Project Reality Forums

BloodBane611 wrote:Adding tickets to the insurgents is a lot different than removing them from the brits. The brits start with 400, meaning that 80 civi kills would destroy the team. Now, one smacktard makes 15 or 20 with the challenger, plus another 20 from civi kills that are righteous, and you have lost almost half your tickets. That would just screw the brits right over. For the record, insurgents still receive 10 tickets for each civi killed.

One thing could be to make the civis run slower. In 0.6 people would spend way too much time chasing after civis, only to get ambushed or the like. Now people are tired of it and just shoot them. If they couldn't run as fast they wouldn't put themselves in such compromising positions. Now, this doesn't solve all the civi problems, but it does solve some of them.

okay, then not -5, -1.

And it doesnt matter if an object is destroyable or if its an effect, or a vehicle or whatever. All those are limited to 1024(?) and al basrah is very close to this limit already.

00SoldierofFortune00 wrote:You have no idea what you are talking about. An insurgency is DURING AN OCCUPATION, not before it. Bashrah ingame represents more of an initial push, which you obviously didn't read. If this was an occupation, there would be civis in the streets everywhere which is of course not possible and the UK would be patrolling the streets and talking to civilians, not trying to knife (cuff) them.

First off...you are rude.
Second...it is an occupation. Look at the game. The Brits have taken over and secured without civilian access, the regions only airport, and made it a main base of operations. Even the in-game description says the following:
"British forces have been tasked to take control of Basrah. HQ MND SW, along with a Coy of 2 RA has been established and reinforced at the airport.British forces have now been tasked to move forward and establish Forward Operating Bases, with their main effort being to intercept the growing insurgent problems in and around the city. It is believed the insurgents are operating out of Basrah palace, and have a variety of old National Army weapons in their possession. Civilians still occupy the city and MUST NOT be engaged. Light Dragoon Recce Patrols have reported that the mosque is also a possible insurgent stronghold. Numerous ammo caches around the area have been created by the insurgents. The mission is to bring peace back to Al Basrah, so it can be returned to the Iraqi people."
How is this an "initial" push when a main base of operations has already been established. This is a push, but not the initial one.
And the Brits would be patrolling the streets...but the game isnt called "Patrol"....its called BattleField(I know it is the PR mod before you get a smart@ss answer drummed up)....But how many in-game patrols have you been on? No one patrols....they run point to point looking to kill folks with different uniforms on. Civilians were placed in game to give you the essence of checking your fire....to make sure you werent just firing at anyone. Take a look at our present situation in Iraq...our soldiers and Marines are not just firing indiscriminately into groups of people.
In game, Your ROE from command states clearly that civilians "MUST NOT be engaged".
It doesnt specify any conditions. It just says...they are not to be engaged. It doesnt say civilians carrying umbrellas. It doesnt say civilians with binos. It doesnt say civilians with rocks. It just says civilians....period. With this....engaging civilians is a breech of the established ROE. Doing so...like it or not...would make you undisciplined.

00SoldierofFortune00 wrote:And as I said, if a "civilian" is mingled with an insurgent out in a field, the civilian is likely to be ingaged if that group of people fire upon you. If you are fired upon, you fire back, plan and simple.

I agree. You missed my point. IRL it is the insurgents who are trying to blend in with the populace. There is a blurred line. A civilian who is trying to blend in with insurgents....is not a civilian. He has now established himself as an insurgent.
Regardless...in-game there is no blurred line....the ROA is Black and white....you are not to engage civilians.

00SoldierofFortune00 wrote:And it has nothing to do with being undisciplined or not, that is just stupid. It has to do with ingame limitations and what is practical and what is not practical. When you turn a corner and see white, it is not practical to look at the guy from head to toe before shooting. Not every ingagement is from long range because Basrah is CQB after all.

It has everything to do with being disciplined. To say otherwise is "stupid". In game this particular situation is not limited and it is very practical. It is PR....it is a representation of reality. IRL if I rounded a corner and "saw white" and just fired...I could be killing an innocent woman, an adolescent, I could be killing an informant who has been giving me info for months but made the unfortunate descision to wear a white shirt today. No you may not "in a flash" check someone head to toe...but you can definitly see if they are moving to engage you. You are wrong about Al Basrah....it has all elements of battle, long range, street fighting, and CQB. You should probably explain to all those people in Scimitars etc. to get out of their vehicles, that this is "CQB after all."

