Melchior

I lol at the excuse that a bad game is worth full price if half of it sucks.

I'm not convinced graphics have ever been as important as some people claim they are. Look at the explosive success of Minecraft. Hell the GTA games never looked good in their day and they killed the charts. Amateurs design for looks, pros design for play.

The British utilize rifling still because they prefer to use HESH rounds almost as much AP rounds and rifling increases the "pancake" area of the round. HESH is known for being great against buildings and can either be very useful or very useless against armored vehicles. The round needs to impact and flatten itself against a surface which is problematic if the surface is rounded like a T-64 turret or has lots of stuff on it like tracks, shovels, spaced armor, etc. The British don't seem to have had many problems with that sort of thing though.

If you want to be real informed you could know it as "Boer War" syndrome. What we're seeing today are just the modern versions of c.19th century colonial wars.

Rather than trying to shoehorn special ops into the CM game engine, wouldn't you just be better off trying to design a game around those kinds of operations?

Imparting a centrifugal force onto the penetrator decreases the energy it directs straight into the impact point. Fin stabilizing essentially makes rifling needless for accuracy. Older HEAT rounds also didn't do very well fired from a rifled gun. The spinning would disperse the warhead's effect instead of focusing it. Though that isn't really a problem today because AFAIK modern HEAT rounds sometimes mount the warhead on bearings. Like what C3K says above.

Remember when everyone was saying how America learned from the Vietnam War and wouldn't make all those mistakes with the Iraqis it made with ARVN forces?

I think he's sort of looking for a large scale tactical shooter, something ArmA-esque. The best shooter on the market right now is not on the market. It's Project Reality for BF2. Their really hasn't been anything better for the last couple of years.

Their isn't much to really go on here except a picture of a turret. Do we know the wreckage in the background is what it came from? What if wasn't blown off but just removed for salvage or something? If it was a turret blowout maybe the crew just wasn't following proper anti-flash procedures.

Did you make sure the gun was plugged in?

That game is Microsoft Flight Sim for tanks though. Very authentic but also very niche. Unless you're absolutely sure you'd like it then yes you might not want to risk $100 on it. Try out Rise of Flight. Game is technically F2P, the Spad XIII and Albatross D.V are free. You can then buy other airplanes in the game individually or in packs which is nice. You can select a few planes you're interested in and just fly with those rather than shelling out $50-$100 all at once. As for FPS the market I tried out Hawken a few days ago which is F2P. So is Mechwarrior Online but honestly I thought Mechwarrior online was pretty boring. I think you're better off taking a crack at Hawken or even War Thunder.

Unity of Command is a must play and comes with a demo. I would not recommend the ArmA games. I used to be the biggest Flashpoint fanatic back in the day, but BI hasn't moved on from 2001 and the games show it. They run poor on good machines and have weak effects, AI, and user interfacing with molasses pacing in gameplay. I literally left those games for Combat Mission and haven't looked back since. You might also try the strategy and tank sim games by Graviteam.

"Two rounds right by your head Oleg. You'll have one hell of a story to tell your children." "They won't believe me."

Man Churches are such a figure of defense in most BN/FI schemes that I almost always use them as the epicenter of pre-mission area bombardments. I get the impression big enough churches just shrug off hits from anything less than 75mm. God's house indeed.

That you are so confident about feeling that way essentially means no one could explain to you how divorced from reality your perceptions are. I could present an unlimited number of arguments on humanism and empathy penned from a myriad of authors from the Renaissance to this day and you simply would not understand. Responding to the comment "what can be done better about how we as a society see law and order" with "why should I pay for prison meals" is missing the point so tremendously that I cannot describe the gulf between us with the geometry of Euclid.

Something other than killing them maybe? I don't get this leap in logic people come to. You don't have any ideas on how to deal with extremists. So clearly the solution is just kill them? Your listing punishments, not solutions. You'd think that since you are aware that this is a dilemma that has plagued mankind for so long it might also occur to you that the above clearly doesn't work for every problem. So why do we use them so liberally? Which literally no one argues with. I can't imagine where the leap comes from that since the law has a problem clearly I must be saying their is no use for it. How does that come about? It's really, really sad that your value for human life is this low.

Why the false dilemma to begin with? The entire premise of this question is predicated on the assumption that some physical need must be fulfilled by carrying out a punishment. Will his death really improve the world and society in some way? Will terrorism and fear stop tomorrow because of this verdict? It's all just goes nowhere, and solves nothing. Potentially creates more problems even. I just think we need to understand that justice is a very narrow concept, essentially just the concept of deterrent (ie: fear of retribution for criminal acts), and more options need to be considered to deal with people who want to lash out at society.

Its sad that in this day and age we still view justice and law the same way ancient peoples did thousands of years ago. Its like we've moved on from things like straw huts and slavery but for some reason we still need to satisfy a childish innate urge for petty vengeance.

A shooter. Sometimes good (III), sometimes bad (IV), sometimes ugly (V).

Some missions will explicitly warn you against trying to seize every objective or engage the enemy at every point. This should be considered in every mission though. You will not have a textbook victory every time you play. That's not how this game works.

As much as possible you need to win the circumstances of the fight before the fight itself. If your guys on the hunt command are stopping because of fire from somewhere else than you need to deal with that before you get into a house brawl. Others have said it, the best course of action is to just level the place. Failing that suppress the upper levels with something, anything. A machine gun will do. You can split infantry into teams for clearing buildings and for lots of small structures that is the best course. For large buildings and complexes i've had good results just Assault-commanding squads through every floor. The best men to use for this job mind you are engineers, because they can create avenues of advance and can breach and clear. Ultimately though their is no right answer to CQC. This is Pvt. Timmy's job. It's your job to get the infantry to that point as unmolested as possible because they usually need to be in good shape to do it. Its a casualty-laden event unless you get abnormally lucky, so plan accordingly.

Because what you're usually getting is a shooter, not a game designed to abstract or deliver to the player the experience of life on a fighting ship.

This in particular had to be a huge dilemma for the Germans. Tanks are very good at mutually destroying each other. The war revealed tank battles tended to result in lots of casualties on both sides. This was not the sort of trade that usually worked for the Germans, especially since the Panzer Divisions were usually lacking in recovery vehicles, prime movers, and overall frontline repair capability. To say nothing of the irreplaceable losses in experienced crews. Yet the Germans could not just allow Russian armored spearheads to overrun the line and simply rout the front. Ultimately the Panzers would have to be committed to a defense sooner or later, a role for which they were not ideally suited as they were exposed to constant attrition.

If they're all within voice and eye range to begin with it won't be one team that gets suppressed by MG fire. They all will. Luck does not favor the man 20 meters to my right anymore than the man 20 inches. I think you're also referring to a distinctly German approach, in which case yes you'd prefer to split those lavishly equipped infantry teams. Since each one of them are going to wield as much fire as a squad anyway it's low balling the Germans to keep them closely packed. The Germans normally survive command shocks better anyway thanks to typically better leadership. Gefreiter Hans frequently tends to sport that +1/+2.

Boy I'm always the odd one out, but as usual I often do not split squads except for specific circumstances like CQB or defense. On the attack preservation of C2 matters more than anything and men on the maneuver are equally vulnerable whether they are closely spaced on not because threats can emerge from any direction. What will matter more to me is that the control of the advance survives and replies are fast. I can't have long periods of suppression and most definitely cannot afford panic and routs to breakout. On defense yeah splitting is great because you need to compartmentalize your force and split your enemy's attention.