Jump to content

A few observations


Recommended Posts

First off, this game has a ton of locked potential and it is my hope that it will be unlocked and utilized through both the mod community and from the developers in the form of patches and upgrades. I am currently unable to play multi-player games so what I have to say applies only to SP.

As a computer war-gamer I want just that, I want to play war on my computer and in the most realistic and fun way possible with current technology. My main beef is that in the SP game play there is too much fat and not enough meat. When all is said and done gamers don't want to see little video clips of a ###### off general or news clips to get Intel (what a joke!). Who was the smart guy who had the video of the commander (quarterback mission) under attack calling for support? No wonder his team got wasted, he was too busy setting up his webcam then engaging the enemy! My point is, with the time and resources spent on these videos could it have been possible to make a few more maps, or add some more weapons, improved the AI?

I like the small details and GRIN did an awesome job on some and failed on others here are a few I want to point out.

1. The Field of view is too narrow on the Aimpoint (SCAR sight). It should be just like the EOTech(CBR) as it is a reflex sight and is used with both eyes open.

3. I want the option of having the EOTech or Aimpoint on all assault rifles

2. CBR? Don't wast your time with BS weapons, give us something believable and real and we will love you.

3. One single shot sniper rifle is not good enough. How about the new KAC SASS (Semi-Auto Sniper System) how about a little SPR MK12 action and of course the M82.

Just a few things I wanted to get off my chest, and not a slam on this game at all. Again I really do hope that GRIN and UBI realize that taking a few steps forward while compromising on other aspects of the GR game is not going to do well in this gaming community.

EC.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 54
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

3. One single shot sniper rifle is not good enough. How about the new KAC SASS (Semi-Auto Sniper System) how about a little SPR MK12 action and of course the M82.

The 1st part would unbalance MP playing. The 2nd... the m82 isn't ment to shoot people but through light armor at very long distances i do believe. (not good for use in a urban environment)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3. One single shot sniper rifle is not good enough. How about the new KAC SASS (Semi-Auto Sniper System) how about a little SPR MK12 action and of course the M82.

The 1st part would unbalance MP playing. The 2nd... the m82 isn't meant to shoot people but through light armor at very long distances i do believe. (not good for use in a urban environment)

It is a common misconception that sniper rifles chambered for the .50 browning machine gun round is only to be used on light armor and equipment. The M99 modeled in GR:AW is also a .50(12mm) caliber sniper rifle , and used on human targets. I can't comment on your statement about game play balance because of semi-auto rifles with scopes on. In my opinion many a war game has been ruined because of this game play balance issue. How about give us a level of realism and let it balance itself because of the very nature of realism.

Ec.

Edited by SRT_Eclipse
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3. One single shot sniper rifle is not good enough. How about the new KAC SASS (Semi-Auto Sniper System) how about a little SPR MK12 action and of course the M82.

The 1st part would unbalance MP playing. The 2nd... the m82 isn't meant to shoot people but through light armor at very long distances i do believe. (not good for use in a urban environment)

It is a common misconception that sniper rifles chambered for the .50 browning machine gun round is only too be used on light armor and equipment. The M99 modeled in GR:AW is also a .50(12mm) caliber sniper rifle , and used on human targets. I can't comment of your statement about game play balance because of semi-auto rifles with scopes on. In my opinion many a war game has been ruined because of this game play balance issue. How about give us a level of realism and let it balance itself because of the very nature of realism.

Ec.

\

Do to Geneva or UN (i'm not a soldier so i don't know)though i do believe you are "not susposed to use 50 calibers on human targets.

Did you ever play frostbite on GR1? the auto sniper was cool but if you played it as mp it pretty much owned even over rifles indoors.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do to Geneva or UN (i'm not a soldier so i don't know)though i do believe you are "not susposed to use 50 calibers on human targets.