00SoldierofFortune00 wrote:And I don't care if you look at the civi from far away for an hour, once you go after him, you could easily turn a corner and see both a civi and insurgent and not have enough time to differentiate between the two.

You are absolutely correct.
This is what is sometimes reffered to as "the fog of war".
Maybe you will make the right descision....maybe you will make the wrong one.
Accidents happen.
Either way you should be held accountable for your actions.

It just sounds to me like you want open season on anyone not wearing the same uniform.

This being the case I am glad this is just a game....I would hate to serve with anyone like yourself without value for human life.

RCMoonPie wrote:First off...you are rude.
Second...it is an occupation. Look at the game. The Brits have taken over and secured without civilian access, the regions only airport, and made it a main base of operations. Even the in-game description says the following:
"British forces have been tasked to take control of Basrah. HQ MND SW, along with a Coy of 2 RA has been established and reinforced at the airport.British forces have now been tasked to move forward and establish Forward Operating Bases, with their main effort being to intercept the growing insurgent problems in and around the city. It is believed the insurgents are operating out of Basrah palace, and have a variety of old National Army weapons in their possession. Civilians still occupy the city and MUST NOT be engaged. Light Dragoon Recce Patrols have reported that the mosque is also a possible insurgent stronghold. Numerous ammo caches around the area have been created by the insurgents. The mission is to bring peace back to Al Basrah, so it can be returned to the Iraqi people."
How is this an "initial" push when a main base of operations has already been established. This is a push, but not the initial one.

First off, I am not trying to be rude, but this is in no way "realistic or an occupation" plain and simple. Kennway has already stated it was not along with myself.

Second, just because they took over the airport or a certain location doesn't mean it is an "occupation." No, when forces first move into an area, they take over key areas such as airports, certain buildings and locations, and set up their own bases and checkpoints and move from those locations.

It doesn't matter if it is initial or not, it is still a push forward and not an occupation. Operation Phantom Fury was the samething, and most of the civilians beforehand were told to get out and if they did not, they risked being killed.


The problem is, too many people are looking at this as Iraq with the airport being the Greenzone when it is nothing like that at all.

And the Brits would be patrolling the streets...but the game isnt called "Patrol"....its called BattleField(I know it is the PR mod before you get a smart@ss answer drummed up)....But how many in-game patrols have you been on? No one patrols....they run point to point looking to kill folks with different uniforms on. Civilians were placed in game to give you the essence of checking your fire....to make sure you werent just firing at anyone. Take a look at our present situation in Iraq...our soldiers and Marines are not just firing indiscriminately into groups of people.

Because an occupation involves working with the people, rebuilding infastructure, and patrolling key areas, not just attacking a certain spot.

And no, civis were not just put ingame to check your fire, they were put ingame to make it "more realistic" and give the insurgents a way to equal the convential forces without making them conventional in the process.

And if they wanted Brits to check their fire, than they would of never changed the civis uniform to one similar to a regular insurgent. If this wasn't true, we wouldn't be having this argument right now.

In game, Your ROE from command states clearly that civilians "MUST NOT be engaged".
It doesnt specify any conditions. It just says...they are not to be engaged. It doesnt say civilians carrying umbrellas. It doesnt say civilians with binos. It doesnt say civilians with rocks. It just says civilians....period. With this....engaging civilians is a breech of the established ROE. Doing so...like it or not...would make you undisciplined.

Uhhh, ok? Saying "undisciplined" sounds nice and all, but it means nothing ingame. Guess what? Most teams are "undisciplined" by your defintion anyway and work as individual squads and sometimes don't even have a commander or coordinate or check their fire anyway. And this style of play still exist today and is the predominate one. The word "undisiplined" doesn't even relate to PR because this is not A REAL MILITARY, you are not punished for disobeying orders or court martialed. So it has not effect whatsoever.

Yes, you should check your fire, but that is almost impossible in CQB when insurgents come turning round the corner already firing their weapons.

