Jump to content


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Vewt

  • Rank
    Fireteam Leader
  1. 50-90 SQD v12.2 CPU: Xeon E3-1230 V2 3.3ghz x 8 core RAM: 8gb DDR3 GPU: GTX1080 4gb RAM Tournament settings 1080p. I suspect that I'm CPU bottlenecked.
  2. Yeh, I went and double checked, this does appear incorrect. The M4 should be mounting a TA31RCO while the L85 should be mounting a TA31F. Both are 4x32. M4 TA31: https://www.trijicon.com/na_en/products/product3.php?pid=TA31RCO-M4CP L85 TA31: http://www.trijicon.com/na_en/products/product3.php?pid=ta31F (Both of the BAF marksman rifles should be using the same optic from what I could find, but with a different reticle pattern: L129: https://www.trijicon.com/na_en/products/product3.php?pid=TA648RMR-308 L86: https://www.trijicon.com/na_en/products/product3.php?pid=TA648RMR I would be interested to see if the L129's magnification (6x) is correct compared to the M110's 10x Leupold (https://www.leupold.com/scopes/rifle-scopes/mark-4-lr-t-3-5-10x40mm
  3. Suppression system

    I love the suppression system.
  4. Love your work, pump that stuff out.
  5. I have conducted some testing, and the only areas that receive critical damage are engines and ammo racks. No other critical systems on tracked vehicles appear to be taking damage. There are two other systems that should be able to take damage from infantry weapons that are consistent with gameplay decisions so far: Tracks and Optics. Currently no weapons deal critical damage to tracks. A number of HE weapons should be able to disable tracks. HE, HEFRAG and HEAT in the 25-125+mm range should all be capable of causing track loss. There is a case that sustained 12.7mm and 14.5mm should also. Additionally 25mm and 30mm, LAT, HAT and MBT main armament should be capable of destroying drive and return wheels and sprockets. The effect of not having this in the game is that armoured vehicles are not compelled to fight hull or turret down against flanking infantry, and are far too able to expose their flanks at close range to infantry while conducting offensive manoeuvre unsupported by infantry or fires. The effect of such actions should be the loss of track if HE or AT is employed judiciously from a flank, which in gameplay terms should result in the inability to drive from that side, resulting in neutral steering from the opposite track. An interim measure that wouldn't require substantial coding effort would be to have destroyed track trigger the current engine damage status. Secondly, no weapons can currently damage optics. Nearly all weapons should be able to disable exposed optics and sensor stations with either accurate fire to the optics themselves, or sustained fire to other components of exposed systems. The effect of not having this is that armour is able to completely disregard engagement from dismounted infantry and support weapons at ranges closer than armour should be comfortable operating unsupported. The effect of receiving such fire should be the loss of visibility from that station - one of the reasons that MBT have CITV and queing is to help mitigate this risk, particularly against artillery. I admit that this will be harder to code and balance. Right now, infantry can only engage armour from precisely perpendicular to rear armour against most tracked vehicles to destroy the engine and achieve a mobility kill with anything less than the single HAT on a team. There should be far more options available to weapons lighter than HAT from the flanks and from the frontal arc at close range against careless armoured vehicles. The addition of these options would not make tanks or other AFV useless, but simply force them to use the assets realistically for precise direct fire support from good positions or in the attack well supported by infantry.
  6. M1A2 wrong ammo type?

    The M829A4 was designed for the M1A2SEP, but the gun systems for the two tanks are virtually identical. The only missing thing is the datalink, which shouldn't stop the A4 from being firable. Otherwise the breach, barrel and firing system are identical afaik. Good catches though.
  7. Vehicles vs AT infantry in V12

    I think the problem's being misdiagnosed here. Vehicles are ripping games up right now, which is realistic, but they're also being used unrealistically, with near impunity in tactically unfeasible ways. I think that the problem is mostly that not enough areas are doing critical damage. I'm not seeing tanks get tracked from LAT hits to their drive sprokets or tracks. Ditto no loss of turret drive when the turret ring is hit, optics loss when a CROWS gets lit by small arms, and engine loss is unreliable with LAT from behind. K Killing a tank with light and medium antitank weapons should be nearly impossible, but mobility or mission killing it when it's used improperly is pretty straightforward. That's why tanks need support for the close fight; there's little risk of catastrophic armour penetration, but throwing track if completely unsupported is a long term death sentence, and happens easily enough.
  8. Commander in every APC / IFV

