Biggus

Member
  • Content count

    73
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Biggus

  • Rank
    Ranger School Dropout
  • Birthday

Profile Fields

  • Platform
    None Selected
  1. Accurate modelling can't be too hard to do. Consider some of the modelling that is used for flight simulators. There's no way that the dynamics of a weapon in recoil could be more difficult to model well than an A-10C. It'll take a bit of thought, but I'm sure if it's possible to do well, John will manage it. Something that has irked me a bit before in games is the balancing factor, so I'm happy to see a title moving away from that. RO2 has been mentioned as being guilty of this, and I agree. The PPSh-41 was, and still is, a phenominal piece of equipment and nerfing it was completely unrealistic. I like the idea of manually cycling the bolt of bolt action rifles. That was something that RO and RO2 did really well. I think that this sort of thing could be integrated with stoppage clearing if GB is going to model jams. A few pages ago, the Browning Hi Power was mentioned. I think it's pretty appropriate for GB, and mentioned in Gary Shroen's book First In. The 1911 looks good and is still out there in use. Mostly with 7 round magazines, but 10 rounders occasionally too. It's worth noting that the guys that actually have to use the weapon don't often have very kind things to say about the 8 rounders, although the 10 rounders are just as finicky. The Glock is pretty commonplace now for lots of the forces that entered the war on terror with 1911s. 17s, 19s, 22s and 23s are the main variant. The HK45 and HK45C and their threaded variants wouldn't be a bad addition, either. The BM59 is pretty common in Indonesia. Not as common as it used to be, but it's still around. Plenty of variety - just about every family of weapons system has been adopted by the Indonesian forces over the last thirty years. AR15s of nearly every imaginable variant, from the XM16 and XM16E1 through to the HK 416, short AK variants, MP5s, MP7s, FNCs (both locally produced and Belgian), L1A1 SLRs, you name it. If it's served with a major military force, one of the myriad of Indo forces will have used it. I haven't yet seen an FN2000, but I wouldn't be surprised.
  2. M1991A1 isn't a US mil designation. It's a Colt marketing designation for a Series 80 1911 type, which is internally slightly different from the pre-Series 80 1911s. There are relatively few M1911s in US military service. These are from roughly four basic sources. The first, being old stock of proper M1911s and M1911A1s last built in 1945, the second being a very, very small purchase of Kimber pistols a few years ago for MARSOC, the third being a very short lived experiment with a double stack .40 for SFOD-D, and the latest being the M45A1 CQBP for a handful of USMC units. The M1911s in USMC MEUSOC use currently are just old M1911A1 frames built up by PWS, using many different aftermarket parts over the years. SFOD-D/CAG/ACE/whatever-the-current-designation-is built similar pistols up until their attempt to update to a double stack .40 went rather pear-shaped and they warehoused their 1911s for Glocks in .40. My understanding of the M1911s in other SF groups are that they're fairly limited in number, mostly fairly standard as-issued pistols, and that they're a little bit hampered by the lack of ammunition available for training.
  3. I'm in the camp of 'the half dozen versus the hundreds' being okay, as long as it's within context. The Vietnam war example is a pretty good one. Look at the MACV-SOG recon teams in Laos and Cambodia. Six guys against several NVA battalions at a time. As it played out for those guys, if they hadn't been spotted, they'd be up against rear echelon troops. But once detected, a company-sized force of more experienced soldiers was added to the opfor every ten minutes. Perhaps a game mechanic like this would add some value to mission design.
  4. Not to mention the fact that it is extremely easy to damage the feed lips of the other magazine. Also, think about how difficult it would be to stow those magazines when empty. Seriously, why is this something worth discussing? Decent drum magazines are an exception, not a rule. The AK has a decent one, but why bother? Your M4 or AK aren't intended as support weapons, and I can tell you that a hot AK is no fun at all. Big mags aren't used in the real world in any significant capacity, and if you couldn't hit your target with the first 30, you probably don't want to stick around to let the next forty five go downrange in a small unit situation.
  5. Frogman on the tactical forums stated that he was finding the Mk18 adequate for up to 200 yards. In a jungle environment, it'd be more than enough.