I agree. You missed my point. IRL it is the insurgents who are trying to blend in with the populace. There is a blurred line. A civilian who is trying to blend in with insurgents....is not a civilian. He has now established himself as an insurgent.
Regardless...in-game there is no blurred line....the ROA is Black and white....you are not to engage civilians.

The problem is, this game doesn't play like the real life you are thinking about. If a Soldier or Marine are taking fire from a group in a firefight, than they are going to return fire because

It has everything to do with being disciplined. To say otherwise is "stupid". In game this particular situation is not limited and it is very practical. It is PR....it is a representation of reality. IRL if I rounded a corner and "saw white" and just fired...I could be killing an innocent woman, an adolescent, I could be killing an informant who has been giving me info for months but made the unfortunate descision to wear a white shirt today. No you may not "in a flash" check someone head to toe...but you can definitly see if they are moving to engage you. You are wrong about Al Basrah....it has all elements of battle, long range, street fighting, and CQB. You should probably explain to all those people in Scimitars etc. to get out of their vehicles, that this is "CQB after all."

I am sorry, but you do not understand the meaning of "undisciplined" and IRL. This game is much faster than real life and you cannot accurately point, aim, and fire at a target with the click of a button as in real life. And as I have said, this is not an occupation which is not able to be replicated ingame, it is an initial push or push or whatever you want to call it. And since that is the case, any "Civilians" surrounding themselves by gun totting insurgents count as targets if you want to talk abotu IRL.



LOL, and I never said Al Basrah was all about CQB, read my posts again. I said CQB is half of the map, the other half is of course rural, but simply "pulling out binocs and checking" is some false claim made by the hyper realism community that does not work half the time, especially in the urban parts of Basrah. Go into the village area of Basrah at the West of the map or go into the urban center around Basrah and tell me you can simply pull out your binocs and identify a civilian practically.



You are absolutely correct.
This is what is sometimes reffered to as "the fog of war".
Maybe you will make the right descision....maybe you will make the wrong one.
Accidents happen.
Either way you should be held accountable for your actions.

It just sounds to me like you want open season on anyone not wearing the same uniform.

This being the case I am glad this is just a game....I would hate to serve with anyone like yourself without value for human life.[/QUOTE]

I don't want open season on anyway, but it is obvious that switching the civilian's clothing to something similar to that of the other insurgents is not working or else we wouldn't be having this discussion right now. The hyper realistic group of individuals who are having more and more say in this game are alienating the rest of the community and making things more complicated, not "realistic." I have no problem with most of the mechanics ingame right now, but this is not about me, it is about the community and stopping these false "it's realistic, get it ingame!" arguments. And it was already stated that Basrah ingame is not an occupation, so the civis would have a totally different role IRL.

And your last comment is completely false and an insult. We already had 1 veteran on here who pointed out why Basrah differs from real life and what it is similar to in real life and he is correct. I would not be shooting up civilians if this was real life, but the situation ingame is not the same one you are thinking of IRL, which has a completely different SOP/ROE.


And if you basically want a simplified answer of what I said above; the game simply plays too fast for there to be similiarities between people with two different roles (civis and insurgents) and especially when they do not represent how they would be in real life.

So your argument is as such:

Al Basrah, and the insurgency mode, is not an insurgency, and therefore any arguments that would be realistic for modeling an insurgency on are wrong.



Anyhow, regardless of the personal opinions on what it represents, it is clearly MEANT to represent an insurgency, and not an initial push. Unless the DEVs are just screwing with us, I mean hey, they have to have some fun too. But in all seriousness, the ROE is clearly stated in the map briefing, and civilians aren't to be killed. Killing civilians makes your nation look bad, hurts any kind of nation building you may be trying to accomplish, and overall is going to hurt your mission by increasing the number of people who dislike you. Civi kill punish is realistic and serves a gameplay purpose.


At close range in Basrah it is very easy to tell who is a civi and who is an insurgent. Hint: The insurgents have GUNS. It's ridiculous to say that you turn a corner and simply blast the first thing you see. You should be moving with your squad, checking around corners before you move. If you're running around Basrah like it is karkand it would make sense to just blast every moving person, but this isn't vBF2, this is a teamwork based reality mod.