    Single crewing vehicles is far too easy and effective right now. The seat swap time and weapon activation after swap times should be drastically increased to reduce unrealistic use of AFV that reduces teamwork. Single crewing vehicles should be so ineffective that it gets people shouted out of servers and kicked.
  9. TBH just a more fleshed out marker system with a PLCOMD slot would achieve what you're talking about better. There are standardised NATO task graphics that could be used to show an entire battle plan for all squads at all phases of the game. Simply adding a system to generate, scale, rotate and place these in layers (called overlays IRL), then a system to cycle through them would enable precisely what's being described, but better.
  10. "Wait patiently because we just have to get around to adding the counter to anti-armour weapons, which is armoured vehicles." I do like that that conversation has come full circle, and now rather than snipers being unrealistic, snipers are now apparently too realistic for the game.
  11. The in service Barrett is a 2.5 MOA rifle. It makes far more sense to incorporate the M2010, which is a .300 winmag, rather than a .50. Just give it the same damage as a 7.62. but with slightly better velocity and drop.
  12. (NB. And having maps like Kohat is desirable. Having maps with good tank country like Kohat does is a very good thing in the long run, it's just we're missing a piece of the puzzle that's important in making good tank country actually good for armoured vehicles.)
  13. And I'm fine with having that discussion. The core of what I'm saying os is that: 1. The undesirable behaviour that we fear a sniper class promoting occurs and will occur anyway. In the absence of a sniper class the effect of the behaviour is worse because assets with other purposes are used for it. 2. A sniper class fills an important part of the rock-paper-scissors game you describe, which is preventing heavy crew served weapons from being set up in areas where they are out of range of small arms and mortars, and can dominate most of the ground on a map. In the absence of this element of the rock paper scissors game, a single TOW on a map like Kohat can shut the entire game down. To use more commonly accepted game design terminology, it's extremely desirable that snipers be added as a strong specific answer to certain types of emplacement tactics relating to enemy heavy weapons that too strongly ask certain general questions and friendly mortars that at the moment can't ask specific questions they're supposed to be able to, but be unable ask general questions of the enemy team on their own. The cost of not doing so is people trying to use other tools to crudely mimic the behaviours of a sniper without being able to give those desirable specific answers.
  14. The problem with this line of reasoning is that it's so inconsistently and arbitrarily applied. 81mm Mortars and heavy AArmd like TOW are typically battalion level assets in western militaries, as are snipers. AAA and scout vehicles are similarly not platoon or company (or even usually unit) level assets in pact derived militaries. It does not stand up to reasoned scrutiny that the playing level gives access to assets from weapons platoon and mortar platoon, but not from a sniper squad with exactly the same command release. It particularly makes little sense because one of the main doctrinal tasks of snipers is decrewing key crew served weapons. Snipers have a close conceptual relationship with mortars and heavy crew served weapons. Every type of weapon at the battalion level is in the game right now with the exception of snipers and AGL. The function of an AGL is largely replicated by a HMG, but the function of a sniper isn't picked up elsewhere.
  15. I would certainly say the statement "Snipers are not a unit level asset" is wrong, because a battalion is the unit level. The organisation above that is a formation and the organisation below that is a subunit. In western doctrine, snipers are almost universally a unit level asset, as you correctly point out. This is the same level at which mortars and heavy anti-armour weapons exist, and also the level at which heavy support weapons exist, which all have a close relationship conceptual relationship to snipers. I can go and get you a TOE if you want to me illustrate their command level similarities. Right now you have added every other organic unit level infantry weapon except for AGL and snipers. You have even added anti-aircraft artillery and scout vehicles that exist at the formation level, and plan to add helicopters that would as often as not be detached from a completely separate formation. Sure, say that you think they'd be bad for the game and discuss it. I'll think you're wrong and argue back. But. Don't throw your military service at me to try to wow me into shutting up based on, and I'll be generous here, a misunderstanding of terminology on your part. I'm still in and have my tenth green birthday in six months time, so it's unlikely to work.