  6. Feel better now? Now that you've settled down, you need to acknowledge that when you're talking about the fine technical details, and that is exactly what we're doing (what do you expect in a thread about what kind of targeting system for a computer game?), the use of precise terms is necessary. If you don't like that, then I'd suggest that you give up the internets, or find a discussion that doesn't require a high level of technical detail. When you're talking about a shooting position, and there happen to be shooting positions known as the 'ready' positions, you're going to need to either follow the definition of those words, or choose more specific or alternative terms. "Ready for shooting" does not necessarily mean "shouldered".
  7. I think we have an issue over definitions. "Ready position" refers to a couple of positions in which the weapon is held ready, but not shouldered. It isn't a shooting position. If you shoot from low or high ready, your round will either hit the dirt in front of you, or be shot into the air. Snowfella's reference to 'shooting over the sights' is pretty much the standard definition for point-shooting. The sights are still being used as a reference.
  8. Absolutely laughable. There are only two circumstances where you'd be unable to use sighted fire. 1) Lack of space to properly deploy your weapon; and 2) Transition to secondary mid-engagement, where the secondary would fire from 3/4 hip, moving towards full extension. As I've stated in the weapons thread, experiments on people professing to be point-shooters reveals that those people are actually using the sights, without realising it. If you're doing a hostage rescue CQB scenario, then I sure as hell don't want anyone using a torchbeam as an aiming device on my team. Add to that, how do I know that the beam that I'm shooting at is actually mine and not my team-mates? Honestly, there is so much out-of-context garbage being spread as gospel. Without having input from people like Vickers and Suarez (who does a hell of a lot of work on 'point-shooting', btw), then what is the point of this discussion? If BF end up implementing some of the half-baked COD inspired crap I've read, then this game will fail from a NORG perspective.
  9. On the point-shooting topic, I've read a couple of studies of the mechanics of point-shooting. In one, they started by having one group of shooters using the sights and the other 'point-shooting'. They found that the pointers shot a little faster for a slightly lower average accuracy. But when they gave everyone pistols without sights, they found that everyone did badly. The point of all this is that good point-shooters are actually subconsiously using the sights.
  10. You might be interested in the fact that the Indonesians have acquired a large number of Chinese AK101 clones (known as the AK2000, apparently) to replace their stock of M16A1s....
  11. How about modelling momentum? It is hard to change direction rapidly in the manner I see in most FPS type games. MK, have a bit of a rethink for a minute. Lets use your scenario. Go out to a park and run (as fast as you can - you're being shot at, remember?) in zig-zags and pay attention to the speed with which you change direction. If the shooter is missing you a lot, why the hell would you stop and present a wonderful crouched and stationary target? Why wouldn't you run to cover or dive to prone? Momentum and encumberance are key values to model strafing appropriately.
  12. I'd go with real-world data on incidents, and add in a degree of random variation from this point. Nothing crazy, just believable and almost real-world realistic.
  13. Good find. I was thinking of another case involving a .25 one shot kill from an arm wound. Wasn't a police officer, was a gang banger. The guy had always said if he was shot, he'd die. Well, he did. Arm wound, FMJ recovered. Didn't make it through the whole arm. We can't really model the psychological effect of wounds, but I suppose we've got plenty of stats to base a believable damage model.
  14. Six .357s? If they didn't stop him, nothing short of a real gun would work. My general rule is that handguns should be regarded as one step above harsh language when it comes to combat. But damn, that is either some lousy shot placement or one tough SOB.
  15. They have to justify their budgets just like everyone else. There are COTS purchases, but generally they are restricted to AR15 uppers and the like. Introducing a whole new weapon system into inventory is a difficult process. There is leeway, but not as much as you'd think. I know that some SEAL units get to take personally owned weapons on ops from time to time. Exception, rather than the rule though. Ok, so you wouldn't model different brands, but how about it being treated like an M4. Different sights, safeties, maybe front serrations as options.