budgie
-
Content Count
1,094 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Calendar
Posts posted by budgie
-
-
1 Gladiator
2 Gladiator
3 Gladiator
Did I miss anything?
-
On the subject of picking up a fallen enemy's (or comrades), we need to divide weapon skills up into rifle, rocket, machine gun etc... Then if you lose the rocket guy, someone can take his weapon. maybe they will have a penalty to stabilization time or something that effects accuracy because they're not necessarily as good at it as the specialist. same goes for any weapon just picked up.
This is a more RPG style element and could mean just more slots to allocate points to, but then users could always skip with the 'assign points automatically' key.
BTW I gave more thought to my non-linear campaign idea. It's posted in general mod topics if you want to add to it.
-
GR2 will eventually have its own suite of mods so I will probably abandon GR altogether. Remember we're talking more than a year in the future here. I'm secretly hoping that there is a full and easy modding toolset so I can start with some of my mission or map ideas. IGOR is too cumbersome for my patience.
As for coming up with the cash, I won't go as far as selling my own kidney, but I have already sold one of Hotpants' lungs on e-bay and that should just about cover it.
-
I'm just a lowly English Language Instructor. I help pretty Asian women with the finer points of our mother tongue. It's an important part of international relations. Somebody has to do it.
-
Of course they're scared. they see the US moving to change iraq's regime and think that they themselves will be next. they are after all part of Bush's 'axis of evil.' They're scared and trying to preempt any possible attack. Only problem is it is unlikely that the Us would have called for war on NK the same way as Iraq. But the way Bush throws his weight around, I don't blame them for being worried. The North Koreans have a lot of dirty little secrets and to the world community it looks like Bush is going around punishing everyone he disagrees with.
-
Beacuse I'm only an SP guy, by the time GR2 comes out will have done all I want with GR.
I will probably switch. I might even take a long GR break for Raven Shield, and then come back just in time to switch to GR2. Because I am quite busy with work, friends, the gym, writing, travels, I usually have only one favorite game going at a time. I prefer to have one each of a tactical shooter, strategy and RPG. At the moment I'm playing GR, Medieval and Morrowind almost exclusively.
-
I think it would be great for GR2 to have a branching campaign although the developers would have to do more work (more maps and more missions than usual - perhaps 30 to 40 in total). Based on my experience with the old Seal Team game from 1993, Here's how it would go:
It requires the concept of critical wounds and medevac or at least calling for extraction to abort the mission early. Perhaps the demo guy in a bridge blowing mission gets killed. You would have to pull out because you can't complete the mission or don't want to lose more guys. But there must be a reason why you survived, but did not complete the mission. Perhaps it was a bonus objective that you missed.
In real combat you couldn't just do the failed mission again because the bad guys would be all over the place next time or circumstances would have changed. You would have to do it differently. If the bridge wasn't blown, then in the next mission, you'd have to deal with the enemy column that rolls across it. This can be done on the same map. Perhaps in the following mission you could even go back and call in an airstrike on the bridge because without the column, it would be safer for men on the ground again. Here's an example of possible early dynamics. You will notice that by about mission 4 or 5 the campaign has taken three distinct directions (go to a solid number).
1 Blow up Bridge (if successful go to 2, if not go to 1a)
1a Stop tanks from getting across the bridge (if unsuccessful go to 3, succesful - 1b)
1b Return to call airstrike and finish of bridge (if unsuccessful go to 3)
2 Pick up downed pilot before enemy finds him (if Successful 4, if not 2a)
2a rescue captured pilot from POW camp
3 Sabotage tank column at guarded camp (success 5, not 6)
4 Eliminate enemy base before they prepare attack (success 5, not 4a)
4a hold off enemy attack on friendly base
...and so on. There could be as many as 30 primary missions spread across 3 linear, 10 mission campaigns, but with the option to press ahead and unlock the bonus missions (as many a dozen more) if you don't want to keep repeateing the same one over and over. The campaigns could span different regions or countries (tropical, temperate, desert) and even cross over to each other from time to time, sharing common missions where circumstances come together. This would create a sense of continuity and real world dynamics where things change according to your team's successes and failures.
