Apocal

I assume their appearance is simply in the interest of keeping system requirements low and not to imply a lesser degree of protection. Perhaps the Man can answer if they merely look like Ranger graves or actually are Ranger graves.

Aren't foxholes automatically dug beneath defending troops?

Maybe they weren't expecting contact and only had time to setup a hasty ambush? Old AKs, yes. On top of their stash of GPMGs, HMGs, RPGs and mortars. Not just no, but **** no.

Not entirely sure of what you mean, but the different damageable areas are actually positioned on the vehicle in 3D. My LAV-ATs had their hammerheads over a hilltop and and enemy Dushka destroyed the TOWs and the IR optics, but left the rest of LAVs untouched. Quite a nice level of detail, says I.

An MP game, playing as REDFOR during the mission where they are being attacked from literally all sides, but still have to move out and secure the entryways to the town. I had a BMP, the sole survivor of the original four or five, that I drove rather aggressively up a hill and used to decimate an infantry squad. After that, Stryker found it's range and started pounding the BMP, killing the gunner. The driver freaked out and apparently slammed the reverse, sending the BMP back down the hill at approximately 90 mph.

That's real life. Even hitting someone 100m away is no trivial matter.

The muddy terrain looks like mud... the marsh looks like marsh?

Bing West.

I had a problem with my eLicense going through the second time I bought the game. Moon replied within a few hours of me asking what's up.

Did you read the description of the final battle? 250 Talibs against 30 Marines, the Taliban "felt surrounded" and the Marines won. Grogs here scream bloody murder about that kind of thing. You can always jack up their experience and motivation.

You know, this kind of had me wondering too, until someone on another forum reminded me of something. The basic RPG is a HEAT warhead, very focused. It can penetrate, but it still has to hit someone or something to actually knock the vehicle out. If it simply goes through the hardback or similarly non-crucial structures, no harm. Despite how cramped the passenger compartment is, it's still a lot of air and open space and not much "crew", especially if they've partially dismounted. HEAT sucks for killing people, no news there. Plyaing too many games (CM:SF and ArmA) allowed me to forget the basic rule of lethality: to do damage, you must hurt someone or break something. Penetration is only a starting point.

Got a name off the top of your head? Only speaking for myself here, but I like the food.

The TacAI is smart enough to use the correct munition if you call for "General" or "Armor". I'm somewhat certain it is a rudimentary concrete-piercing/delay shell, if your target on the building is placed below the roof. If you call for "Personnel", they'll use airbursts, which are ineffective against infantry in buildings.

I still remember some of the old throwdowns over your decision to go 3D and how the game could have been so much better if time hadn't been "wasted" on 3D.

I have no idea what you are talking about here...? I think (not sure) newer diesels are quieter. Gas turbines certainly are though.

Huh? You've surely called fire missions in-game, right? Since Marines has come out I've probably called down more mortars and artillery than any FO in the history of indirect fire. In this way, it makes sense as something on the lowest level of difficulty. I can see a new wargamer not understanding the effect of fires. But someone who's been consistently playing longer than a month or two? Come on, they should know by then, unless they've been deliberately avoiding the support panel like a vampire avoids daylight.

I have a small ***** and was unloved as a child.

Does any real world system replicate this capability? I'm almost certain it's up to an FO's training and experience with regards to getting the right density onto a desired target.

This is good. This is vaguely ludicrious. The idea that someone would intentionally turn his engines off when the enemy is only (at most) 4km away is pretty... out there.

With the bug out feature, it's a concern either way. You could have four bodies on the deck of the building, but the other four are right out the door taking a break from the firefight. I'm going to assume you mean the PK(M) team and the RPK guy and his ammoman in a rifle squad. Going with that assumption, you should be able to tell the difference, because they are very different weapons, look different, sound different and one is much bigger and nastier. That being said, being able to pick HQs, FOs and such the way we do (via instant intel icon) is just wrong.

Not arguing the flexibility issue of being able to split squads, but the spotting one: would you honestly shoot any less at four men compared to eight? Either way, you see an icon pop up there, you're going to hose down that building with bullets and pyro 90% of the time.

Oh, got you. I'm sure that is a factor as well, but I have to say I have very little pratical experience with airborne thermal imaging systems. It's one thing to read a specs sheet that says "FOV X, can detect Y at Z altitude", it's quite another to actually see it for yourself and say, "Hey this is really clear, I can see that guy picking his butt." No. The thermal imagers on vehicles are pretty old. It doesn't make sense to put a $5 shoe (imager) on a $100 horse (aircraft), so we're getting what we pay for in that regard. Not to mention the aircraft systems get plenty of TLC that ground versions don't. Actually I don't know. I'll ask next time. No problem. Back to the virtual world, I have to second an enhanced audio spotting for tanks. Tanks are goddamned loud, that kind of rumbling loud that you can almost hear under gunfire (I'm having trouble describing it in words).

Well, if you don't use 'em, I suppose you wouldn't miss 'em. IRL and game, they require different handling than a rifle squad, but have firepower well out of proportion to their size. Rog, how do you keep those Strykers alive in a city fight? I generally post them behind buildings and let the infantry slug it out, for the most part, the vics are taxis with an armory in the trunk. Yeah. That would. This. Everyday and twice on Sunday.

Secondbrooks, in English it's referred to as "marching fire." Patton mentioned it explicitly in "The War as I Knew It." My personal opinion is that the only reason it seemed like a good idea was because the American infantry had a serious deficiency in both number and mobility of their machine guns. This isn't to say it's completely useless, but it's certainly a niche technique when you have machine guns in a decent position to support your fight. I'd like to further elaborate that the video was from a behind a wall (presumably) solid enough to stop bullets and wide enough to support a bipod. Normally, I'd let it slide, but certain individuals like to trumpet on about "superior British marksmanship and fire discipline" when IRL, they have habits and use techniques just as crappy as anyone else when under fire. But in the case of MGs, it's even more egregious because machine guns alone make up the overwhelming majority of the infantry's direct firepower. Using them as some kind of unwieldy assault rifle is like using a Rolls-Royce to haul garbage.