luderbamsen
-
Posts
259 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by luderbamsen
-
-
I'm not going to say "now I'm not buying this game", because I can't honestly say I would definately buy it in the first place. But, since I actually live in Jutland, I figured I ought to buy it.
But online verification every 7 days, that's just stupid.
-
I've seen references to C4 having the texture and smell of marzipan (almond meal and sugar) - is this correct?
Plastic explosives yes, and it goes quite far back. No idea which chemicals caused that smell.
-
"Wink wink, nudge nudge, know what I mean eh?"
The aliens are here!!!! Where's John Kettler when we need him?Maybe the squid ate him.
-
The notion that nukes were used is stupid for a number of reasons, including those metioned above and the fact that the US administration wasn't f-ing stupid.
The story is most convenient for the Iranians though, what with their own nuclear programme and all.
-
Nope, Mr. Kettler, you're still stuck in the same rut: If one issue is just reasonably plausible, every bat**** insane screball idea you come up with must be the absolute truth.
*twirls finger at temple*
-
I've found out what it is that ticks me off about John Kettler. It's his inability to learn from his mistakes. Nothing is more annoying than a broken record repeating the same line over and over again.
It's the same damn procedure every time: Something that may be plausible is reported by someone that may be a trustworthy source. From there, ANYTHING reported by ANYONE is to be considered the absolute truth, no matter how bat**** insane.
Mr. Kettler, the reason people call you an idiot or a nutcase is that they've grown tired of trying to respond with sound arguments; nothing gets through to you, and we've grown tired of doing your source critique for you.
-
What we need is a new computer game:
Star Wars: Ewok Genocide.
Taking the role of various Imperial troopers and using various Imperial weapons, from blasters to speeder bikes to walkers, your mission is to kill as many Ewoks as possible and destroy their habitat, while you laugh manically at their pitiful attempts to stop you with rocks and arrows.
-
So yur evidence is our old friend Troy "Looneytunes" Hurtubise?
*rubs forehead with painful expression on face*
-
*twirls finger at temple*
-
Here in Denmark, we had an art critic at a newspaper poop in the editors sofa, then wipe his butt in the curtains. Though not planned, it turned out to be his last day in that job.
-
Hi guys -
Thanks for the tips. I did check out the Global Security site, and it's a good start. I recognize this as the old FAS.org site, and a lot of the information is getting pretty dated. Many entries describe "planned for introduction in 2003..." etc, so I wonder if there are other resources that are even more up-to-date.
I imagine alot has changed in response to lessons learned since 2003 in both Iraq and Afghanistan.
Chris
One of the problems is that these things change extremely rapidly. Since 2003 (the beginning of the Iraq war), new equipment has been aquired and delivered at an extreme place. A good example is the MRAP's; the mine-protected armoured trucks much used in Iraq. Some have been in use for quite some time (notably by EOD units and such), but the bulk of MRAP vehicles (and there are lots of them now, so many that front line commanders actually asked for delivery to be slowed down) have been delivered to a wide range of units within a very short period of time. And just to make sure it's as confusing as possible. There isn't just one MRAP but a whole range of vehicles in different models and sizes, from different manufacturers.
Unless you sift through a host of defense news websites, newsletters and press releases on a more or less daily basis, it's almost impossible to keep up with the changes. There are some people who keep track of these things for a living, but they don't come cheap.
-
If I buy anymore BFC games just now Mishga will divorce me and I will end up living in a tent
Well, as long as the tent as a power supply and an internet connection...
-
"I'm tellin' ya sarge; these berries will make you high as a kite!"
-
Yes, you will be able to litter the battlefield with them but they aren't a playable unit.
Now, that's just mean
Still, a fully functional E-100 in CMx2 WW2 mmm....
-
Does the E-100 count as a flavor object? I'd like one anyways.
-
At one point, I was pretty sure Mr. Kettler was just trying to see how far (out) he could go and make us all bite.
But considering the sheer volume of nutcase theories he brings up, I'd say he's serious. Nobody spends that much time digging hairbrained schemes out of Teh Intarweb just to take the piss. And if he does, then I'd call that a serious mental issue in its own right.
-
Seriously Mr. Kettler, is there any conspiracy theory you won't belive in?
