Dadekster88
-
Posts
279 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Dadekster88
-
-
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.
-
I think that something along this line should eventually make it in. The Soviets used shelters for crews (and sometimes guns, as well), to protect their pakfronts from German artillery.
I could see a dugout with the crew emerging to man the gun, as PART of the gun emplacement.
Ken
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 wasn't being dismissive. The problem is that pistols are too effective. Not the crews. The pistols. Farting about with the crews is fixing a problem that doesn't exist.
No, that's a complex solution again - adjusting ammo level based on current habitat. It's also fixing the non-problem.
FWIW, I don't think this a major problem. Usually any crews that escape from a destroyed tank are pretty useless, at least for the first couple of minutes. Yes: occasionally, there are exceptions. I didn't say there was *no* problem, remember? In most cases, pistol armed crews can be gunned down with little problem. If you regularly find your defences breached by unhorsed crews, well, you have bigger problems than just the crews.
As an aside; I usually move my own crews back to a safe map edge somewhere as soon as practical, and generally keep them out of the way, which makes them even less of a problem for my opponent.
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.
-
Cant believe you guys are even arguing about all of this. You can have all the training in the world and miss in combat, all of the time. You can also be the worst range shooter and hit more targets in combat than all of the best guys. The very next day it may reverse. No science or statistics ever gonna be able to change that.
When I started my military career, we had a SGT on a range tell us something like, "When you guys get in combat you all are gonna suck, Im just here to make sure you dont blow off anyone's head here." Truer words were never spoken.
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?
-
sssshhhhhh as long as they are in here it keeps them from harassing the local populace.
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.
-
Cpl Steiner,
I made precisely that argument before earlier, but in a different form. Basically, I argued that the very nature of where police operate automatically constrained firing distances.for pistols. I did some further checking with the SpecWar types, and I learned 50 yard shooting is well within expected combat range for pistol firing. The standard is 2 hits, minimum, from fifty yards on a briefly appearing torso target, of 10 rounds fired. Even if we halve it, that's still 10% hits from 50 yards, rising dramatically as range drops. Bear in mind, EVERYONE in such a unit has to meet this "minimum 20%" standard! One person I spoke with, who has multiple war combat experience, considered the NYPD performance outside of the Empire State building "disgraceful," adding he wondered "whether they taught marksmanship at all any more in police departments" based on that fiasco.
So, for purposes of our discussion, I think 10% hits from 50 yards might be a reasonable upper bound for pistol performance in combat, and knowing what I now know, I would be rather reticent in drawing conclusions about military pistol combat performance based on artificially constrained police shooting reports. Granted, as the world becomes more urbanized, the average range will naturally drop for military handgun engagements. But we're not talking about now and the future, we're talking about back then. And while the average rounds per kill are indeed in the range you cite, there's an awful lot of spray and pray, cover fire, probing fire, recon by fire (Panzer bush syndrome), area fire on an unseen enemy firing from some ill defined location in there, completely distorting what ammo expenditure per kill is when you can actually see the target and engage it with aimed fire. For that, you need to look at, say, a Sgt. York, who was shooting Germans with only their heads visible, first with rifle, then M1911A!. You need to look at Private Robert Green, who dueled with a pillbox (12 men in it) which was firing an MG at him, and with a total of 1 M1 clip and and firing his .45 thereafter, suppressed the defenders enough that he was able to close assault the pillbox and grenade its occupants. In such cases, ammo expenditure is minuscule. York was under fire, yet hit and incapacitated or killed essentially one German for every shot fired! It was emphatically stressed to me that training, training and more training keeps men going when they should collapse from exhaustion and lets them keep their cool in battle. As Kipling put it "If you can keep your head, when all about you are losing theirs...then you'll be a man, my son." I'd further observe that, while I take your point about small shifts up close by the target result in large, rapid angular changes, the Army's own study, cited in this thread, showed stressed firing was virtually identical in results to ordinary range firing out to well past what we're talking about. I believe it was around 80% at 50 yards.
Regards,
John Kettler
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.
-
I agree with your post above, and suspect the best "fix" would be behavioural rather than "nerfing" the pistols themselves. In other words, bailed crews might be Elite inside their vehicle but once bailed they're at best Regular troops, and at minimum Shaken... they can protect themselves if overrun but are unlikely to become gunslingers looking for a fight.
Yep, they aren't looking for a fight nor are they looking to walk anywhere...heaven forbid they might be mistaken for infantry!! :eek:
-
Just had a Sherman crew bail after their tank was KOed by a Japanese (modded British) demo charge (Breach) team (I deliberately had the Sherman NOT spot and kill the DC team, which it would otherwise quickly have done -- the test was whether the AI side will throw DCs at a moving tank of its own volition. They do)
Range is point blank; the Japanese have rifles and are in cover. Two crewmen fall at once; a third cowers. The last guy pulls his 45, kills one Japanese more or less immediately, moves a few meters left then pins and kills the other after about 6 shots. Seems not unreasonable for a motivated, hacked off tanker.
Intrigued, I swapped vehicles for a M7 Priest. Bailed the Veteran/High crew (8 pistols) and had them advance on a Japanese (British) rifle squad over a crest that let them close to within 20 meters before LOS gained. Result: the Earp brothers did hit 4 Japanese (Regular/Fanatic) during the shootout, but the squad Sten and Bren gun made fairly short work of them.... pinning and then killing. Done within about 30 seconds; no grenades used until the very end when it was already over. Again, not unreasonable under these unusual conditions. FWIW.
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.
-
Thought this might be interesting, the video of the shootout at the Empire State building (warning: graphic).
Although more of a police situation, it is relevant to combat. The entire confrontation from the time the suspect points his gun at the officers to the time he is down is 6 seconds. The officers fired 16 bullets from very close range in 4 seconds and only 7 hit.
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
-
That being the distance away that a competent knifeman can be and still gut you before your weapon has cleared the holster and been brought to bear, not the range of a thrown knife. At least that's my understanding.
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.
-
Thanks
Is the knife sharpened?
how big is the knife?
Is it an amazing Ginzu knife?
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.
-
...We base our decisions on what content is covered, and when it is covered, on what we think our economic return is going to be. That's one of the silly things about for profit companies... we aren't charities.
Steve
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?
-
For urban close combat and assaulting bunkers, they are a huge bonus. Just reading the action in Arnhem and plenty of references by both Germans and British on their use.
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.
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. 
Let me tell you, it was much more clear cut when I was active duty.
How close are we, Steve?
in Combat Mission Battle for Normandy
Posted
Knowing this crowd...I sincerely doubt that.