Playing the Linear campaigns in the traditional way, would be like playing any of the GR campaigns. Except of course there are three of them. Choosing to forge ahead even through failure will unlock different missions, perhaps on previously used maps. It would deepen and prolong the experience and definitely ensure a variety of outcomes and replayability.
As I said, I'd like to see this kind of thing in GR2, but as for the reason I posted here - Can it be modded now?
-
I have removed my contribution here. Can't live with that black mark on my record. In order to bypass moderator filters on swear words, I typed the first letter of the word followed by dots. I will henceforth be washing my mouth out with soap. As WK posted in the Discussion thread, cursing in any form will not be tolerated as minors do attend these forums. Sorry for the upset, guys.
-
Bullet is right about Saddams intentions. He has shown in the past he wants to be ruler of the Middle East and the Arab world. If he has nukes, there might be nobody to challenge him for fear of nuclear confrontation. He could invade Iran, Syria and the Arabian peninsula and conquer theose peoples. Not only will that give him control over the hub of the world's oil supplies but control over the people of the region whom he will oppress and brutalize. Can you imagine how many lives will be destroyed by murder, mass rape, property destrcution and disappearances in the night? After that he will challenge Israel and that will start another world war as the west will not let Israel fall. We built it after all.
The German and Japanese embarked on a similar war of conquest (the least noble of causes) in the 30's. The USA tried to stay out of the way and allowed those very terrible, things to happen to Eastern Europe and Asia until it was backed into a corner and forced to commit to a fight. because of its superiority the war was won but because of its lack of resolve before 1941, it was only won at terrible cost. Eastern Europe and Russia didn't have to be pillaged, China and Southeast asia didn't have to be ravaged, 300,000 people didn't have to be tortured, raped and slaughtered over 6 weeks in nanking and If Japan had been stopped earlier, Hiroshima and Nagasaki wouldn't have been H-bombed. Millions of lives would have been spared in the thirties and forties.
The old cliche goes that those who fail to learn from history will repeat it. The mistake of 20th century history is that bullies and tyrants were not contained and before they were reined in, they caused untold suffering and destruction. This is why there is a scramble to contain North Korea now. And this is still the main reason why Saddam must be prevented from getting strong enough to flex his own muscles.
This is not all about gaining teritory and resources. This is not about avenging past grievances or settling old disputes. It is about saving the world from tyranny and oppression before it spirals out of control as it did sixty years ago. The ultimate aim of war should be to ensure peace. It is the only thing worth fighting for.
-
Are you guys sure about the custom engine thing? Combine Unreal IIs beautiful graphics, seamless switching between exterior and interior and user friendly editing features (promised) not to mention unparalleled physics, it would seem the obvious choice.
-
Tengoku kara ochita toki itakatta no?
-
My Setup is similar, my team goes ahead for the primary tasks and Bravo stays a little behind to be brought forward for firefights. Of course most missions can be accomplished with a two or three man alpha team, but I like realsim and that means realistic tactics. I bring a full squad, and I don't like losing men to dumb mistakes on their part.
Anyway this is getting off topic. Anyone else spotted funny AI quirks? If they have any sense, the people at UBI read these forums from time to time and may address these problems in GR2, so bring 'em on.
-
If the Chinese plicies on Tibet and Taiwan are anything to go by they tend to think, "If it used to be ours, we should be allowed to take it back by force whether they want us or not." Next they'll be pushing for a "One Chinamerica" agreement at the UN.
-
Hope I get to fight the crocodiles.
-
The weapons will need tweaking. As far as I know, the M16A2 was the standard weapon, with fixed carry handle. Some specops units used older M16A1s for their full auto capability, but most must have had CAR15s - an older M4 variant, also without flattop. Good news is MP5s were pretty common even then. Oh yeah and the chocolate chip desert camo. I always liked it and was sad when they changed shortly after desert storm. But I got used to the new one now. Looking forward to it. Will there be new maps?
-
Well, I think ith tho thexy darlingth!
-
Those are the moments that make me keep coming back, Killa. shame they are marred by those 'other' moments the AI have.
And yeah, because I don't like switching teams I'd like to order the demo boys to take out tanks while I do my own thing. It wouldn't be a great idea to let them decide when to do it as they might miss, stand too close, fire through walls or choose the wrong moment, thus bringing a world of Russian payback down on me.
