Jump to content
Ghost Recon.net Forums

atacms

Members
  • Content Count

    10
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About atacms

  • Rank
    Recruit - 3rd Class
  1. I understand that you want GR to be what GR is and not be similar to BF, however if a game is meant to give us an immersive feel for what SOF units have access to realistically, why then limit it to just being on foot. Take for example the deep raids that SF units performed in northern Iraq when the US Army's 4th ID was blocked from coming in from Turkey. SF units had a C-17 deliver an M1 and they formed a mini combined arms assault force. Isn't Ubi doing the right thing then if they are adding the manning of vehicles to the game? I would think so as it better recreates actual battlefield a
  2. Considering how today's SOF units have MRAP's, M-ATV's and Rangers in some cases have even been assigned Strykers, you would think that driving/manning a vehicle in GRFS should go beyond what GRAW 2 offered.
  3. Ok, I would definitely agree that fire and maneuver is essential. Bounding as a subset of maneuver is key to adding immersion. I recall THQ's Full Spectrum Warrior: Ten Hammers allowed you to bound your fireteams and ensure you had a base of fire covering your maneuver element. It would be great to see that in GRFS. If Ubi insists that there will be no squad controls, then I would hope we get to see always bounding movements performed by the AI. It seemed that the E3 demo seemed to show that where one Ghost would move to one position and set up a support base before the other moved on to his n
  4. Out of curiousity what do you define or feel are real world tactics? The more detail the better as I'd like to see if you have in mind the same thing as the official FM's.
  5. I don't think it's that big a deal. I'm just trying to point out where I feel Ubi got their inspiration from. I think part of the insistence on MeanMF's part is really to create an unspoken, but inferred sort of a list of how many things Ubi has failed at in his eyes with this new version of GR.
  6. As you can see MeanMF the block camo pattern is NOT just the idea of some firms. Apparently research labs feel it works in an urban environment. The above pic is for the German defense firm, KMW's light patrol vehicle called the F2US. See here for more info: http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=3764131 As for your comments above regarding it not being exactly the same color or camo pattern you're ignoring what I said earlier about licensing.
  7. I wouldn't say it's VERY different, I think you can get a sense that this is possibly where they drew their inspiration from. I think part of the problem is that the artists who sketch this up do not have as fine attention to detail when implementing ideas in this game. Ubisoft is NOT the only offender in this sense. You also have to note that most of these designs are rarely going to look like exact replicas of the actual designs because gaming studios have limited budgets and they don't want to spend it on licensing copyrights to use a particular design in a game. Think of how exorbitant
  8. Cons and others, Regarding the block camo, just like I posted in the GRFS Ubi forums, this was NOT something Ubi created or poulled out of their rear, it was an actual camo pattern that was used by the USMC in an exercise called Urban Warrior in 99. Also it was one of the sample camo schemes for the Future Force Warrior program that the Army's research lab, Natick managed.
×
×
  • Create New...