Nope never tried those
Well then you should.
Bald3r wrote:jmpveg22 wrote:
And Aussie i'm guessing...
Nope, but I can understand why you would think so
Vasily Krysov wrote:Bald3r wrote:As a military person myself...
Who in their right mind would start shooting a 9mm SMG at 525 yards? You would have no chance in hell of ever hitting anything at that range, and even if you got lucky enough, it would never penetrate the skin.
I am dismayed me that someone thinks you have enough intellect to be allowed to use a firearm.
VenerableSteele wrote:Nice reply, and thank you for your contribution
, as much as I really do enjoy realistic games, and how i miss them, no company makes them because the demand for them is very little.1: Well, I agree that somethings should be left out of the multiplayer parts... Like nukes and long range ballistic missiles. (I think the map sizes are just fine for a pocket war scenario.)
cool, i'm just sorting out what you disagree with or agree with, so i can narrow down the debate, (so, i'll chalk this down as against realism in WAB (because, by leaving it out, makes it unrealistic, so we don't achieve realism)No 1 player should be managing all this to begin with. It is a team game, focusing on logistics, AA, AAA, CAP, front line, defensive fallback positions, flanking positions, alternate positions, artillery, mortars, CQC, recon, helicopters, Bombers etc. etc. is way to much to be handling in the first place. This is not starcraft, if you want to micromanage ever aspect of a war, you should be severely hampered in your attempt to do so.
of course, you'd have subordinate commanders, but not all players want to be only artillery commanders or squad leaders. can you imagine trying to find a game online where everyone agrees with what they want to play, enough so you get a (each area is covered: AA, Armour, Infantry, air etc) Co-ordinating all this would be a mess.
I'm chalking this down to against Realism in ALB2:Well I can tell you exactly how much armor the different weapons would penetrate at what angle etc. This is basic knowledge for anyone in the army.
I respectfully disagree, as members of the public, some military equipment charateristics are classified, for example, I think we know what's in ERA, but not what comprises USSR armour on the T-80 U.
also, we have engine limitations(in ALB on armour, (from what I understand, the ERA blocks on the T-80 u were not applied to every possible contact point of the tank. )
in addition, (for example)the challenger firing rate is also a subjective argument, they generally took some competition in a NATO country where the challenger performed poorly and had a slow fire rate, as the idea for the challenger in game.
is this realistic? no, I dont think so, I'm sure its as good as a M1a1 in fire rate in real life.
now, you may disagree with my challenger argument, or anything else, I'm effectively trying to say that some real life military equipment's performance is not ascertainable due to being untested against a genuine OPFOR side. (weak iraqi tanks are hereby excluded)
im chalking this one as against realism, its too difficult to obtain proper realism here.You make a valid point, game testing would be needed however to form an educated opinion. NATO was undermanned, we would be overwhelmed, that is exactly the point. Therefore NATO would have to outsmart, and fight, retreat, delay, fight, retreat delay etc. (Which was the NATO doctrine.) We could not stand head to head with PACT, we would get steamrolled, thats a simple fact.
1) by making one side so obviously the one to win (because we have excluded strategic options, )
It wouldnt be fun for the majority of players, leading to an exodus of players leading to little or if no multiplayer.
do you wanna play only against the AI?
2)if NATO could successfully (yet again, we don't know if this ideology(hit and run) would work) implement their hit and run ideas, we would need larger maps, and deployment zones and reinforcement points would need to be removed. in short an entire reworking of the game mechanics. (you'd also deploy more as less a whole battalion at a time, ( would be difficult to control all at once, see points further up)
by taking away the game elements of points, deployment areas, it wouldn't be fun, because it would be complicated (even more so than now) to understand, and difficult to get into, leading to fewer players etc...
chalking this down to against realism, we need more players, not less.4) the fighting wouldn't actually last long, peace talks would come soon. (Why? Well, either we launch nukes now.. Or later, politicians would have come to their senses soon)4: ???
sorry let me elaborate: by ignoring political ramifications and the likihood of peace ensuing quickly due to moral reasons (extinction of humanity generally overrides all other considerations) the politicians would come to their senses and sue for peace. this is ignored in ALB, and thus unrealistic
I'm pressure sure NATO would have a strategy to hold the line and hope and pray for peace talks anyway.
also against realism in ALB5: No its not, perhaps from an outsider it would be, but anyone with the historical and practical knowledge of the different units would be able to accurately tell you which had what strengths and weaknesses. Spetznaz would tear the rangers a new one, sorry to say. Rangers = elite infanty, Spetznatz = special forces. You can't even compare the two. (apples vs oranges)
see my point about the military equipment in ALB, its difficult to ascertain a units capabilities in real life, as they have been largely untested in a modern day military engagement envisioned by Eugen's ALB. I can't see their actually being any real difference in accuracy or morale in real life any way.
against realism in ALB, its too subjective to accurately nail infantry performance down properly.6) most of the NATO hardware would take ages to arrive, so NATO would be stuck with..... Swedish stuff. You wanna hold the line with just their B and C s tanks?6: ???
ok. so almost all (for example)air units of the UK, if at the time of a war breaking out, would take a while to reach combat effectiveness in scandinavia for us to use them properly in our "realistic" game version. in the meantime, NATO would only be able to use swedish (or similar nordic nations) infantry and tanks against USSR. for a movement of divisions of US or UK troops would take a while.
because most nato equipment then wouldnt be allowed to be used... people wouldnt want to play the game, less players, less fun..
anti-realism7)with the above changes in mind, the game would NOT be fun.... And there would not be any significant player numbers, matches would be over in 10 minutes with pACT always winning.7: Subjective opinion, what is fun?
I'll elaborate: fewer players: difficult to get a game, only play aginst AI: not fun. also, playing as NATO in realistic conditions would be a frustrating experience.8: Don't understand the first point you are trying to make, the second one I agree with, fighting should stop when one side had taken to many losses. A last stand scenario would just never happen.
ill elaborate: a unit, once (around about) it loses, say, half of its troops, it becomes combat ineffective and probably would refuse to fight anymore anyway. so we couldn't use our decks to the full extent we can now.
[this point is minor, and perhaps poorly fleshed out and entirely subjective. let's drop this line of argument. ]my points about air, resupply and damage in real life.9: Well perhaps... No one said 100 percent realism anyways.I know this is a game, I know that there will be some mechanical needs to make this game entertaining and fun.
ahh, you see! but then its not accurate, and it can't then be realistic anyway, and would lead to imbalance, and less fun, frustrating experience.
so, all in all realism should not be the focus:
1) subjective performance of units not ascertainable
2) strategic options are not capable of being used
3) reinforcement points, "gamey" ideas would be dropped, would be less fun and difficult to understand
4) political ramifications are ignored, which are a vital part about warfare,
5) as a result, the player base would decease, games would be frustrating experience because of the no balance achieved. and you'd end up playing against either a friend or AI, (some people cant find friends in order to play
TL DR: realism= no balance = no fun = less players.
side note: consider Steel beasts PRO PE (yes, expensive, I know)
DCS: world (and DCS combined arms)
for a more realistic game.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 24 guests