-
I agree with 300mag. Saddam needs to be deposed. That the Bushies will ensure a secure US oil supply doesn't reflect well on them IMO, but it does not negate the need to do the world a favor by removing Saddam from power. If not, as Mag said, he'll cause more trouble later, like Kim.
-
They need bright yellow with blue and green flecks. works in any environment if you're fast and small enough. Look at me. I turn up on most MP games as a non-combatant (actually I'm too small to hold a rifle and I don't have arms) and haven't been spotted yet.
-
Iwannitsobad! Pleeeeaaase!
-
After the in the picture. They're Australian, like me.
-
Saddam: Could be contained indefinitely, but why make Iraq suffer foir him? They didn't elect the pr!ck so they shouldn't pay for his mistakes. Getting rid of him would be quick and easy. He might relase chemical weapons but it is very unlikely his army would put up much of a fight on the ground. Remember they will pay no penalty for failure and they know it because Iraqis have access to the outside world. They just need to give up and let the UN rebuild their countruy and lead them to a btter life. Heck, the army will even keep their jobs in a post-Saddam Iraq, so why bother fighting for him when things can only get better? Everyone is tired of him, including his top brass.
North Korea: Much trickier. Kim Jong Il is powerful, but probably not all powerful in the way Saddam is. Regime change is harder here because military hardliners don't want change and North Koreans don't really know how much better things are outside. In other words, he's not in complete control and the Military would depose him rather than open up. He probably already has nukes, but unless he uses them, he can't conquer the South and push the US out of the way and if he does use them its curtains for NK. Not even longtime 'ally' China will back him up on that. NK is scared because after being listed as part of the 'Axis of Evil', they think they'll be next on the list after Iraq's regime has fallen. They're threatening to fight back with Nukes they may already have because they see that Saddam's lack of Nuclear weapons leaves him open to attack. They want to show they don't have that weakness. The US will not risk a nuclear confrontation by preemptively attacking, unless they think that South Korea is about to be attacked. Thankfully it isn't.
But for the same reason he has these weapons, he must be dealt with reasonably. An attack might actually push the paranoid regime to doing something really really stupid. Yes they would lose, but I have been to Korea and for that matter I've been to Taiwan and Japan and have friends in all those countries. I would hate to see these people suffer. Kim might nuke Seoul. It's a long way from washington, but Koreans are people too. If North Korea threatens Japan, Japan could go nuclear. If Japan seems strong again, China could go crazy and sieze Taiwan to show they're not wussies. Kim might nuke targets in Japan - my old town Sapporo would be a prime target because it's big enough to make a point. A lot, lot more is at stake here than 100,000 US servicemen and women in the region. There are a billion and a half people who are not soldiers and just want to live their lives in peace.
Saddam is small potatoes. He can be removed and Bush can have his oil. If North Korea wants to blackmail with nuclear weapons for more aid, then countries (US and China in particular, because they have the most clout) should sit up, listen and try to negotiate a compromise. East Asia is festering with historical animosity and old grudges. The issues resulting from WWII, the Korean conflict and the Cold war remain largely unresolved. It would only take a spark to set the region aflame. There's a lot more at stake here than injured pride.
-
Again, my problem is not what I can do to help the AI, but how they should be able to do things for themselves. Of course I can switch teams and identify the threat (although by the time I've realized the problem, I usually switch just in time to die), of course I can hold them back and keep them alive by not using them, but I dont want to. I want them to do what I tell them. It's not that hard; Move to position, watch your field of fire, shoot. I can take out one baddie by myself, so why can't three of them do it?
I'm an SP guy all the way and having an effective team is part of the immersion factor. I don't like switching operatives mid game for any reason (I'm forced to do it for some demo and all AT jobs). If I die, start again. I also feel I have to start again if the friendlies die stupidly. If they get jumped from behind, are too slow to escape a well placed grenade, then fair enough, I let them die. But when they could have done a lot more to save themselves, I get frustrated. Remember they will be replaced with someone even stupider if they do die.
-
I think Lindy Cohen looks a little friendlier, but be careful getting too fresh - she has a big gun. My personal favorite was Tracey Woo from R6. Hope she gets a makeover in Raven Shield.
Soup is leaving
in Real World Military
Posted
Good on ya. Do a good job and look after your mates. Come back in one piece.