Battlefront.com Posted April 17, 2007 Share Posted April 17, 2007 You're welcome sgtgoody. I do what I can At least you didn't have a "friend" email you a picture of a naked 400 lb woman this morning with the misleading title of "hot naked chick". He thought it would be funny to scar me like that. Man... sometimes I wonder if I should change my email address and get some new friends Steve 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sage2 Posted April 17, 2007 Share Posted April 17, 2007 Older Syrians would be less fit. ... but perhaps more likely to wear speedos? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Broompatrol Posted April 17, 2007 Share Posted April 17, 2007 Please understand I do not think US Soldiers and Marines are slow by any means. I also know they train with their gear are very all around fit (I compete in the Camp Pendleton triathlon and I watch Marines 15 years my senior kick my butt on the course...even the officers ). All I mean is that our troops would naturally be less speedy in their equipment than when running along in red, white and blue speedos, to borrow Steve's illustration. Part of my point was also that from a simulation point of view I wouldn't penalize a soldier's speed during TACTICAL movements. A soldier who is hustling across open ground to a new position isn't necessarily going the absolute fast as he can run. But running as fast as can while not tripping, maintaining awareness of surroundings, etc. I see where Steve is coming from in the SIM POV: It costs an encumbered soldier more energy to move the same speed as one w/o a load. Hence no speed penalty, only an endurance penalty. You may now delete my posts since in hindsight I did not really add anything worthwhile to this thread. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
InvaderCanuck Posted April 18, 2007 Share Posted April 18, 2007 The concept that weight does not affect top speed is totally bogus. Physics disagree with it, and so will anyone who has participated in athletic competition in which you wear a significant quantity of gear. The heavier you are, the slower you will accelerate, the slower your top speed will be. It is all about power to weight ratio. You may increase your power relative to what you used to be. But less weight will always = faster and quicker. You can talk about doing PT in full kit and it not affecting you, I don't buy that. If anything you are simply getting in better shape. Your top speed will still be higher if you strip it all off. The relevant point I suppose is, are you ever going to be flat out sprinting? I am sure there are times you would want to. How is this modeled in the different movement modes? Or is it even modeled? No clue ;p 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted April 18, 2007 Share Posted April 18, 2007 You are correct, of course, that weight has some effect. But I'm not sure how practical the difference is. Endurance, sure, that's a big one that absolutely makes a difference. Yes, flat out running is simulated as "Fast". Not recommended unless you absolutely have to. I'd also suggest making it a rather short distance. For general purposes you'd likely want to use "Quick", which is like a fast jog. Probably just as effective as "Fast" but much more sustainable. Steve 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyD Posted April 19, 2007 Share Posted April 19, 2007 If Syria's getting militias or irregulars or whatever you call 'em i think the U.S. should get 'Reservists'. Pudgy 40 year olds with bad knees and a smokers cough. Now that would definitely have a effect on speed! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sequoia Posted April 19, 2007 Share Posted April 19, 2007 Originally posted by MikeyD: If Syria's getting militias or irregulars or whatever you call 'em i think the U.S. should get 'Reservists'. Pudgy 40 year olds with bad knees and a smokers cough. Now that would definitely have a effect on speed! Mikey, I don't think they should put you, me and Dorosh in the game. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyD Posted April 19, 2007 Share Posted April 19, 2007 Sequoia, I DREAM of being 40 with bad knees again. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
InvaderCanuck Posted April 19, 2007 Share Posted April 19, 2007 I thought I had it bad with buggered football knees at 27 ;p Better get this game out soon while MikeyD still has some time left imo. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyD Posted April 19, 2007 Share Posted April 19, 2007 They say 50 is the new 30. Well, it might be more accurate to say 50 is 30 with an enlarged prostate. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.