At the same time, MoonPie is dead wrong though.

"Civilians" are people who are not engaged in fighting against an invading army. Civilians also happen to be a class in game. If someone who had the insurgent class threw down all his weapons and walked around with a bandage out, he could reasonably be a "civilian". By the same token, a civilian who throws rocks, spots for the enemy, and heals the enemy is no longer a civilian, as he is directly supporting and taking action against your forces.

So, yes, a civilian who acted like a real-life civilian, ie: staying at home and cowering away from the gunfire, should not be shot.

Right now, our civilians don't do that. In real life, when asoldiers see a man with a set of binoculars looking at their positions, spotting for insurgents with weapons who are hanging around the same area (ie: just on the other side of that wall there), they shoot him.

So stop saying it's unrealistic. It's not.

I agree that it is simple to differentiate between insurgent and civilian classes in game. However, if a civilian takes actions--as most do in the current incarnation of the civilian class--that are going to allow the insurgents to do more damage to my team than they could by gaining 10 more tickets, I'm going to kill the civilian. That's how it works in real life, and that's generally how even organized Brit teams on Basrah play.

Pariel wrote:At the same time, MoonPie is dead wrong though.

You can disagree if you want.....but I am not "dead wrong".

Pariel wrote:"Civilians" are people who are not engaged in fighting against an invading army. Civilians also happen to be a class in game. If someone who had the insurgent class threw down all his weapons and walked around with a bandage out, he could reasonably be a "civilian". By the same token, a civilian who throws rocks, spots for the enemy, and heals the enemy is no longer a civilian, as he is directly supporting and taking action against your forces.

So, yes, a civilian who acted like a real-life civilian, ie: staying at home and cowering away from the gunfire, should not be shot..

Agreed....the part about an insurgent throwing his weapons down to look like a civ is exactly what happens IRL too. A "civ" acting for the insugency....is an insurgent in my book....IRL.
But in game.....what are you going to do to reflect this? Suggestions?

What about make a selection in the kit, that is "empty hands"....you cant shoot an empty handed civ without penalty. This way shooting a civ climbing a grappling hook, or spotting, or carrying bandages, or has a rock in hand, is obviously working with the insurgency?

Pariel wrote:Right now, our civilians don't do that. In real life, when asoldiers see a man with a set of binoculars looking at their positions, spotting for insurgents with weapons who are hanging around the same area (ie: just on the other side of that wall there), they shoot him..
So stop saying it's unrealistic. It's not.

I agree with you on this as well....but it isnt always shoot to kill. Sometimes we are sent to get a closer look.
The saying, "Dead men tell no tales" works two ways. If I capture someone, instead of killing them, who I believe was spotting for the insurgency I can interrogate them and maybe find out who or what and why they were spotting for.
This is represented in game by gaining intelligence of cache locations when a civie is knifed.

Pariel wrote:I agree that it is simple to differentiate between insurgent and civilian classes in game. However, if a civilian takes actions--as most do in the current incarnation of the civilian class--that are going to allow the insurgents to do more damage to my team than they could by gaining 10 more tickets, I'm going to kill the civilian. That's how it works in real life, and that's generally how even organized Brit teams on Basrah play. .

Fine....but you arent playing by the ROE established by the game itself.
It says do not engage civilians.
This being the parameters of this map.....you should be punished for doing so.

Out of all the ideas discussed I feel that my and RcMoonPie's idea of loss of ammo/weapon malfunction when a civilian is killed is probably the most interesting and straightforward - punishing the individual directly and the team indirectly (by making a soldier useless until he rearms or gets a new kit).

BloodBane611 wrote:So your argument is as such:

Al Basrah, and the insurgency mode, is not an insurgency, and therefore any arguments that would be realistic for modeling an insurgency on are wrong.



Anyhow, regardless of the personal opinions on what it represents, it is clearly MEANT to represent an insurgency, and not an initial push. Unless the DEVs are just screwing with us, I mean hey, they have to have some fun too. But in all seriousness, the ROE is clearly stated in the map briefing, and civilians aren't to be killed. Killing civilians makes your nation look bad, hurts any kind of nation building you may be trying to accomplish, and overall is going to hurt your mission by increasing the number of people who dislike you. Civi kill punish is realistic and serves a gameplay purpose.


