  8. If the scenario designer allows you to, you can do it. There are ways of making a ceasefire victory impossible until certain conditions are met.
  9. 'Deploy Weapon' is a toggle switch. How hard is it to toggle a switch? It's either ON or OFF. Sheesh.
  10. No. I deliberately said zero pack up time to simulate the ability to wheel the gun away. If you move one to four action spots and toggle the deploy weapon command to 'on', you will deploy the gun instantly after stopping. This is a known game mechanic.
  11. I think it's intended to be an abstraction representing the ability to quickly move the gun instantly, but transporting it over any real distance would require some fiddling, at least to clear the gun and stow the ammo, etc. Remember, you can deploy machineguns over a short distance without having a setup time. So you could grab your russian mg, move it instantly (zero pack up time), move 4 action spots, and deploy instantly. So you can potentially be very mobile with it. But the gun is still heavy, and even being dragged you clear the gun and then have to emplace it, check your line of fire, then reload the gun before firing.
  12. I've been looking for that forever after reading a magazine article quoting sections of it. Thanks.
  13. Which ones are water-cooled, and which ones are air-cooled? Which are belt-fed, and which are magazine fed? Which are light enough to be man-portable, and which require multiple crewmembers? Which have an optional bipod, and which fire only from a tripod? There's a heck of a lot more questions to ask and answer here besides, "I don't get why a gun on wheels has a setup time."
  14. Even something as portable as a BAR doesn't have a "0" pack up time.
  15. When I was a kid, I used to sit right up close to the window on the T specifically to look down the older tunnels.
  16. Wandering the back alleys of Boston reveals all sorts of interesting things:
  17. It's the privilege you get from living for so long. I can't wait until my 60's, then I can be like Emrys.
  18. That's why I was wondering about the differences between game settings, because I do recall specific discussion regarding how Syrian buildings seemed bulletproof, and then people posting photos and videos showing how solid that type of brick and concrete construction really is. Like little fortresses.
  19. I think the abstracted generic 'building' type tends to change slightly depending on which title you're playing. Your middle eastern concrete and brick constructed house is a bit more sturdy than your wooden framed normandy house. But then again, you're shooting 5.56mm in syria, and .30-06 in normandy, sooo... I think the approximations are okay, maybe a little conservative, but one thing you don't seem to need to worry about is secondary frag and projectiles. I've seen rpg rounds impact a wall directly opposite a few guys, and not even a scratch was inflicted. There is simulation based on round size, weight and velocity, but there is approximation based on building materiel and construction. So I would say the performance is reliably predictable, but abstracted. You'll see hundreds of rounds go skipping off a wall, but then that one lucky bastard gets through and kills your platoon hq. Um, it actually is the case. I've placed .30 cal fire onto a target effectively suppressing it by shooting THROUGH one house to hit the one behind it. I've seen .50cal go through several walls in a row before being stopped. One time during the road to montebourg I had to cease fire from an M1917 Water Cooled specifically because he was shooting through three houses in a row and suppressing my own guys sneaking up behind the third house. It does exist man, just depends on the type of building.
  20. One thing you should always keep in mind is that 5.56x45mm doesn't pierce walls very well, while 7.62x39mm does a little bit better. If both sides are in buildings, you'll probably come off second best unless you leverage additional firepower or engage in some heavy suppression. Thus, passing out 500 to 1000 extra rounds during the setup phase can be recommended. Also, Strykers are not tanks, they are bulletproof, but not proof against anything else. Once upon a time there was a thread in the old Shock Force Forum called 'Taking Down Buildings Quick and Agile" which told people to roll their vehicle up to the target building to dismount their infantry and assault the building. Then, there was a smattering of complaints about destroyed Strykers and full squads getting killed before the word got out: it was all nonsense. Stryker infantry should be considered light infantry who can drive around in tin-plated trucks. That's pretty much it. Other than that, domfluff and The_MonkeyKing have got you started nicely.
  21. I used to mirror upload to vid.me before it disappeared, but no one ever watched them, so I stopped.
×
×
  • Create New...