Dadekster88

Knowing this crowd...I sincerely doubt that.

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

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!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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

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.

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.

Yep, they aren't looking for a fight nor are they looking to walk anywhere...heaven forbid they might be mistaken for infantry!! :eek:

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.

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

I've done the simulation training for it and it's pretty spot on. This is all assuming you are squared off on one another and you know it is coming as well. Of course most people that plan to shank you aren't going to bother to broadcast that they plan to stab you in the eye in the first place so when you add in acknowledgement of the situation plus reaction time...well it gets ugly fast. :eek: Oh, and a knife is infinitely more concealable than a gun. Anyway, this wasn't about what is potentially better in a CQB situation so sorry about the derailment. I just get bothered when I see people thinking that a sidearm is the end and be all for a pissing distance match. I'm no expert when it comes to what crews do when they bail out of an AFV but I would assume that it's pretty variable on circumstances. A crew that bails out of an AFV that was just rendered combat non-effective like engine going out probably will come bailing out with a more effective game plan to fight back if needed than one they just escaped from their AFV as it started to brew up on them. The first crew I'd guess would probably fire some rounds off over their shoulders as they beat feet to cover assuming they just didn't faceplant into the dirt on exit. The second situation I'd guess would be close to instant surrender if whatever took them out is nearby, unless the AFV crew just machine gunned half so said enemy squad in which case they know they are screwed probably. If half my brothers just got mowed down I wouldn't be in POW mood either I'd wager. A bit deeper than the game engine models but what is abstracted at the moment seems a bit too Dirty Harry too often for my liking.

Oh, you would have loved the A ladder in the obstacle course then. That top rung is a right mean pyschological @! to get over.

You can delete the last two queries because after the 1st one you already got stabbed 3 times. Point is most people under estimate just the dangers of a simply knive in a combat situation and over estimate what a handgun can do but then that's no shock with internet warriors. *just wanted to add the 'internet warrior' comment isn't directed specifically at your sburke*

Handguns in this game are vastly over powered when it comes to AFV crews bailing out of their vehicles and employing them. A sidearm is what I would use when I can't punch someone in the face but they are still too close to use a hand grenade on. Anyone who thinks you can use a handgun on someone accurately at over 20' under serious stress is naive or has never experienced serious stress I'd wager. Hell, most people on this board probably don't even know what the lethal range for someone armed with a simple knife is without looking it up. :mad:

Thanks for the video, found it very informative as to both weapon systems. Might have been my imagination but he did seem to favor the BAR but then hey, it's a West Point presentation The helmet can vid bothered me in several ways as being a ex infantry guy myself but mostly it made me a believer once again in the m203 or the newer model 320? floating around.

I gotta admit reading this particular thread gave me a pretty good chuckle. It's also imho pretty spot on from both sides. It is annoying when the troops you command don't do exactly what you think they should or were ordered to do. On the flip side no commander on this planet EVER has had troops so under their control that they did every single thing they were ordered to do to the letter. They'd have to be something like Cylons or Terminators for that effect. Ok, scratch Terminator....even he got all full of drama and went against programming iirc.

Gotta say from an infantryman perspective that AA freaked me out more than fire. Fire can't jump across at you from stupid ranges and turn you into so much hamburger in less than a second. Fire was kinda nice sometimes, depending on what you had to do.

Gotta say that's one of the most truthful things I've ever heard any company make about their intentions. It's also one that consumers seem to forget first. Go capitalism! Oh, and the link to the waters of glass. Who cares? I mean really, it is a glass of water. Relate that to the either take a dump or get off the crapper if you want but staring at it and wondering isn't gonna change anything about it.

Ah, morale...the real decider of battles. I'd be curious to see how much different the results would be if those cherries were replaced with vet's?

Oh, I can believe that they got plenty of coverage and that they served a great tactical purpose. That actually makes me wonder how much of a psychological impact having a flamethrower will be on units holed up defensively in game? If a unit is close to wavering will the approach of a flamethrower unit cause them to surrender? Seeing that game mechanic alone would be cool to see imo.