At close range in Basrah it is very easy to tell who is a civi and who is an insurgent. Hint: The insurgents have GUNS. It's ridiculous to say that you turn a corner and simply blast the first thing you see. You should be moving with your squad, checking around corners before you move. If you're running around Basrah like it is karkand it would make sense to just blast every moving person, but this isn't vBF2, this is a teamwork based reality mod.

I never said I had a problem identifying and killing them (difference between insurgents and civis I mean). This isn't about me, it is about the community and unless you play a lot like me and some of the rest of you guys, you are not going to be able to tell the difference between an insurgent or civi, especially in fast paced CQB. I have been playing PR and BF2 long enough to notice quickly like some of the rest of you, but you shouldn't have to play every day or intensely know the game in order to identify little things like this on the spot. It alienates the players that quickly want to pick up and play without having to spend huge amounts of time on PR.

It also comes down to relexes and that is something that is more valuable over identifying in CQB. In long range combat, ok, it comes down to using your head and identifying, but not all combat is long range. And especially when grenades are thrown, it is differcult to not hit a civi if all you see is a bunch of guys in white moving around, especially if you are surrounded.

Pariel wrote:At the same time, MoonPie is dead wrong though.

"Civilians" are people who are not engaged in fighting against an invading army. Civilians also happen to be a class in game. If someone who had the insurgent class threw down all his weapons and walked around with a bandage out, he could reasonably be a "civilian". By the same token, a civilian who throws rocks, spots for the enemy, and heals the enemy is no longer a civilian, as he is directly supporting and taking action against your forces.

So, yes, a civilian who acted like a real-life civilian, ie: staying at home and cowering away from the gunfire, should not be shot.

Right now, our civilians don't do that. In real life, when asoldiers see a man with a set of binoculars looking at their positions, spotting for insurgents with weapons who are hanging around the same area (ie: just on the other side of that wall there), they shoot him.

So stop saying it's unrealistic. It's not.

I agree that it is simple to differentiate between insurgent and civilian classes in game. However, if a civilian takes actions--as most do in the current incarnation of the civilian class--that are going to allow the insurgents to do more damage to my team than they could by gaining 10 more tickets, I'm going to kill the civilian. That's how it works in real life, and that's generally how even organized Brit teams on Basrah play.

Exactly.

It is definately an insurgency, but IT IS NOT THE KIND OF INSURGENCY YOU GUYS ARE THINKING OF!!! Operation Phantom Fury is the best example out there. (Fallujah if you don't know the operation name)

The UK/US are entering an area and taking it back, so if you are going to rely on the mission briefing, than at least get it right.


Al Basrah

"British forces have been tasked to take control of Basrah. HQ MND SW, along with a Coy of 2 RA has been established and reinforced at the airport.British forces have now been tasked to move forward and establish Forward Operating Bases, with their main effort being to intercept the growing insurgent problems in and around the city. It is believed the insurgents are operating out of Basrah palace, and have a variety of old National Army weapons in their possession. Civilians still occupy the city and MUST NOT be engaged. Light Dragoon Recce Patrols have reported that the mosque is also a possible insurgent stronghold. Numerous ammo caches around the area have been created by the insurgents. The mission is to bring peace back to Al Basrah, so it can be returned to the Iraqi people."

Hmmmmmmmmm, where have I heard that before?

This operation was the second major operation in Fallujah. Earlier, in April 2004, Coalition Forces fought the First Battle of Fallujah in order to capture or kill insurgent elements considered responsible for the deaths of a Blackwater Security team. When Coalition Forces (a majority being US Marines) fought into the center of the city, the Iraqi government requested that control of the city be turned over to an Iraqi-run local security force, which then began stockpiling weapons and building complex defenses across the city during Summer 2004.

Second Battle of Fallujah - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

As you can see, it is not really an occupation, so the civilians would of been evacuated or told to leave long time ago and those still there might be considered insurgent sympathizers if they were caught battling with insurgents and put themselves in danger.



