v0.95 scripts for no enemy kits

[Total_Overkill]

My favorite change!

For those of you bitchin' about it, you can direct your discontent towards me as I was the one who suggested it.

Very well!

You are dead to me Savage...

[Imchicken1]

When will people understand this? That doesn't - and never will - happen in PR as its fraudulent to think there isn't IED's or an Insurgent nearby.

EOD teams in PR are a ridiculous claim and its idiotic to take more people away from the fight. What is most likely going to happen is counter-IED'ing with CE's putting C4 on roads that Insurgents would regularly use.

Before i learned about how stupid it was to take a CE out in the field during insurgency, i would go solo and remove mines on my own..

Just assumed i wasn't the only one. Sorry

[Alucard]

so basically what your saying is CE should not be used as a EOD to make it so APC's can cross river beds or roads that are mined to support the inf in the city? you sir do not know team work very well....

[Phantom2]

so basically what your saying is CE should not be used as a EOD to make it so APC's can cross river beds or roads that are mined to support the inf in the city? you sir do not know team work very well....

It's a thing called "Finding a different road" or "close support bridges" does that solve your problem?

[LITOralis.nMd]

Question: Why would a Insurgent Squad leader Officer not be the first one in the platoon to grab a BLUFOR Scoped kit?

Answer: Doing so removes the ability of the Squad Leader to perform the duties inherent to the Insurgent Squad Leader Officer position.

Follow up Question: Why would the Devs implement another obstacle for Insurgent Squad leaders to create Hideouts, call in enemy locations, call in Artillery, and call in Mortar Strikes? WHy are they punishing players who volunteer to be a teamplay Insurgent Squad Leader?

Answer: I'd like an answer to that.

--------------------------

Question: With the BLUFOR eye in the sky Drones for CO, Air Assets, Snipers, and Officers all having the ability to call in Artillery and Mortars, while the INS side only having Squad Leaders being able to call in strikes... why would the Devs remove the ability for INS officers to pick up BLUFOR Officer kits?

ANd now you basically tied down just INS SL's and INS CO's to unscoped weapons due to this change:
Reduced Rally Point rearm period from 10 min to 5 min. Why tie these players to bad weapons? It's a form of punishing the most active players.

Answer: I'd like an answer to that...

Removing the ability for INS SL's to pick up BLUFOR Officer kits is a good way to kill Insurgency mode.

--------------

Question: Updated Insurgency objective markers for coalition to be more precise (25-50m). Why? Did you not beta test this with Mortars? 4 Mortar strikes can cover 80% of the 100m diameter area. And you removed the ability of the INS to grab SAWs to protect the caches from farther afield. What is the rationale behind this?


You have reduced the hunt and seek ambush gameplay and increased the CQB defense gameplay while adding Mortar Strikes into the game and removing the INS ability to grab two important kits, Officer and SAW. I do not like the logic behind this... within weeks when players master the mortar strike system the INS mode is going to be impossibly lopsided.

--------------------------------------

Question: You removed the ability of INS to capture and use enemy SAW and HAT kits. Have you increased the number of INS vehicles of all kinds proportionally to compensate for drastically altering the vehicle and counter-vehicle gameplay? If not, why not remove all techies from INS to speed up the game rounds?

--------------------------------------

Updated mapper placed Rally Points to only allow 12 players to spawn on it and it disappears after 5 min. Players that spawn on that location have a 10 min delay for placing RPs.

Question: DId you beta test this in servers that did not start the round with a full server? Why do you hate players who volunteer to Squadlead for strangers on public servers?

-----------------------------------

Removed medic kits from the teamkill punishment logic, so you can pickup a medic you just teamkilled by accident and revive him.

YAY!

----------------------------------

Added Commander ability to deploy all deployables instead of just the Forward Outpost, and allow other auxiliary calls like repairs, transport, ammo, etc.

YAY!

[Sniperdog]

so basically what your saying is CE should not be used as a EOD to make it so APC's can cross river beds or roads that are mined to support the inf in the city? you sir do not know team work very well....

Don't forget though that cache's will now require 3 incendiaries to take out now. I would think that using 1 C4 would be a lot easier and more efficient?

[Nehil]

This is probably the change I am least positive about, perhaps even negative. Why a USMC player wouldn't be able to use a MEC grenadier is beyond me. Why was this change implemented? Was there a need for it?

But I guess we'll see. It's just that getting that BluFor kit as a insurgent was so rewarding. And it stopped players from taking a HAT into the streets of Fallujah. Because they don't need it.

[Arnoldio]

Hmm but its Automatic Rifleman.

