Dietrich

I'm quite leery of suffering Blue-on-Blue incidents (especially due to simple impatience), so I don't move my troops anywhere near where shells/bombs/rockets are going to be landing. This leads fairly often to occasions where for up to a few minutes at a stretch hardly anything is happening and my troops are prone or kneeling behind cover while waiting for the artillery to finish its mission or the JDAM to arrive. I often imagine that if I were facing a human player, he/she might well think, "Hmmm, they've stopped. That must mean artillery or CAS is on the way. Displace!" That's what I'd figure, anyway.

I remembering thinking when I first saw it that the sight fitted to "Soap" McTavish's M4A1, with it's flimsy-looking structure and oddly large sight window, was rather strange. I don't recall ever having seen a similar-looking or similarly built sight. Also, I don't recall ever having encountered a different variant of the M4 (whether in terms of accoutrements or intrinsic capabilities) when playing as the SAS operator. I can't comment on the multiplayer side of it, since I've only really done the campaign. Any comment on the sights of the G36 (or other guns) in CoD4? My research indicates that the reticle of the sight built into the G36's "handle" is rather more complex (with more varied functionality) than the simple red dot depicted in CoD4.

Meaning an M203 would be typical for a fireteam (or even squad) leader, with an M32 appearing as a supplemental bonus (for a squad leader, presumably) if equipment is set to Good or Excellent?

So the sights in CoD4 are actually not supposed to be EOTechs or Aimpoints or whatever? Interesting. I'm surprised they didn't put optics on any of the M16s (since USMC M16s are, to my understanding, typically fitted with ACOGs), but if they did that, the M16 wouldn't look as much like an M16 as the typical gamer would expect it to, y'know?

Speaking of modern MBTs, is it just me, or does the Leopard A2/A4 look rather like the late 20th-century equivalent of the Tiger? The latest Leopard version, the A6, has those sharp angles of its turret armor, which makes it look even more menacing. (You'd think the angled armor on the underside of the turret front might function as a shot trap, but I guess modern anti-armor rounds tend to function a little differently than they did in WW2.) To me, it's little surprise that the Abrams, the Challenger 2, and the Leopard 2 all use variants of a German gun (M256 smoothbore L44, L30A1 rifled L55, and Rheinmetall smoothbore L55 respectively).

Anteeksi*, Sergei -- I stand corrected. I must have been misremembering what I've read about WW2 infantry anti-tank weapons. Leave it to the Germans to capture an weapon and then improve upon it! =P * That's Finnish for "sorry", right?

Speaking of FPSs, vis-a-vis differences twixt the M4 and M16, it seemed odd to me that in Call of Duty 4, when playing as USMC Sergeant Paul Jackson, you can (according to circumstances) arm yourself with two variants of M4A1 and two variants of M16A4. The M4A1 variant with an M203 has what looks like an EOTech optic (rounded-square sight window with ring-and-dot reticle), while the M4A1 sans M203 has what looks like an Aimpoint CCO (circular sight window with red dot). Curiously, both M16A4 variants, including the one with an attached M203, are fitted with only iron sights. The fact that Jackson is typically armed with an M4A1 seemed odd to me -- I understood the M16A2/A4 to be the standard USMC weapon -- but then I did some research and discovered that the M4A1 is included among the standard weapons for USMC Force Recon units (Jackson is part of USMC 1st Force Recon).

Some of their enemies did use magnetic mines -- which they stole from the Germans. The Soviets captured large numbers of Hafthohlladung-type magnetic mines early in the war, so the Germans, fearing enemy use of said captured Panzerknacker weapons, developed the Zimmerit coating, even though the Soviets ended up not copying the Hafthohlladung and Germany's other enemies just used their own interpretations of the Panzerfaust and Panzerschreck.

Speaking of long-shots.... According to a couple different sources, the long-distance sniper record (2,286m, set by Carlos Hathcock in 1967) was broken in March 2002 during Operation Anaconda in Afghanistan by Corporal Rob Furlong of Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry -- using a MacMillan TAC-50 .50-cal. rifle, he sniped a Taliban machine gunner from 2,430m. With this in mind, I ran several tests using the long range version of Normal Dude's Firing Range map, with an M107-equipped three-man Army sniper team (Elite experience) atop the range tower and a Syrian reserve infantry PK team (Regular experience) about 2000m away. The sniper team was basically unable to spot the PK team, even though the Syrians were in open ground. It took moving the PK team to within 1400m for the sniper team to even spot them, and even then, the sniper team could only see the Syrians if they were moving. It just occurred to me that perhaps a better test for determing how possible elite-sniper feats are in CMSF would be to set up a manned bunker at different ranges relative to the sniper team and see if the sniper team can even spot the bunker beyond, say, 1500m, as well as how accurate the sniper is.