I am all for the insurgent class, don't get me wrong. But the same color clothing has been shown to not work and IMO, the class might need to be reevaluated as a whole.

What are the insurgents exactly ingame? Because this isn't a typical insurgency and the civilians are not typical "insurgency" civilians, so adding more punish wouldn't exactly be fair either.

00SoldierofFortune00 wrote:LOL, and I never said Al Basrah was all about CQB, read my posts again. I said CQB is half of the map, the other half is of course rural, but simply "pulling out binocs and checking" is some false claim made by the hyper realism community that does not work half the time, especially in the urban parts of Basrah. Go into the village area of Basrah at the West of the map or go into the urban center around Basrah and tell me you can simply pull out your binocs and identify a civilian practically.

No....this is what you said....

00SoldierofFortune00 wrote:Not every ingagement is from long range because Basrah is CQB after all.

"...because Basrah is CQB after all."
"...because Basrah is CQB after all."
"...because Basrah is CQB after all."

$kelet0r wrote:Out of all the ideas discussed I feel that my and RcMoonPie's idea of loss of ammo/weapon malfunction when a civilian is killed is probably the most interesting and straightforward - punishing the individual directly and the team indirectly (by making a soldier useless until he rearms or gets a new kit).

Thanks for the props man.

RCMoonPie wrote:No....this is what you said....

"...because Basrah is CQB after all."
"...because Basrah is CQB after all."
"...because Basrah is CQB after all."

Can you not read? "NOT EVERY INGAGEMENT IS LONG RANGE!!!!!!"

don't try and use what I say out of context in order to make it look like what I said was different. Basrah is half CQB, and half Rural, so you cannot simply bust out your binocs anytime you want.

And nice propaganda with the pic lol. If you cannot come up with a good rebuttal that makes sense, than just don't post. We already have 1 guy (Kennwayy) saying that this is not an occupation, but an initial push or push or assault to retake a city who is in the infantry. I am not in the infantry, but I can assure you that most of us would not be issued binocs or long range scopes, so again, if you want to get into realism, then what about that?

And if that kid was just standing there in the open like that, he stands just as much chance of being used or killed by an insurgent as he does by an invading force (US or UK)

00SoldierofFortune00 wrote:Can you not read? "NOT EVERY INGAGEMENT IS LONG RANGE!!!!!!"

don't try and use what I say out of context in order to make it look like what I said was different. Basrah is half CQB, and half Rural, so you cannot simply bust out your binocs anytime you want.

It is not out of context and it isn't a misquote...
It is a direct quote...

00SoldierofFortune00 wrote:Not every ingagement is from long range because Basrah is CQB after all.

Its a complete sentence and easily broken down...
"Not every ingagement is from long range..." meaning not every, but some engagements are at longer ranges....
And then you go on to say "...because Basrah is CQB after all.
"Because" as in thats the reason why.
You were saying that the only reason every engagement isnt long range is.....
Why?
Because...Basrah IS CQB AFTER ALL"
"IS".....being used as defining Basrah.
Afterall....as in despite what has occurred or been assumed previously....

Basrah IS CQB.

No I think you were taken in total context.

This thread is crazy. damn i was intrested by the title, then i noticed how much i had to read. no thanks.

lilgeez wrote:This thread is crazy. damn i was intrested by the title, then i noticed how much i had to read. no thanks.

And yet you still cared enough post?

RCMoonPie wrote:It is not out of context and it isn't a misquote...
It is a direct quote...


Its a complete sentence and easily broken down...
"Not every ingagement is from long range..." meaning not every, but some engagements are at longer ranges....
And then you go on to say "...because Basrah is CQB after all.
"Because" as in thats the reason why.
You were saying that the only reason every engagement isnt long range is.....
Why?
Because...Basrah IS CQB AFTER ALL"
"IS".....being used as defining Basrah.
Afterall....as in despite what has occurred or been assumed previously....

Basrah IS CQB.

No I think you were taken in total context.

Yea, and I stand by what I exactly said, "NOT EVERY INGAGEMENT IS FROM LONG RANGE BECAUSE BASRAH IS CQB AFTER ALL", meaning the whole map isn't just rural like some of you are making it out to be and the map was originally designed for urban combat after all. And 9/10, most of the caches are in the vicinity of the Basrah Mosque or in the city which is the very defintion of CQB.