[Staker]

I don't see a problem with someone taking another team's kit, empty the mags and dump it. However I do see a problem with someone instantly getting an infinite resource of that very same weapon or its ammunition when it's taken to a place where it can be reloaded.

In my opinion it's a good change overall.

[Bellator]

I think it's a great change, armies very rarely take up their opponent's small arms in modern warfare and only then out of necessity. As for the effect on gameplay I think I'll reserve judgement until I've played the new version.

Uh, no. Many rebels and insurgents have historically used their enemies weapons almost exclusively.


I can understand this restriction when it comes to HATs or other complicated weapon systems that insurgents have no training for, but not for the enemy sniper kit (which is basically a bolt action rifle).

I largely support this change. I'm tired of watching ins running around in blufor equipment.

[Xbrad150X]

I like the idea , now i hope i won't see the sniper runnning to the mosque on fallujiah to get run over by an insurgent.

and silly , thanks

[LITOralis.nMd]

I'm with Bellator on this one...

http://www.jeffhead.com/liberty/handgun.htm

WHAT GOOD IS A HANDGUN AGAINST AN ARMY
By Mike Venderboegh, Added May 1999


A friend of mine recently forwarded me a question a friend of his had posed: "If/when our Federal Government comes to pilfer, pillage, plunder our property and destroy our lives, what good can a handgun do against an army with advanced weaponry, tanks, missiles, planes, or whatever else they might have at their disposal to achieve their nefarious goals? (I'm not being facetious: I accept the possibility that what happened in Germany, or similar, could happen here; I'm just not sure that the potential good from an armed citizenry in such a situation outweighs the day-to-day problems caused by masses of idiots who own guns.)" If I may, I'd like to try to answer that question. I certainly do not think the writer facetious for asking it. The subject is a serious one that I have given much research and considerable thought to. I believe that upon the answer to this question depends the future of our Constitutional republic, our liberty and perhaps our lives. My friend Aaron Zelman, one of the founders of Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership, once told me:

"If every Jewish and anti-nazi family in Germany had owned a Mauser rifle and twenty rounds of ammunition AND THE WILL TO USE IT (emphasis supplied, MV), Adolf Hitler would be a little-known footnote to the history of the Weimar Republic."

Note well that phrase: "and the will to use it," for the simply-stated question, "What good can a handgun do against an army?", is in fact a complex one and must be answered at length and carefully. It is a military question. It is also a political question. But above all it is a moral question which strikes to the heart of what makes men free, and what makes them slaves. First, let's answer the military question. Most military questions have both a strategic and a tactical component. Let's consider the tactical.

A friend of mine owns an instructive piece of history. It is a small, crude pistol, made out of sheet-metal stampings by the U.S. during World War II. While it fits in the palm of your hand and is a slowly-operated, single-shot arm, it's powerful .45 caliber projectile will kill a man with brutal efficiency. With a short, smooth-bore barrel it can reliably kill only at point blank ranges, so its use requires the will (brave or foolhardy) to get in close before firing. It is less a soldier's weapon than an assassin's tool. The U.S. manufactured them by the million during the war, not for our own forces but rather to be air-dropped behind German lines to resistance units in occupied Europe. Crude and slow (the fired case had to be knocked out of the breech by means of a little wooden dowel, a fresh round procured from the storage area in the grip and then manually reloaded and cocked) and so wildly inaccurate it couldn't hit the broad side of a French barn at 50 meters, to the Resistance man or woman who had no firearm it still looked pretty darn good. The theory and practice of it was this: First, you approach a German sentry with your little pistol hidden in your coat pocket and, with Academy-award sincerity, ask him for a light for your cigarette (or the time the train leaves for Paris, or if he wants to buy some non-army-issue food or a perhaps half-hour with your "sister"). When he smiles and casts a nervous glance down the street to see where his Sergeant is at, you blow his brains out with your first and only shot, then take his rifle and ammunition. Your next few minutes are occupied with "getting out of Dodge," for such critters generally go around in packs. After that (assuming you evade your late benefactor's friends) you keep the rifle and hand your little pistol to a fellow Resistance fighter so they can go get their own rifle.

Or maybe you then use your rifle to get a submachine gun from the Sergeant when he comes running. Perhaps you get very lucky and pickup a light machine gun, two boxes of ammunition and a haversack of hand grenades. With two of the grenades and the expenditure of a half-a-box of ammunition at a hasty roadblock the next night, you and your friends get a truck full of arms and ammunition. (Some of the cargo is sticky with "Boche" blood, but you don't mind terribly.)

