Jump to content

atacms

Members
  • Posts

    10
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by atacms

  1. I`m completely against driving / manning vehicles in GR. We don`t need another BF or Arma. The biggest maps I think so far are in Graw1, and you can run across them in a few minutes. Ability to be dropped off at insert, picked up at extract is good as it is. Enemy get to roll around in them sure.

    Considering it has been stated we should be playing on relatively small maps, just not going to be feesable.

    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 assets.

    No longer are SOF units employed separately, they are more and more frequently being used in conjunction with conventional forces. Former Sec. of Defense Rumsfeld said that no longer would SOF be supporting the main effort, but at times would be leading it (ie heading a task force that composed of SOF and conventional units.)

    "Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld directed SOCOM take the lead in planning and leading future U.S. counter-terror operations, rather than merely supporting other combatant commands, as it has in the past" http://www.allbusiness.com/public-administration/national-security-international/750020-1.html

  2. The most basic would be using suppressing fire to flank a defensive position. Basically you try to locate the defenders, then gunners lay down fire to keep them pinned down and unable to observe your movements. Then the maneuver team advances on the enemy's flank and takes them out.

    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 next cover position. As I said hopefully that will be indicative of how the team ALWAYS moves in SP. If playing in MP with bots to fill in, I would hope they also do the same.

    I'd also add the use of cover and concealment which we see Ubi has addressed. One can argue that concealment has been marred a bit through the use of the active camo, however the game is set in the future and it is true that this is tech that is being developed with plans to roll out probably in 15 year or so. I do like that Ubi has implemented logical gameplay limitations regarding adaptive camo in the sense that you can't move fast. You can see how adapting the surrounding environment would take a lot of processing power and tax the tech to match its surroundings in real time if the soldier is moving quickly. My hope is that Ubi equips the Ghosts with smoke grenades since the enemy will still at some point be able to locate the Ghosts if let's say an EMP went off and destroyed their electronic gear. This way you are always able to fall back on the "old school" way of concealment.

    Combined arms is another key part of tactics and you have this also in GRFS through the different loadouts that each Ghost represents in the team; however I hope that both in SP and in MP, Ubi take a page out of EA's Battlefield book and make some missions/modes larger than life where Ghosts are tasked w/supporting large conventional allies. The idea being that they're in the middle of a major engagement. This would THEN allow the Ghosts to use or assist the other elements of the conventional military's combined arms such as artillery, aviation and armor.

  3. Any game can be played with tactics.. It's a question of whether they're real-world tactics or video game tactics. Many of the multiplayer modes in Halo are very tactical and team oriented, but it's 100% video game tactics. The great thing about GR is that it was one of the few games where actual real-world tactics worked, and worked well. The addition of the 3rd person perspective killed most of that, and the new gadgetry looks like it could just end up being a technological rock-paper-scissors game, where everything has a particular use and some other gadget that will defeat it.

    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.

  4. Srsly, what does it matter what camo pattern they use?

    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.

  5. As you can see MeanMF

    f2us1223550184.jpg

    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.

  6. 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 costs would be if you had to pay copyright right royalties to: Crye Associates, General Dynamics, Lockheed Martin and a bunch of other defense contractors. It's money that is no longer spent on implementing ideas or polish on gameplay features.

  7. What is with the duplo building blocks camo? I guess they figure if you are cloaked most of the time, it doesn't matter if you look like a child's castle when you are uncloaked.

    :D

    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.

    helmet_03.jpg

×
×
  • Create New...