Besides the Village to the West on the map where maybe 3 caches might be a most, the caches are generally located within the city, meaning it is not so easy to spot civilians from long range and track them.

00SoldierofFortune00 wrote:Yea, and I stand by what I exactly said, "NOT EVERY INGAGEMENT IS FROM LONG RANGE BECAUSE BASRAH IS CQB AFTER ALL", meaning the whole map isn't just rural like some of you are making it out to be and the map was originally designed for urban combat after all. And 9/10, most of the caches are in the vicinity of the Basrah Mosque or in the city which is the very defintion of CQB.

Besides the Village to the West on the map where maybe 3 caches might be a most, the caches are generally located within the city, meaning it is not so easy to spot civilians from long range and track them.

WOW....you waffle more than Hillary!
First you say you didnt say it at all.
Then you say you were taken out of context.
Now you say "Yea, and I stand by what I exactly said..."
You dont have an arguement...you are just complaining for complaints sake basicly.

Next you give the numbers, "And 9/10, most of the caches are in the vicinity of the Basrah Mosque or in the city which is the very defintion of CQB."
9/10 equates to 90%
Then you go on to say, "...the Village to the West on the map where maybe 3 caches might be a most".
Correct me if I am wrong...but isnt 3 of your given 10 equal to 33.333%
Thats roughly a third of the caches NOT located near the mosque or IN the city...which is your "definition of CQB".
One third?

I know of another cache that regularly appears on the top of an oil tank in the refinery...not exactly CQB either so we are up to 4 out of ten.

Next another one appears just south of refinery east of the warehouse looking buildings next to the water....not exactly CQB either so now we are up to 5.

50%?

Care for another waffle anyone?

RCMoonPie wrote:WOW....you waffle more than Hillary!
First you say you didnt say it at all.
Then you say you were taken out of context.
Now you say "Yea, and I stand by what I exactly said..."
You dont have an arguement...you are just complaining for complaints sake basicly.

Next you give the numbers, "And 9/10, most of the caches are in the vicinity of the Basrah Mosque or in the city which is the very defintion of CQB."
9/10 equates to 90%
Then you go on to say, "...the Village to the West on the map where maybe 3 caches might be a most".
Correct me if I am wrong...but isnt 3 of your given 10 equal to 33.333%
Thats roughly a third of the caches NOT located near the mosque or IN the city...which is your "definition of CQB".
One third?

I know of another cache that regularly appears on the top of an oil tank in the refinery...not exactly CQB either so we are up to 4 out of ten.

Next another one appears just south of refinery east of the warehouse looking buildings next to the water....not exactly CQB either so now we are up to 5.

50%?

Care for another waffle anyone?

For 1, Hilliary doesn't even waffle, so if you want to get into a political debate, you have already lost it before entering, but we are not talking about that.

Second, I have never waffled on anything, but you are trying to turn what I have said into something completely different or interpreting it completely differently. I have never said I didn't say it, I said YOU INTERPRETED IT COMPLETELY DIFFERENTLY THAN WHAT I SAID!

00SoldierofFortune00 wrote:LOL, and I never said Al Basrah was all about CQB, read my posts again. I said CQB is half of the map, the other half is of course rural, but simply "pulling out binocs and checking" is some false claim made by the hyper realism community that does not work half the time, especially in the urban parts of Basrah. Go into the village area of Basrah at the West of the map or go into the urban center around Basrah and tell me you can simply pull out your binocs and identify a civilian practically.

The key word there is Half the map, which means that literally, half the map is rural and the other half is CQB. That means that half the time, the binocs are useless and even more useless when fighting doesn't even take place in half of the rural areas.

And can you not read? I said 3 AT MOST because the caches are random, so anything can happen, but the majority of the time, 9/10 times, more caches will be in the city than surrounding it. Since you obviously cannot understand this, no, I am and never said that literally, 9/10 caches will actually be in the city, I said that 9/10 times, MORE caches will be in the city than around it.

