Nerd King

No, no, no, we can't ignore that nonsense because that means tolerating it. I'm sick of being on the defensive when I come to this forum because some folk can't keep their egos in check. If the admins are too complacent to do something about it, we should.

Alright, why hasn't this been moved to a political forum? Wasn't it made for this inflammatory bullsh*t? Where the hell are the admins keeping things on topic? No wonder the SC2 community is dead. We all bicker about stupid sh*t when we should be discussing the game.

And let be known that Europe rules! : ) I was born in England, and half of my family still lives there, so people who are going to tar me for being a "stupid American" can shove it. : )

Agreed JerseyJohn: Some might remember me by the moniker Normal Dude (lost my password). Threads and comments like these prompted me to leave the Battlefront forums. I have no inflated ego about me/my country, but the absolute one-sided ignorance that is allowed to flourish here is disgraceful and counter-productive.

The mpp difference is slanted towards Axis, but not very much. The economies of the Americas have been beefed up reflecting a higher output to deal with a bigger menace. Moreover, at a random point Japan will be defeated in 1945 and the US/UK will recieve plenty of victorious and experienced Pacific forces. Plus, the Germans are going to be spending a lot of time/MPPs rebuilding a weary military. Also take into account that the Axis have a lot more front to cover than the Allies do. The Allies should NOT let Turkey join the Axis or allow them to negotiate with Iran for a passageway through the mountains. Then they get a massive MPP boost. To a point retributer, there is intel provided to the Allied player. As much as the game engine allows (which aint much)

Howdy folks, I currently touching up and playtesting/balancing a hypothetical scenario. The date is 1943 and the setting is that Germany managed to do it right; the Russians have been pushed back to the Urals and sued for peace. England has been occupied and the government moved to Canada. The Italians have secured the middle east. As the scenario starts, the USA is ready to begin offensive operations while Britain and the USSR rebuild their shattered militaries. Meanwhile, although Germany has grabbed many resources and now has Spain on their side, their troops are stretched far too thin and need extensive rebuilding after the Russian campaign. Meanwhile on the diplomatic front, the Allies need to convince the battered Russian Bear to rejoin the fight (but not too early), and keep other countries such as Sweden and Turkey from joining or helping the Axis. A tough sell when Germany owns Europe! This is meant to be played as the Allies versus the AI. Features: 1. Customized bitmap images for units, since the battle starts at 1943 the vehicle images start accordingly. Several custom-made images extend the bitmaps beyond the traditional lvl 5 images; M36B1 Jacksons, King Tigers, the Mouse(!), and more. 2. The conquered part of USSR is treated as a seperate nation, although for practical purposes is the USSR. 3. Most of Honch's outstanding version 8 map is used, with modifications. 4. Variable and fully developed AI. 5. Nations may randomly react to events, so no more human calculator impressions. For example, when an Allied fleet approaches Ireland, they may do nothing, they lean Allied, they may suddenly join the Axis! 6. A twist on partisans. Partisans in some countries that do not cause damage easily, and have a long spotting range... providing intel for Allied invasion forces. 7. Italy can now take the convoys from Middle East and Egypt if they occupy it. 8. Shore bombardment is significantly reduced, but now ships can be upgraded higher. Anyways, point to this is to ask what the mob wants; what do YOU want in this scenario? Last chance to ask, as it is nearing completion.

Wow, let's go over this: schlitzzlipzz (or something like that): "In room-to-room fighting US troops do not use 3 round bursts?" In my experience, no. "Given the short range when doing this, I find it hard to believe that they would not use the 3 round burst. The actual 'climb' of the weapon (after targeting COM) might be beneficial." I just told you in a previous post why it is not useful. Re-read it. Jamming is increased, accuracy goes out the window, richets are more common, etc etc. In fact I think are according to doctrine 3-rd burst is only used for responding to a near ambush (IOW you are in deep **** already, so might as well loose some rounds) and for clearing trenchs (Where the enemy is straight ahead so screw accuracy). Use controlled pairs. You might not be taking me seriously, but I have hundreds of hours of MOUT training that make this point pretty damn well. "Ive fired the M16A1 on full auto (using controlled bursts) and at 5 meters or less, using non-shoulder firing techniques, its not hard to hit a man sized target. I notice most US troops in Iraq use a shoulder type stance though." Full auto is not 3 round burst. They are different weapons and they work differently. And yes we use shoulder stances because we prefer to have control over our weapons while firing and moving, rather than trying to imitate Rambo. "Shotgun Round Pictured earlier: Its actually a muzzle loader sabot round but why not have something like that for a shotgun?" See my comment about US military not using effective rounds. BTW did you say that is muzzle loaded????!!! "Suppression in CQB? Its a fight to the death with no quarter given." Suppression is a factor in EVERY firefight. One of the biggest factors. John D Salt: "If nothing else, it demolishes the silly argument I've seen someone make that people only fall over when shot because they are conditioned to by what they see on TV." Wow, I can't believe that arguement! From what I have seen the only time someone keels over when shot is when they recieve an immediately fatal hit i.e. heart head spine. Even then not always BigDuke 6: Your post come off as exceptionally condescending and generally ignorant of the issues at hand. You sound like some logistics weenie officers, fighter pilots, and arty officers I know. Or maybe you are in the media. They tend to act like condescending know-it-alls too. And as an infantryman myself, I am scared if there are folks like you at the Pentagon. I invite you to come over to my unit and use that same smug crap you just spewed. You basically have strung together some common-sense concepts that everyone here already knows and accepts, and combined them with some swipes at the folks whose boots you don't deserve to shine and a few well-placed total misconceptions. Oh, it SOUNDS convincing, but then again you seem to blend bullcrap with logic quite well. Bravo. I'm not going to bother picking your post apart bit by bit because I have better things to do with my time than waste it on an ignorant, condescending jackass such as yourself. My last post here, this is just f*ing disgusting that people like you can actually be this retarded. Tarqueline: "IIRC the original concern was with "untreatable wounds", and the dumbasses decided watching people die lingering deaths from wounds that respond poorly to medical care in't fun for anybody." I know what the original intent of the rulings was, and it was made by people who will never have to experience the real-life effects of their fantasy policies. War is isn't pretty no matter what ammo you are using, and if people can't stomach that then maybe they should leave the work to others. If our military can't use deadlier rounds, then how come they aren't outlawed to civilians or federal personnel? Because they don't have to follow dumb ideas that other nations make up. Ok, so I should either kill him outright, or just "wound him a little". Sorry folks, but you can't have your cake and eat too. Real life doesn't work that way.