Pretty soon you've got the best armed little maquis unit in your part of France, all from that cheap little pistol and the guts to use it. (One wonders if the current political elite's opposition to so-called "Saturday Night Specials" doesn't come from some adopted racial memory of previous failed tyrants. Even cheap little pistols are a threat to oppressive regimes.)

They called the pistol the "Liberator." Not a bad name, all in all. Now let's consider the strategic aspect of the question, "What good can a handgun do against an army....?" We have seen that even a poor pistol can make a great deal of difference to the military career and postwar plans of one enemy soldier. That's tactical. But consider what a million pistols, or a hundred million pistols (which may approach the actual number of handguns in the U.S. today), can mean to the military planner who seeks to carry out operations against a populace so armed. Mention "Afghanistan" or "Chechnya" to a member of the current Russian military hierarchy and watch them shudder at the bloody memories. Then you begin to get the idea that modern munitions, air superiority and overwhelming, precision-guided violence still are not enough to make victory certain when the targets are not sitting Christmas-present fashion out in the middle of the desert. [excerpt]

[Bellator]

what a junk political site.

[LITOralis.nMd]

what a junk political site.

OK, I changed the website... the original was from a email list from the late1990's... and is no longer on the net in original form...

New link is to an acquaintance's personal blog .. and the linked page has just the original email.. no additional info on the margins.

new link:

http://www.jeffhead.com/liberty/handgun.htm
WHAT GOOD IS A HANDGUN AGAINST AN ARMY
By Mike Venderboegh, Added May 1999

[EDIT] ANother link from the Original author Mike Venderboegh with photos of the Liberator gun and the insutrciton sheetr that was wrapped inside to instruct users.
http://westernrifleshooters.blogspot.co ... y-ten.html

[Jigsaw]

Uh, no. Many rebels and insurgents have historically used their enemies weapons almost exclusively.

Consider it this way:

Insurgents can still pick up rifleman kits, but cannot pick up enemy H-AT or AA etc that they do not have the training to use. In this way they can still use most enemy weapons, but in the rare occasion they do find a special weapon they cannot use it.

Conventional armies never switch weapons with their enemies, other than under the most extreme of circumstances. That the conventional armies can still pick up enemy rifleman kits is something I don't agree with myself but it was a decision made to balance the change.


Quite frankly since this change was implemented i've been playing 0.917 and just wishing it was 0.95 every time I saw a H-AT kit taken into the field on Fallujah or got fired upon by a Russian with a stolen M249 that he shouldn't have any ammo for. I remember loading in to TG on Fallujah not long ago to see that all of the LAVs, Bradley and Tank had been taken down because someone had taken a H-AT out of main base and handed it to the insurgents; in short, round ruined. I believe it will be extremely positive for gameplay.



Also please try to remember that the insurgents are getting a number of assets to help them, like the SPG-9 and deployable mortars.

[Hotrod525]

I think it's a great change, armies very rarely take up their opponent's small arms in modern warfare and only then out of necessity. As for the effect on gameplay I think I'll reserve judgement until I've played the new version.

No actualy, Army learn you to NEVER grab an enemy weapon, can be booby-trap, can be broke, can be "hacked" to have catastrophic failure etc... You just dont grab anything on the field

[Jaymz]

I knew someone on the team would have to give a comprehensive post about the reasoning behind this change, so here goes. I suggest anyone who wants to respond to this afterwards reads all of it, as I'm condensing months of debates between PR team members and military advisers into a nice little package for you.........

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++




It's hard to portray just how rare a situation it is for a soldier, or unconventional combatant, to pick up an enemy weapon and use it in the middle of combat in reality. If it is ever done so, it is a last resort or matter of desperation. The reasoning behind players picking up an enemy kit in PR for the same reasons is almost unheard of.

In-game, when an insurgent picks up an automatic rifle, or a sniper rifle, they transform into that role. An AK wielding ambusher transforms into a conventionally trained M249 gunner that can put tight groupings out to 600m, or a Sniper that can hit point targets even further. Even if we compared similar roles irl, do you honestly think that a Taliban PKM gunner is going to want to swap it for a BLUFOR MG he's unfamiliar with? No, he's going to stick with the PKM he's been carrying since Pakistan...fact.

Switch to the conventional side of things. A conventional soldier that picks up an enemy weapon will be nowhere near as effective operating a foreign weapon system that he has little-to-no experience with in comparison to what he's trained on. For heavy weapons and specialised weapons this change speaks for itself. A Russian soldier picking up an Eryx ATGM Launcher and operating it without any problems is absolutely ridiculous. A US soldier picking up a PKM and operating it with the same proficiency as it's previous owner is also insane.

