Jump to content

Dadekster88

Members
  • Posts

    279
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Dadekster88

  • Birthday 12/23/1974

Converted

  • Location
    Fairfield, CA
  • Interests
    Hockey, gaming, my reef tank.
  • Occupation
    LEO

Dadekster88's Achievements

Senior Member

Senior Member (3/3)

10

Reputation

  1. I don't know about that one tbh. To me it's like buying a car to commute to work, then the bridge you were going across suddenly becomes a toll bridge and you expect Ford or whoever you bought your car from to suddenly pony up for the toll fees. Am I wrong with this analogy? edit ^in regards to the vista comment
  2. I agree, it's a good game. You do give up the human interaction which sometimes depending on company was more fun than the game sometimes. For that reason I still enjoy tabletop games...nothing like seeing the look on your opponents face as you sip on your poison of choice. Long live gaming!
  3. Wow...look it's another discussion regarding a game company that released something that adds to their game and a small portion of the game community are whining about being charged for it. Why is it so hard for certain people to understand that when something is added to a game it is up to the company that did it whether they want to charge for it? If they want to throw it out for free then fine, merry xmas...but nothing says you are owed new stuff for free. It's like some sort of entitlement mentality. Well like my old man used to say, stick one hand out in front of you and the other one behind you and see which one fills up with something first. You don't want to play with the new stuff then don't buy it, the old one ain't broke from what I see.
  4. This would get my vote as a nice improvement. I bet it would be hell to code though. I'd also rather see other things be included or improved prior to this tbh though.
  5. I wish there was a way where I could take the crew and redeploy them in a way that they could beat off a close assault maybe or let them take better cover than just huddling around the weapon as rounds really start to come in. Sure the weapon may be destroyed but at least the crew is still alive even if they just scamper off to the rear. I'd really love to have the ability though that if the crew get flanked that they could deploy in a line to face the threat and maybe fight back a bit instead of just get killed as they struggle to rotate the weapon around. Not a game breaker of course, just a nice wish I could.
  6. Well I think we can all agree that there are about a million variables that can occur when a crew bails out of their close assaulted AFV but the one that ends with the crew killing several of the enemy within a minute of bailing out are gonna be a bit rarer then the one that ends up with them being machine gunned down as they slowly exit the AFV.
  7. I agree, this is by no means some earth stopping game breaking bug. It would be nice to see if it could be looked into or maybe tweaked. I think that is what most people are asking for from what I have read. I would think the issue is something that could be looked at from both the weapon system and crew side perhaps? Either tone down the effects of the pistol and/or make experience with the weapon more telling? I honestly don't know tbh what could fix the uncanny kill rate of the pistols in the game though. Someone would probably have to run test similar to how they found the bug concerning how a wall behind a unit was bad...sorry I can't remember the details but it got BF's attention since they love the empirical evidence stuff.
  8. I can't argue with that logic as I'm not a member of the Mr. Murphy fan club since I seem to get screwed more often than not. That said who do you want in your foxhole? They guy who was shown how a grenade works or the one who isn't sure what to pull and what to throw?
  9. If you mean the other 'serious' level threads floating around this site I applaud you sir for both combining a witty sarcasm laced with so much biting backhanded humor that I subsequently laughed out loud and then smacked myself in the mouth as punishment. Or just watch the damn clip
  10. Forgot to ask about this as well. "...artificially constrained police shooting reports." What is artifical and/or constrained about a police shooting? I am struck just a bit speechless on that one.
  11. You can take qualification numbers and standards and throw those all right out the window when it comes to a active combat shooting. Both of those NYPD guys could have been the 2012 ace gunslinger awardees for their department but I can just about guarantee if you ask them if all that shooting at 50 yards helped they'd look at you as if you'd sprouted five heads. Range shooting and combat shooting are two completely different things and trying to extropolate numbers from the range to support combat accuracy is wrong in my opinion. The range just shows what is possible for a given weapon system placed in trained hands. I have no doubt that a well trained person can hit a 50 yard target consistently at a range with a pistol but this is a range with hearing protection in a sheltered area under perfect conditions and both shooter and target stationary. I feel I can say this as I am someone who shots 600 rounds a year and has to qualify on pistol, rifle and shotgun. I can also tell you that in the last couple of years that many law enforcement agencies are conducting much more realistic ranges dealing less with how many targets you can hit at arbitrary ranges and more with what you might face on the beat. Compared to my infantry training it is still a loooooong ways from being the same thing but at least movement while firing and so forth is being taught as part of active shooter training due to all incidents over the last couple of years. I can also tell you of all the weapon systems that I have used over the years that the single hand held sidearm weapon is the hardest to master, at least for me. Milage well vary across the many law enforcement agencies just like anything else in life. Some agencies take their training very serious like and others out in the middle of nowhere that have hostile cattle as their biggest worry will train in a lesser fashion. Comparing spec op guys to regular cops is also disingenuous imo. SpecOps guys do nothing but train for warfare and specifically closet warfare at that. Of course their standards are going to be much higher and they also get the benefit of going into a situation knowing full well it's a shoot scenario, cops get no benefit of the SITREP prior to each random encounter. You wanna compare SpecOp to cops then comparing them to SWAT at least. Oh, and the icing on the cake? Cops get to walk around knowing that they might have to do all the above and then get monday night QB'd to death about what they did and that's even if they did everything per policy and public opinion. Let me tell you, it was much more clear cut when I was active duty. I don't care what the Army study says either, whoever did it was smoking some serious mind blowing stuff I think. Hitting a target at 50 yards with a pistol while under serious stress is just plain crazy. As far as I am concerned that's superhuman and you would have to have ice running in your veins (or know you are in a 'simulated' situation). I say this because I train more with my weapons now than I EVER did when I was in the army and the people who state that you train what your primary MOS is more than anything else are 100% correct based on my experience. I was an 11M and while we did our rifle, grenade etc training we spent much more time on our tracks in gunnery. I have a hard time believing that in WW2 with a war raging that tankers would have been given anything more than a cursory introduction to the pistol and spent most of their time learning about their respective track. Basically here is the pistol, if you have to use this you are BLEEPED. Once in the field I bet they spent more time filling sandbags than worrying about their pistol.
  12. Yep, they aren't looking for a fight nor are they looking to walk anywhere...heaven forbid they might be mistaken for infantry!! :eek:
  13. There will always be exceptions rather than the rule and as you state these are unusual conditions but I think results such as the above occur to often. There is no exact science to it and we can spend all day each showing examples from history to each other to support our respective sides but I think common sense indicates that guys bailing out of their vehicles armed with only pistols should definitely already be on the we are soooo screwed list. Hell, even if the enemy is on the opposite side of the map when their vehicle was taken out do you have any idea the ridicule these guys are gonna incur when they walk back to camp? In both of the above cases I can see the first crew being gunned down as they bail out of their vehicles a much more common if less spectacular and drama filled ending, apologies to all those pixel crews that died that way. The second crew...will if you ordered me and 7 of my buddies to take on a rifle squad that I personally had no LOS of with just pistols I would have been tempted to test this whole pistol effective range thing right there and then.
  14. It shows you many things tbh of which three stand out. 1. The advantage initially goes to the suspect...he has his hand reaching for something as the officers close the gap. 2. The officers initally are in each others line of fire as they both head for the closest cover as training kicks in. 3. The suspect begins to advance on the officers of which the one in the back begins to move lateral to increase distance as well as be able to return fire. Suspect goes down. Oh, and people like the one wearing the red shirt bother me too for various reasons. If you see something similar like what happened here, don't do what she does
×
×
  • Create New...