Yes, I do.

True, and I was aware of that, but we are the dumbasses that decided to follow that ruling.

As for the number, I cannot say without diving into some heavy statistics and I hate statistics, but I can say it is more often than it should be. Also, if I hit the dude in let's say a limb, I don't want to drill a neat little hole in him (and cavitation doesnt work as well against muscle as it does against organs), I want to shred the **** out of his muscle and tendons and thus render him useless. And something powerful or nasty enough to do that will usually drop him as well. And that would be pretty nice for even a limb hit. I have seen combo rounds cause almost-immediate death in traditionally non-fatal areas.

As I mentioned before my solution is to adopt a more lethal 5.56 mm round. I like the size, ballistics, and platforms the 5.56 is on, just not the characteristics of the Army-issue FMJ against an unarmored target.

Think of it this way... you are clearing an insurgent-held building, and your fire team engages ten insurgents while room-clearing. 9 of them go down immediately from the 5.56 as they should. One gets hit but doesn't go down immediately. You are all now royally ****ed. I never mentioned how many compared to one it takes, now did I? You conjured up the one vs. every terrorist in the world odds yourself. What if it is one of every 5, or 10, or 20?

But the competition will produce a higher level of quality pictures. John, I am up for this.

They already have 5.56 combo bullets that can tear apart flesh likes nobody's business yet still have penetration. Problem is, some genuis in the upper ranks decided that our military doesn't use them. You can probably thank a bleeding heart liberal somewhere for that. As for what Special Forces, SEALs, Delta,the alphabet soups,and contractors use, I worked with them plenty, hell was attached to them in A-Stan, and let me tell you their choice of weaponry was eclectic. I knew more than a few SF guys who swore by M16A1s! The alphabet soups and contractors, being civies and not restricted by military ammo regs, often used M4A1's (The full auto version) with the combo 5.56 rounds. I barely saw any of them use 9mm. Almost all had .40 or .45, either SOCOM or Sig Sauer for the most part. The M4 Carbine and M16A4 is an excellent platform and I love it, I just think we need to be using ammo that does the job better. My old unit also got our hands on the XM-8, and that was a sweet piece of weaponry, not that it didn't have its flaws, but damn was it nice. As for burst firing, the 3-round burst is damn near useless. The weapon jams up much more easily on 3-rd burst, and accuracy goes out the window, and yes even in CQB that matters because if the room is a hard surface you have ricochets to deal with. Controlled pairs are much more efficient. I would take 3 accurate rounds over 10 badly fired rounds any day of the week. As for that shotgun round pic, DAMN that thing looks EVIL! Bruce 70: "A few people have stated that it is the one person who deosn't go down immediately that will kill you. This is probably true" Based on my experience, yes that is true. It only takes one and next thing you know you've got a room full of dead grunts and wailing moms back home. "(although I would have thought that you would have time to hit them again at CQ)." What if you don't have time? Want to take chances? "But, if it only takes one person to kill you, what happens if that one person is wearing body armour?" In my time in Iraq and Afghanistan I cannot recall witnessing even one enemy wearing body armor. "For CQ I think a combination of 12ga and 5.56 would be ideal. Incidentally, isn't that currently the norm?" The shotguns are used more often for breaching, but yes they are used in CQ. And what if the shotgun man isn't the one faced with a drugged-up insurgent? It sure isn't helping the 5.56 man right there and then.