milobr wrote:I hate dense jungle maps (Mestia, Ghost Train, Fool's Road) because they remind me of Counter-Strike. Really, it's just pure chaotic. My best games are usually in desert maps like Ejod, Kashan, etc where you can employ a lot of infantry tactics and the game is much more like real war.
Yeah because war is very organised and they clear out sniper hides and burn down the jungles first.........
In maps like Kashan they are far from realistic, where are the UAV's, the AC-130 Gunships? Where is the overwhelming artillery? The multiple stacks of a/c on standby to bring hell down? The awaiting attack helicopters to bring direct fire support are all missing. If we could get more people than 64 it would be better but as we have a total of 64 tops and that is if the server is full the maps are much too large and are missing many of the elements of a modern battlefield.
Lockheed AC-130 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Furthermore, there is not a lot of infantry tactics to be used on the desert maps as it's not too wise to move out across the open especially if you have options like what I posted above. Right now most of the fights are happening in the urban setting or in the mountains of Afghanistan clearing tunnels and fields.
The dense maps like Mestia and Ghost Train really reflect the chaos of infantry combat and as there is no room for tanks you can get right into squad based tactics.
I do like both maps but I would much prefer that the MEC maps be urban surrounded by desert as lets face it you would be a right twat to even think about heading into the open where the Americans can spot you with their satalites, UAV's, helicopters, CAP and all the other fun toys that give us the advantage.
If I was to fight the yanks I would take away as many advantages as I could and that would start with not ever going into the open desert especially at night.
(HUN)Rud3bwoy wrote:Null vote. Whatever realism needs.As far as i know unless its a dense urban area, firefights happen from a distance nowadays (i did not serve in army and im not a military expert). Of course there are exceptions, like in Insurgency.
So CQB maps could be fun, but i dont know if thats okay for realism. However i think ive read that that in 0.8 there will be more urban maps (e.g.: insurgency)
Hand to hand combat is still very common as not many have the capability of taking us on from a distance. As much as people hated Helmand I found that a very good reflection of what is happening in Afghanistan right now. They just needed to beef up the buildings as they can really take a beating and is one of the reasons why tanks have been sent in. Also, there has been more than one tank stuck trying to run over those old walls or ramming the mud huts.
Nades, nades and more nades followed by spraying the room with automatic fire. There are lots of videos you can watch of combat there all over the web.
Ablack77 wrote:I like all types of maps though one thing I would like to see would be a large map without heavy assets, ie just soft skin vehicles for transport.
I'm hoping Sangin will be like this.
Surely there are times in war when the heavy assets aren't available but there's lot's of ground to cover.
That lesson was learned in Mogadishu by all sides.
Talking Politics | Urban fight
Looking back, military analysts attribute the debacle partly to the decision not to provide the troops with M1 Abrams tanks and armored Bradley Fighting Vehicles — a political decision made by Secretary of Defense Les Aspin, apparently in the hope of keeping the engagement under the public’s radar. While tanks alone can’t win a battle in a city, they are an integral part of an invasion force. "Ideally, in urban combat you have a combined group of armored units and infantry," says one American veteran of the Mogadishu operation, who declined to give his name. "Tanks by themselves are very vulnerable to people on foot," who can attack the armored vehicles from the side, he says. "And foot soldiers by themselves are very vulnerable to people in vehicles."
---------------------The American plan for city warfare combines a several equally important elements:
? getting good intelligence about the city
? sealing the city off
? using infantry, tanks, and helicopters to secure control of enemy areas
? minimizing civilian casualties.
Heavy reading but there is a pile of information.
in0531 Lesson 1
Desert Combat
Universal and Enduring Techniques and Procedures to Support Tactical Operations in Afghanistan
'[R-MOD wrote:Masaq;624613']Simply wrong. What're you're missing is firstly that weapons are that accurate. If my weapon is zeroed to 300m in real life, in PR I should be able to hit targets at 300m out.
Love it!
Sorry, but you do need to explain. Why is being killed with a rifle more fun than being killed with a grenade? Why is killing someone with a rifle more fun than with a grenade? To my mind what's fun is rolling into a flag and holding it until my teammates have taken the next flag, then moving on. I don't particularly care if we do it via grenade, rifle, tank, pistols, knives or the holy-hand grenade of antioch. Nor do I care when I get killed which method it's by - I'm still just as dead.
On the other hand, where there is skill necessary is in using clever gameplay to prevent the grenadespam from the enemy. When defending, leave two-three guys outside the objective to spot incoming troops and kill them before they get within throwing-range. Alternatively, when you're facing someone and they're chucking a 'nade at you- rush them and full-auto them into bits before they can throw another one.
Bravo, best counter to the typical nade rant and whine I've ever read.
Rpg is the better option there if you want maximum overkill/laziness