Perhaps he's a referee? I'm no uniform grog, but what little he has in the way of insignia isn't clearly visible. (The red armband doesn't look like it has a swastika on it, nor would that make sense for a combat soldier.) It does look like he has a Kar 98k slung on his shoulder, and that does look like an upturned M40 Stahlhelm on the ground.

Thanks very much, Mish. I'll dig into 'em and get back to you with some AARs.

Speaking of this, has anyone every had the experience of a tank or other vehicle being unable to fire at a given target because its gun couldn't depress far enough, perhaps because it was hull-down but the hull was angled upward? I don't recall having this experience, so I'm wondering how realistically maximum depression is modeled. In playing "Streets of Hama", once I told an Abrams of mine to target a building 90 degrees to its right at a distance of less than 10m, and it accordingly traverses the turret, angles the cannon down (the aimpoint of the Target order is technically at the base of the wall, but it's actually area fire), and blasts away.

As in the FNH SCAR (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FN_SCAR)? Interesting. Also according to Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heckler_%26_Koch_HK416), Delta Force replaced it's M4s with Heckler & Koch HK416s. Of late I've been peering rather closely at my M4- and M16-armed pixeltruppen, and it hasn't seemed to me that the three-round-burst fire of the M16 is actually modeled. As far as I've seen, my pixeltruppen fire either single shots (especially the squad/platoon designated marksmen) or bursts of between two to four or five shots. But it's perfectly plausible that I'm mistaken, so I'll put Normal Dude's Firing Range to more use and do some more particular observing. Thanks for the clarification, flamingknives. Since the Aimpoint CCO appears in CMSF as the M4's characteristic optic, I wonder what optic sight mounted on the "M4 (scope)" used by squad designated marksmen as well as marksmen in, for example, the Stryker MOUT platoon HQ. Perhaps squad/platoon DMs' carbines are fitted with ACOGs.

"Differences inherent in the two weapons"? I doubt it. The Aimpoint CCO and the Trijicon ACOG are not (to the extent of my understanding) different enough to make a difference. Differences between the M4* and the M16 are, I would think, beyond the scope of this game. If the game were an FPS, then differences between the two would be more relevant. * Anyone have any idea why they changed the labelling from "M4A1" to simply "M4" when the Army currently uses mostly the M4A1 (rather than other variants)? After all, in game the M16 is labelled "M16A4" rather than just "M16". (Isn't it?)

Speaking of TO&Es, would it be impractical to add pre-2008 TO&Es, perhaps in future versions/patches? This occurred to me when I started to create a scenario based on a certain event during the Second Battle of Fallujah, but then I remembered that that at the time (2004) the USMC had not begun fielding the M32 grenade launcher. Figuring that the multiple M32s would give the Marine units enough firepower to effectively unbalance the scenario, I had to shelve that scenario idea for the time being. How about some TO&Es, at least in terms of equipment, more suitable for recreating scenarios from before, say, 2006?

I sent Mishga a PM with my email address (dietrich.march@gmail.com). Haven't heard back from her yet, though....

*blushes and swoons* Thanks, Mishga. You've made my day. (Both the scenarios as well as the X's.)

I have no laptop. I live 3/4 of an hour's drive from the beach. But the beaches up here tend to be rocky, and the water is cold enough (even in the summer) that a wetsuit is advisable, and it tends to be windy. These factors mitigate against seeing milkmaids and/or valkyries on the beach, even if dressed for the weather. The beaches up here are suited, not so much for bikini-clad frolicking, but more for bundling up in rollneck sweaters and making smores round a bonfire. And no wi-fi at the beach, as far as I know. But I tend to play single-player real-time anyway.

Who wants to dirty up (especially before a reenactment event) the uniform he spent many monetary units to purchase? Similarly, who has another uniform which he can get dirty if he wants to? *shrug*

Generally my computer (I'd list its specs, but I don't want to bore anyone =P) yields good framerates in most any scenario, even ones with maps as large as any in the Marine campaign or the Forging Steel campaign. My recent attempts at playing "USMC FISH" (F.I.S.H.ing in Garmsir), though, have been dogged by poor framerates. Could it be because of the sheer number of buildings and walls on the map? I'm puzzled about it. I switched all the graphics settings to medium so as to avoid framerate problems.

