Jump to content

SpecialAgentJohnson

Member
  • Content count

    545
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by SpecialAgentJohnson

  1. Fuel, Food & Water

    Yes. Simple answer is more logistics stuff would be too complicated for newcomers. And old comers as well.
  2. New Website Launch

    Is there no recap for December or did I just miss it somehow? @Gatzby
  3. Fuel, Food & Water

    I don't like the idea. It would just be complicating things and provide no game value. In fact I think it would be a bit boring. Current system hits sweet spot of resource management. Ammo and build. Everyone can understand that.
  4. I don't know if this has been discussed before but I would think it would be realistic if once in a while an explosion knocked you to the ground completely without causing any injuries. Just knocking the breath out of you causing you to be forced to catch your breath. I think sometimes you know when people talk about munitions and how deadly they are that they forget effects that do not really cause any permanent damage but are still stressful and disruptive to the individual. Something like the suppression mechanism but with the tipped of balance effect as well.
  5. Realism

    Why would you say that? Predessecor was called Project Reality for a reason. Should be both fun and realistic, especially the weapon systems. Not so much the spawn system. ;-)
  6. L85A2 Recoil (British bullpup)

    Has anyone much experience shooting this rifle on full auto IRL? I recon quite few have because you don't use these rifles on full auto much for prolonged periods of time.
  7. Explosion knocking you to the ground without injuries

    Well, I believe it should be used conservatively on occasions where you would otherwise might have actually been killed or stood to close anyway. I don't think that could be abused more than being killed. If you stand too close to an explosion it would be a bad thing that should affect you in different ways.
  8. Explosion knocking you to the ground without injuries

    Yes... Kind of like... An explosion would... Temporarily.
  9. Why I dont want Helicopters

    Project Reality had helicopters so just get used to the idea. It is combined warfare.
  10. Explosion knocking you to the ground without injuries

    Ok maybe not the ringing but you just stumbling down to prone once in a while with a nice animation just to get back up and fight again would be cool In think.
  11. Not played v12 yet, how are Fire Teams working out?

    There is another reason as well, and that is that if they knew then they probably wouldn't do it. Im not 100% against the idea but then team members couldn't talk to SL either because of the lack of radio comm. I suspect the game may be too slow and formal though. There is a social component to the game as well. People hang out and have fun together.
  12. Explosion knocking you to the ground without injuries

    Yeah it's quite feasible to argue that I haven't watched many people getting blown up IRL to be honest. Thankfully. But I mean an incredibly small bullet can still push your shoulder pretty decently when firing if you are caught off guard, then maybe the heavier (yeah most likely not the 20 mm shrapnel munitions I agree) can once in a while cause you to stumble and fall to the ground I recon...
  13. Explosion knocking you to the ground without injuries

    It's a good idea as well. Was like that in the rainbow six rogue spear game with the flashbang. Was a good game for its time.
  14. Ragdoll physics on explosions

    I was thinking maybe explosions should affect the bodies of people getting hit, not just make them fall to the ground. I am thinking if an explosion can move a tank then maybe a body will, you know at least fly a little sideways. I mean, after all, an explosion is just a big gush of wind added with shrapnel. If you could make this a bit discrete I think that would be a nice effect and also more realistic. I understand of course, that a hand grenade isn't going to throw someone 10ft up on the air, but I could imagine maybe you are pushed maybe at least 1 ft sideways if you stand right next to it, or so. Maybe 3-5 ft for the biggest explosions.
  15. L85A2 Recoil (British bullpup)

    Balance should be achieved through other means than weapon system manipulations.
  16. Let's discuss vehicle/infantry balance in V12 (cross-post)

    Yes this could be yes.
  17. M1A2 wrong ammo type?

    It's good us not becoming political. What I meant was that if they could afford it then maybe they wouldn't be so upset about paying for us. You are right about the rabbit. It was probably a Hare I saw km away out in the pitch black night in my old 2A4 with x12, now that I think about it. ;-)
  18. M1A2 wrong ammo type?

    Lots of LOL. A poll from American teenagers playing an American pc game thinking American tanks are the best! :-) There are real official contests and evaluations you can have a look at instead. When I was talking about x12 magnification I was talking about the Leopard actually. I know what you can see in a x12 thermal because I used to be a gunner. It was not to get rid of them from inventory LOL. It costs A LOT of money to keep a completely unnecessary tank force from rusting away in some heated storage that you have to pay for together with maintenance and security personnel etc. Because "us can afford it" is a non-argument because you could always afford more tanks given any current number of tanks you'd have now. Also American President is complaining about Nato members not putting up enough dough to protect Europe (a legitimate point). I guess we could just reply: You can afford it! Funny! What size are the fuel tanks on the Leppard 2 vs Abrams? I don't know but I would guess them to be bigger on the Abrams for that range.. Is DU armour better than anything our there btw? I don't know.
  19. M1A2 wrong ammo type?