-
So in CMSF the AI is less likely to spot you if you're not silhouetted?
-
Other game sites tend to brag about the fidelity of their weapons, in CM it hardly ever gets mentioned:
You don't gush over the luxury of a Rolls Royce either. You just know it's there.
-
I think you're right that the RAL colours may have changed. Some of those numbers don't show up on any of my RAL lists at all. I just can't get the extremely dark (at least as dark as a rubber tyre) RAL7021 to fit my understanding of the usual "Panzer Grey".
Anyway, as noted earlier, in my non-expert opinion, your paint scheme looks spot on.
-
Nope, colors haven't changed as far as I know, but designations obviously are different. Now I'd like to know what kind of RAL card you have - it isn't an original, is it? There are tow or three good books out there covering the topic and the correct designations, but I still have to aquire both.
It's a fairly new one from a paint company called Zweihorn (I work in paint retail). It's one of those (rather expensive) fan cards, apparently based on "RAL-Register 841-GL".
I wonder because the RAL7021 is extremely dark grey, almost black. And 7008 and 8000 are very similar to each other, what I would call a "greenish dirt brown"; not very yellow and more akin to the "brown" colour sometimes applied in camo patterns on British tanks.
-
Do you know if RAL colours have changed since 1941, because the RAL colour card I have have rather different names. RAL8000 is "Grünbraun" (green-brown), RAL7021 is "Schwartzgrau" (black-grey), and RAL7008 is "Khakigrau".
Anyway, I think your vehicle looks very neat and authentic. And with shortages of paint the thin layer (with the grey showing through the tan patches) is a nice touch.
-
Can't say I'm a likely user, but it looks good to me. I recall pics of Panzer Grey AK vehicles with various home-brewed desert camo schemes. I like the aestethics of the brown patches (i.e. shape and proportional size). Is it supposed to be mud smeared on the vehicle or paint? If the former then pay attention to areas where it would quickly rub off (where people grab/step e.c.t.). Anyhew, I like how you can spot the grey paint through the brown. Looks good to me
-
I don't doubt that both studios want to pull this off. But I do doubt if they can. Sure, those who liked OFP will probably like both. I liked it too. I just couldn't look past certain gameplay issues that I don't think the new games will fix.
If I were to venture a guess, I'd say that OFP2 will probably appeal to multiplayer (team v. team) gamers, while ArmA2 will have the upper hand for single player and co-op. I'm a gamer of the latter type, but from what I've seen so far I doubt BIS will be able to overcome the admittedly massive hurdles in this area.
Oh, and that helicopter thing? No biggie, but Codies really should have known this themselves. The fact that the community had to point it out doesn't bode well IMO.
AC-130 Specter Gunship
in Combat Mission Shock Force 1
Posted
Just a clarification: The new AC-27J is not necessarily the AC-X (though it may end up being just that). The AC-27 is mostly an experiment to try out a smaller gunship, able to operate from smaller airfields closer to the battlefield. Since the AC-130's are in constant demand, the AC-27 may also be a welcome opportunity to try out various weapons and sensors without having to pull a badly needed AC-130 off the line.
The AC-X is more of a wish list for a future gunship: Faster and stealthier than the AC-130, and smaller so it can operate from small airfields. Also with more sophisticated precision guided munitions and non-lethal weapons. Think of it as a B-2 stealth bomber, armed with a laser (which can puncture a tyre or grill a radar on low setting, and melt stuff on high setting, eek!) and lots of tiny smart bombs, and also (very much unlike the B-2) able to operate from small local air strips without an army of mechanics to keep it flying.
The efforts to rearm the AC-130 apparently has to do as much with age as firepower. The 40mm Bofors and the 105mm howitzer are WW2 vintage designs, with little technology being developed for weapons of that caliber. One of the suggestions is a 120mm mortar, not the least because an awful lot R&D money are being poured into 120mm smart mortar rounds. Likewise, the failed experiment with the 30mm cannon had to do with similar R&D efforts into new 30mm munitions.
The 25mm Gatling cannon is apparently not being re-installed on those guships where the 30mm cannon were removed, with cost and spares shortage given as the reason why. Though I can't help thinking that if they can do without it then it probably isn't the most vital weapons system on the AC-130.