I don't think that is quite accurate. US forces have .50 CAL machine guns mounted on their HUMV's. I'm fairly sure that the record breaking shots made by JTF2 snipers would have used .50 CAL ammunition in order to travel the distance that they did.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do to Geneva or UN (i'm not a soldier so i don't know)though i do believe you are "not susposed to use 50 calibers on human targets.

Did you ever play frostbite on GR1? the auto sniper was cool but if you played it as mp it pretty much owned even over rifles indoors.

Actually my friend that is the very same misunderstanding that I was referring too. There are no restrictions on using the .50 on human targets. Think of the M2 machine gun it's a .50... it's main purpose is to kill the enemy, how about the 30 MM chain gun found on the Apache Helicopter? Now that is real firepower used on humans quite frequently these days. How about the 120MM on the M1A1/2 tank lol. My point...there are no restrictions on what sized caliber you can use, there are however restrictions on types of ammo, such as open tipped munitions like hollow points...

EC.

Edited by SRT_Eclipse
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is the bullet types which counts, not caliber. You will not get dragged into court for using a 122 mm tank gun against an enemy instead of a 7,62 mm MG.

Then you got restrictions regarding landmines. Since [GR] many countries have abandoned the option to use anti-pers. landmines, which might have been the reason why we got claymores in [GR] but not in GRAW. Of course landmines designed for use against vehicles still do tremendous damage when facing soft flesh; less restrictions in the latter case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do to Geneva or UN (i'm not a soldier so i don't know)though i do believe you are "not susposed to use 50 calibers on human targets.

Did you ever play frostbite on GR1? the auto sniper was cool but if you played it as mp it pretty much owned even over rifles indoors.

This is a complete misconception. Think about it: We use landmines, handgrenades, mortars, claymores, 40mm grenades, and all sorts of nasty things against human targets that cause much more pain and suffering than a firearm.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think that is quite accurate. US forces have .50 CAL machine guns mounted on their HUMV's. I'm fairly sure that the record breaking shots made by JTF2 snipers would have used .50 CAL ammunition in order to travel the distance that they did.

You are correct. There is NOTHING in any of the four Geneva Conventions or subsequent protocols that prohibits the use of any caliber weapon for anything. Don't believe me? You can find the fulltext of all the conventions and protocols any number of places online. Do a search for caliber, calibre, 50, 12.7, bullet, whatever. You're not going to find it. Here's the deal:

The myth that you can't use .50-caliber/12.7mm or bigger on people, and the notion that you can get around it by firing at equipment is so widespread that you can be taught it in civilian schools from professors, at boot camps from D.I.'s, in the field from C.O.'s, or across the counter at your local gunstore from the proprietor or that bearded beer-swiller that always seems to hang out there during the day to keep the store-owner company. It is, however, a myth that most likely originates from the Hague Convention, which prohibits the use of arms, projectiles, or material calculated to cause unnecessary suffering.

It's that unnecessary suffering phrase that's the rub, as people have interpreted that to mean weapons that cause a lot of damage. This is the likely source of the myth. Hence, "you can't use weapons of a caliber bigger than bla, bla, bla." What it actually means is that you can't use weapons or munitions that cause damage unnecessary to the accomplishment of an objective, and/or you can't use weapons or munitions that will, if they do not kill immediately, make it impossible to treat the soldier, such as dum-dum rounds (which are what prompted the clause to begin with) which fragment in such a way that doctors outright can not treat, or will necessarily lack the time to treat, the wound, thus leaving the wounded to die slowly and painfully.

I know this myth is so thoroughly embedded in many people's minds that it will be hard to swallow that it's not true, but, AGAIN, look for yourself in the Geneva Conventions and/or it's protocols. It's not there. :thumbsup:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do to Geneva or UN (i'm not a soldier so i don't know)though i do believe you are "not susposed to use 50 calibers on human targets.

This is true, .50's are only supposed to be used as anti-material weapons. However, the easy loophole around this is that a canteen, helmet, uniform are all material/equipment. Same thing goes with the M2, it shoots at "material".