    On Abrams engine: https://www.quora.com/Is-it-true-that-the-Abrams-tank-is-to-be-reequipped-with-diesel-engines-since-the-gas-turbines-are-so-inefficient
  20. M1A2 wrong ammo type?

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wernher_von_Braun "He was the leading figure in the development of rocket technology in Germany and the father of rocket technology and space science in the United States.[4]" Unfortunately evil doesn't make for stupid. Make no mistake, I am however most grateful America kicked some ass back in WW2 as well as also keeping communists at bay as well long after. You are most likely correct about the Tigers and stuff. High maintenance and stretched supply chain totally crippled the invasion of soviet union. Highlighting as well how important such things are when not weekend warrioring and you can go back home whenevwe things get rough. I said preference for Abrams or Leopard was a matter of taste, as opposed to the claim that it "frankly is a poorer design". Both have pros and cons. I simply make the claim that poor design is wrong: http://www.military-today.com/tanks/top_10_main_battle_tanks.htm
  21. M1A2 wrong ammo type?

    You may be right. Didn't read to careful actually. Yeah. That was what I was gonna aim for. Like the 2A4 getting blown up there as well.
  22. M1A2 wrong ammo type?

    Yeah but if you read the comment they claim just that, that they actually have DU armour. Not that anything could withstand one of those missiles anyway though.
  23. M1A2 wrong ammo type?

    I am not German and absolutely not Nazi. But it's a fact. Back in the days they made good stuff (and still do). Germans also invented the Assault rifle, lay the foundation for your M60 machine gun, the first jet-fighter, your moon-program etc. Funny thing here is, the Abrams main gun is German as well. Best tank of WW2 though was the communist T-34 has been said though. Mainly because of the low-maintenance (opposite of todays Abrams). I was writing a long answer, but it disappeared. Gonna have to reply later. In the meantime. Watch also this video of an Abrams being blown up. Looks pretty fatal to me. The 2A4 is an old cold-war style version btw. Should be compared to a cold-war Abrams I recon. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B1yTb3vF35M ISIS for the record were also running around in captured M1 Abrams btw, so yeah maybe they had some advanced stuff actually... Not storing ammunition in crew compartment is a viable point though. Leopard semi-adopted that principle for some reason.
  24. M1A2 wrong ammo type?

    What you are talking about are the equivalent of eye candy basically. Not poor design choices. Leopard comes in plethora of variations. Sweden for example had much thicker hatch armour, dual state of the art thermal sights, excellent navigation and strategy control interfaces already back in '98 and before. I doubt Abrams version was that much better actually though I haven't tried both. Have you? Besides Leopa rd has stereoscopic sights where you use both eyes, and for some strange reason, the Abrams still doesn't seem to have this. I hardly don't understand what you would do with x50 magnification. You easily spot rabbits in the night km away with x12 (I don't think it was x13 actually) so I don't know where you got your numbers from. There is a giant rack in the hull, yes, but you don't have to fill it up when going into urban combat. There is plenty ammo in the turret. Hull rack is only reserve and puts less strain on supply vehicles for instance. The M1 is probably more roomy because of the lack of reserve ammo then. I would say maybe it could be possible to pull out the loader (the separator fences are detachable) but it would certainly be cumbersome. Especially for someone who is badly hurt. On the other hand Abrams has no escape hatch for the driver so if he gets hurt or the tanks flips then he wont/might not be able to get out at all. On the other hand, skipping an escape hatch might make it somewhat safer against AT mines. But poor driver if the tank flips. Gun is bigger on the Leopard yes, but it isn't like you can't fire the American round. It's the same gun basically. This is because they don't want to pollute the environment with semi-radioactive (probably not that big of an issue though) depleted uranium. Political reasons . If they would have put the American round in the Leopard it would go even faster than the American round in the Abrams. Bang for the buck is important because you can have more firepower at the same price. Maybe the Abrams is actually overpriced. The idea to put a gas turbine in the Abrams is a rather strange choice that many people would call a...poor design choice. This is because: 1) Range is like half of the Leopard or something like that. 2) Gas turbines are sensitive high rpm engines more susceptible to damage and problems, especially sand storms damaging the engine blades. 3) it puts out hot air on the rear where infantry night want to curl up. It is said to have somewhat better acceleration and to be quieter in Urban environments (Swiss Leopard have engine silencers if that would be a problem), but this in way makes up for these major drawbacks in a dirty battle environment. Bang for the buck is important because you can have more guns in the field at once. Especially when the bigger buck doesn't offer better performance. It is widely considered that the difference in performance between a Leopard and an Abrams is mostly a matter of taste and in which environment and circumstances you deploy it.
  25. Let's discuss vehicle/infantry balance in V12 (cross-post)

    Yep that's true. And with Abrams most likely being the much better tank, tank warfare is still very much a first-shot-wins kind of game. If I would guess I would say that a T72 won't survive a frontal sabot from an Abrams, but an Abrams might maybe survive a frontal sabot from a T72. But I mean slightly from the side or rear and Abrams would be toast too. This is my guess.
×