We have a military adviser on our team who has trained soldiers on foreign weapon familiarisation, below are some of his words on the matter,

I've had to train skilled soldiers on how to properly use an AK-47, and even Expert Marksmen that have been using battle rifles such as the M16 and M4 for a few years needed several hours of intensive range drills in order to use those new weapons effectively.

I have also trained foreign forces in similar skills as well, so it's not just a "US problem".

Standing on a range shooting at a stationary paper target is one thing. But being in a firefight with a weapon you are not familiar with is likely to get you killed, or at the least mean you just waste ammo and contribute little to the fight. You might get some hits, but chances are you'll leave yourself open to get shot more easily too. Trust me, there is a big difference in weapon skill before and after familiarization.

Deviation and weapon handling in-game is weapon specific and can't be soldier/player specific, if we could do that we would have just made enemy weapons extremely ineffective in friendly hands meaning nobody would want to pick them up any way. But we can't.

What we eventually get left with is those few instances of desperation I mentioned initially. Alas, I ask all of you....how often have you picked up an enemy weapon in PR because you ran out of your 6-8+1 mags for your rifle and there was no friendly ammunition source (supply crate, ammo crate, rifleman, APC/IFV etc) within 100m?


Note, for those concerned about unconventional forces,

You now have deployable and technical mounted SPG-9's available.
You now have deployable mortars
Kits with RKG-3 grenades now have 2 instead of 1.
You now have primary and secondary detonation groups for IED's, allowing you set up multiple ambushes and chose what you want to detonate.
If ME Insurgents, you now have field dressings.

You are no longer able to have half your team transform into conventional troops, what you do have are more tools that allow you to play effectively as an unconventional force.

[Silly_Savage]

Great summary.

[Herbiie]

Jaymz;1462370']I knew someone on the team would have to give a comprehensive post about the reasoning behind this change, so here goes. I suggest anyone who wants to respond to this afterwards reads all of it, as I'm condensing months of debates between PR team members and military advisers into a nice little package for you.........

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++




It's hard to portray just how rare a situation it is for a soldier, or unconventional combatant, to pick up an enemy weapon and use it in the middle of combat in reality. If it is ever done so, it is a last resort or matter of desperation. The reasoning behind players picking up an enemy kit in PR for the same reasons is almost unheard of.

In-game, when an insurgent picks up an automatic rifle, or a sniper rifle, they transform into that role. An AK wielding ambusher transforms into a conventionally trained M249 gunner that can put tight groupings out to 600m, or a Sniper that can hit point targets even further. Even if we compared similar roles irl, do you honestly think that a Taliban PKM gunner is going to want to swap it for a BLUFOR MG he's unfamiliar with? No, he's going to stick with the PKM he's been carrying since Pakistan...fact.

Switch to the conventional side of things. A conventional soldier that picks up an enemy weapon will be nowhere near as effective operating a foreign weapon system that he has little-to-no experience with in comparison to what he's trained on. For heavy weapons and specialised weapons this change speaks for itself. A Russian soldier picking up an Eryx ATGM Launcher and operating it without any problems is absolutely ridiculous. A US soldier picking up a PKM and operating it with the same proficiency as it's previous owner is also insane.

We have a military adviser on our team who has trained soldiers on foreign weapon familiarisation, below are some of his words on the matter,



Deviation and weapon handling in-game is weapon specific and can't be soldier/player specific, if we could do that we would have just made enemy weapons extremely ineffective in friendly hands meaning nobody would want to pick them up any way. But we can't

What we eventually get left with is those few instances of desperation I mentioned initially. Alas, I ask all of you....how often have you picked up an enemy weapon in PR because you ran out of your 6-8+1 mags for your rifle and there was no friendly ammunition source (supply crate, ammo crate, rifleman, APC/IFV etc) within 100m?


Note, for those concerned about unconventional forces,

You now have deployable and technical mounted SPG-9's available.
You now have deployable mortars
Kits with RKG-3 grenades now have 2 instead of 1.
You now have primary and secondary detonation groups for IED's, allowing you set up multiple ambushes and chose what you want to detonate.
If ME Insurgents, you now have field dressings.

You are no longer able to have half your team transform into conventional troops, what you do have more tools that allow you to play effectively as an unconventional force.

I feel we should be cheering this speech.

/thread.

[cyberzomby]

Good explanation and very logical as well. I never looked at it that way. Not that I was against the change. I was happy about it.