Edited by Hacksaww
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is true, .50's are only supposed to be used as anti-material weapons. However, the easy loophole around this is that a canteen, helmet, uniform are all material/equipment. Same thing goes with the M2, it shoots at "material".

NO! This is completely false! I don't care if you are even in the military and your CO told you this, it is a long lasting rumor that is basically an urban myth.

Edited by SRT_Eclipse
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought US troops carry 9mm M9's now because the Geneva Convention said they must use smaller rounds for the standard-issue pistol?

I read a post a while back, I think it was Hatchetforce that said it. The M9 is used because it was a part of an base deal with italy. Basically you buy the M9 from us, and we'll let yhou keep the bases here. I may be wrong.

I've read though that the M9 is a pretty sucky weapon. It lacks the penetration and stopping power of a .45 which isn't good in combat situations. Keep in mind that I'm no gun expert by any stretch of the imagination, so i may be wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought US troops carry 9mm M9's now because the Geneva Convention said they must use smaller rounds for the standard-issue pistol?

Please read the replies and make an educated "guess". I sure you'll find the answer ... :wacko:

And just for your own information, not all US troops are issued 9mm sidearms.

The 1911 .45 caliber pistol is still used by a few Special Operation groups.

At this moment the US military is looking for a new sidearm....in .45 caliber.

Edited by SRT_Eclipse
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought US troops carry 9mm M9's now because the Geneva Convention said they must use smaller rounds for the standard-issue pistol?

I read a post a while back, I think it was Hatchetforce that said it. The M9 is used because it was a part of an base deal with italy. Basically you buy the M9 from us, and we'll let yhou keep the bases here. I may be wrong.

I've read though that the M9 is a pretty sucky weapon. It lacks the penetration and stopping power of a .45 which isn't good in combat situations. Keep in mind that I'm no gun expert by any stretch of the imagination, so i may be wrong.

9mm does a job, but as with all pistol shooting, don't expect the first round to work. A lot of military docture for pistol engagements is to basically fire the mag at your target reforcing the idea that you keep firing until the threat is gone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like how people come in after my last post and just repeat the myth, not even acknowledging the argument.

Find it in the Geneva Conventions if your so convinced of its truth. Or you could read the following, the only place in the conventions (not even the conventions, actually, but Protocol One) that mention in any way the types of weapons that can be used:

Part III. Methods and Means of Warfare Combatant and Prisoners-Of-War

Section I. Methods and Means of Warfare

Art. 35. Basic rules

1. In any armed conflict, the right of the Parties to the conflict to choose methods or means of warfare is not unlimited.

2. It is prohibited to employ weapons, projectiles and material and methods of warfare of a nature to cause superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering.

That's it. Superfluous Injury. Period. End of story. And superfluous injury, BTW, is straight out of the Hague Convention.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2. It is prohibited to employ weapons, projectiles and material and methods of warfare of a nature to cause superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering.

WHAT?!! EVEN FLAMETHROWERS?!! NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!1!!111!!!!twenty two

*yes, I know, my "sticky Caps key syndrome" just come over me momentarily again*

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought US troops carry 9mm M9's now because the Geneva Convention said they must use smaller rounds for the standard-issue pistol?

I read a post a while back, I think it was Hatchetforce that said it. The M9 is used because it was a part of an base deal with italy. Basically you buy the M9 from us, and we'll let yhou keep the bases here. I may be wrong.

I've read though that the M9 is a pretty sucky weapon. It lacks the penetration and stopping power of a .45 which isn't good in combat situations. Keep in mind that I'm no gun expert by any stretch of the imagination, so i may be wrong.

I can't comment on the combat effectiveness of the various rounds from experience. However, I did put four high-velocity 9mm rounds in a German Shepherd a few years back that was attacking me. All four rounds hit the dog, and caused massive internal injury (According to the owners) but failed to put him down. He ran a half-mile back home, and was later put down. After that, I switched to 45 ACP. I figured, if my 9mm couldn't put down a 100lb dog, it sure as hell wouldn't put down a 200 lb man.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...