Funny you should mention that.... I've come to the opinion that the wants of the sexes can (generally) be boiled down to this: men want sex; women want money. (Forgive me if that seems unduly cynical, and if any think it is, I understand.) Recent psychological studies have suggested that for males there is a link between warfare and sexuality, so in light of that, it's understandable that women generally could care less about wargames. Anyone here read (or even heard of) Co-Ed Combat by Kingsley Browne? (It's nonfiction.) It is indeed a mouse. No quotation marks needed. I freely admit: I too am a commoner; I just live in a ramshackle hut just over the hill from the village, a rather out-of-the-way place for a valkyrie or even a milkmaid to likely wander by. :-P

I, for one, play a bunch of other games (Crysis, Company of Heroes, Call of Duty, Falcon 4.0 Allied Force, Age of Empires 2, to name a few), but they're all games which are unlikely to appeal to girls/women. But isn't Perfect World an MMORPG? It wouldn't be the only game of its type to have a significant number of female players. Women/girls are psychologically more oriented toward sociality and interpersonal interaction, so no wonder they play RPGs (especially MMORPGs) more than most other types of games, which are more soloistic and/or violence-oriented (even if they are really violent per se). And not to put too fine a point on it, but how can one get one's wife girlfriend involved in game-playing when one has no wife or girlfriend (as is the case with me)? =P

Good point, Steve. The odd thing about the USA is that, while there are hundreds of thousands (if not actually millions) of non-English-speakers (who speak many different languages) living in the States, circumstances are such that many white folks never or virtually never come into contact with anyone who speak any language other than English. Thus it seems all the more anomalous when they encounter someone who doesn't understand them or who can speak English as well as another language. A friend of mine occasionally talks quite irritatedly about how many "Mexicans" (i.e., they could be from anywhere from just south of the Rio Grande to the southernmost tip of Chile, for all he can tell) there are around here who seem to refuse to learn English. I point out that in many cases, Spanish-speaking folks have not as much need (not as much as dogmatically monoglot English speakers would assume, that is) to learn English, since they can for the most part go to school and work and the grocery store and whatever without encountering the need to speak English, and the government accounts for their being not necessarily bilingual in terms of forms and such. Also, I tell him: "Anyway, even if you moved to Japan [he rather digs anime and manga], you'd live in some apartment block with a bunch of ex-pat Californians and go only to restaurants with bilingual staff, et cetera." As far as I can tell, making the USA 'English only' would be in woeful ignorance of the sociopolicital reality. To me, it seems like this: Much of the time, politicians want to please the rich white people who support them, so they push for legislation which is in line with those folks' thinking (which tends to be conservative and 'Christian' in nature). Legislating 'English only' would please the rich white folks since they don't (and never need to) speak anything other than English. It's basically for the same reason that in the USA prostitution is illegal (unlike other Western countries): Prostitution is 'wrong' according to the principles/rules that rich white folks claim to live by (even though prostitution is not uncommon at pretty much all levels of society, and rich white folks are just as hypocritical as anyone else), so the policitians legislate against it. Since plenty of people partake of prostitution anyway (perhaps especially rich white guys, since they're loaded and can get away with it more readily, though they stand more to loose in terms of reputation and money if any 'scandal' gets out), why not just legalize it and then tax the hell out of it? By "new languages", do you mean like Modern English and Modern French? Before the invention of printing, languages were even more fluid, at least in terms of spelling. Once printing got established, likewise spelling became more and more standardized -- even if said standardization is effectively pointless vis-a-vis the inconsistency with which the majority people spell and structure sentences.

I'll put in my two cents' worth (especially since Peng-thread denizens seem to not post much outside the Peng thread): The Peng thread seems little more than ruthless spouting of highfalutin' rhetoric. In other words, a lot of hot air. That, however, is merely my opinion.

I recall a Mystery Science Theater 3000 (MST3K) skit where Tom Servo and Crow T. Robot are describing which charity organizations they're supporting in a walkathon. Servo: "I'm walking for Helping Children Through Research And Development." Mike: "Oh, HeCTRAD. Yeah, I think I've heard of that group. That's a good group." Servo: "No, Helping Children Through Research And Development is the acronym, Mike. It stands for Hi, Everyone, Let's Pitch In 'N' Get Cracking Here In Louisiana Doing Right, Eh? Now Then; Hateful, Rich, Overbearing Ugly Guys Hurt Royally Every Time Someone Eats A Radish, Carrot, Hors d'oeuvre, And Never Does Dishes. Eventually, Victor Eats Lunch Over Peoria Mit Ein Neuesberger Tod."