And since when is the Industry not considered CQB? "Close Quarters Battle (CQB) or close quarters combat (CQC) is a type of fighting in which small units engage the enemy with personal weapons at very short range, even to the point of hand-to-hand combat", meaning that the enemy can take refuge in the buildings around or inside the Industry.

00SoldierofFortune00 wrote:For 1, Hilliary doesn't even waffle, so if you want to get into a political debate, you have already lost it before entering, but we are not talking about that.

Second, I have never waffled on anything, but you are trying to turn what I have said into something completely different or interpreting it completely differently. I have never said I didn't say it, I said YOU INTERPRETED IT COMPLETELY DIFFERENTLY THAN WHAT I SAID!

There was no "interpretation".....
I broke it down word for word.
There was no other interpretation.

00SoldierofFortune00 wrote:The key word there is Half the map, which means that literally, half the map is rural and the other half is CQB. That means that half the time, the binocs are useless and even more useless when fighting doesn't even take place in half of the rural areas.

And can you not read? I said 3 AT MOST because the caches are random, so anything can happen, but the majority of the time, 9/10 times, more caches will be in the city than surrounding it. Since you obviously cannot understand this, no, I am and never said that literally, 9/10 caches will actually be in the city, I said that 9/10 times, MORE caches will be in the city than around it.

And since when is the Industry not considered CQB? "Close Quarters Battle (CQB) or close quarters combat (CQC) is a type of fighting in which small units engage the enemy with personal weapons at very short range, even to the point of hand-to-hand combat", meaning that the enemy can take refuge in the buildings around or inside the Industry.

Cute picture, but more fabrications and misinformation.

I can read just fine.
I can also read that the quote you are referring to in the above post is not even the same post I was quoting. You are the one who cant read.

You also said...
"Since you obviously cannot understand this, no, I am and never said that literally, 9/10 caches will actually be in the city, I said that 9/10 times, MORE caches will be in the city than around it."

Um...since we are reading the written word there is no other way to take it....other than "literally".
I cant take it figuratively.

Also.....quoting you again.....

00SoldierofFortune00 wrote:And 9/10, most of the caches are in the vicinity of the Basrah Mosque or in the city which is the very defintion of CQB.

How else can I take this other than 9 of 10?
No matter how you cut it....9/10 is .90 or 90%
Why dont you say what you mean and then....mean what you say?

I dont care so much that you dont like what I have to say....or that you dont like my ideas...
Its your right.

But I do have some valid points....like it not.

RCMoonPie wrote:There was no "interpretation".....
I broke it down word for word.
There was no other interpretation.

Yea, and you still can't understand that simple sentence.

I can read just fine.
I can also read that the quote you are referring to in the above post is not even the same post I was quoting. You are the one who cant read.

I never said you were quoting it lol, you are putting words in my mouth. I was using that to show that I was consistent with my views since you seem to suggest,

WOW....you waffle more than Hillary!

First you say you didnt say it at all.
Then you say you were taken out of context.
Now you say "Yea, and I stand by what I exactly said..."
You dont have an arguement...you are just complaining for complaints sake basicly.

which is not true if you have actually read my posts.

You also said...
"Since you obviously cannot understand this, no, I am and never said that literally, 9/10 caches will actually be in the city, I said that 9/10 times, MORE caches will be in the city than around it."

Um...since we are reading the written word there is no other way to take it....other than "literally".
I cant take it figuratively.

Yea, because there are 10 caches ingame There are only 9 ingame. 9/10 means 9 Out of 10 Times.

Also.....quoting you again.....



How else can I take this other than 9 of 10?
No matter how you cut it....9/10 is .90 or 90%
Why dont you say what you mean and then....mean what you say?

I dont care so much that you dont like what I have to say....or that you dont like my ideas...
Its your right.

But I do have some valid points....like it not.

00SoldierofFortune00 wrote:And 9/10, most of the caches are in the vicinity of the Basrah Mosque or in the city which is the very defintion of CQB."

9/10= 9 Out OF 10 Times, not 9 OF 10. There aren't even 10 caches ingame, so how could you take it as that anyway? It is very simple to understand.

If I literally meant, there was 9 of 10 caches in the city, I would of said, "9 Of the 10 Caches are generally found in the city, the very defintion of CQB.