Tbh I'm dissapoointed that Driver:SF aint gonna be GTA-like game as Driver: Parrael Lines used to be
Search
Search results: 2,444 found, showing up to 50
PKM has enough punch and pretty good ironsights, on T88 point I agree, but accuracy and spread are above average, +200 round box is a must when countering massive ammounts of enemy troops from defensive position. As for MG3, it probably has the best DPS in the game, plus the sound is awesomeSisco wrote:
PKM and T88 both lack punch, and have too low a fire rate to make up for it. XM8 is even worse, but has decent crosshairs.
MG3 is funny, but the constant reloading is a real hassle.
Yep. Good mediocore CPU, exellent integrated GFX, yet sucks for gaming and heavy computing.Camm wrote:
Seen any benchmarks?
MG3, PKM and XM-8 aint that bad actually, try them outSisco wrote:
all other LMG are shite
Doubt it'll be any good, Llano already sucks compared to i3 in everything but graphics. i5 will be still superior to anything AMD can offerPubic wrote:
September 19 for AMD bulldozer, will be interesting to see how it stacks up.
first Witcher game made me read actual book by Andrzej Sapkowski. It's kind of awesome too, if you're into fantasy kind of books
Well there are a few minor improvements like better class/weapon customization, vehicle unlocks etc. but overall they dumped way more features in BC1/2 than they intoruced in previous games (eg. 2/2142)globefish23 wrote:
You're right!
The last new improvement in the Battlefield series was the Destruction 1.0 in BFBC1.
Well, and maybe the targeting dart gun in BFBC2.
Everything else, weapons, class loadouts, unlock trees, etc. has been available in previous games.
Well, I guess we are doomed to play crossplatform games, since they make 3x more profit. No chance such a publisher like EA will ever make PC exclusives again
Agreed, Hueys are rape machines if properly crewed.globefish23 wrote:
The Hueys are slaughtering machines if both machine guns are manned and the pilot focuses on destroying tanks (and other vehicles with a HMG).
Its guns have almost an 180° angle to move, so two gunners can cover almost all angles from any direction the heli is facing at all time.
The lack of AA and tracer darts, the guns' damage and the very good handling also help a lot.
Grow up and get some credit cards.War Man wrote:
Is it only purchasable online? If so, fuck you dice.
they think they are being tactical (lulz)iceman785 wrote:
Yeah, re-installed for the new patch, Kokan, Wanda Shan and the other one are good, Iron eagle is fucking dumb as hell though. Worst map ever.
Still though, I am better off running around blowing up caches with my friend than actually having an entire squad. People in this game are idiots, they get shot at, stop and look for 15 mins, move five feet, rinse and repeat. We just run into the cache from where our team isn't, find it, and blow it the fuck up. Don't know why people on this game are such r-tards.
p/s personally quit this mod about a year ago, dont have time for that shit anymore...spending entire evening to play more then 2 maps on 1 single server is freaking ridiculous. Plus it never worked right for me, team was always bunch of squadless camping faggots who too all the specialist kits leaving me alone with my rifle against enemy armour.
Or just play Nelson Bay CQ. Much better than the original one imo.
and it aint poop on stick^DD^GRiPS wrote:
i have platinum on it
Bernadictus wrote:
How about firing in burst as opposed to full auto? Seem to do the trick for me.
Morrowind tbh was the best SP RPG experience I ever had.nukchebi0 wrote:
Oblivion was perhaps the only fantasy Medieval game that appealed to me. That alone is a testament to its quality.
Also, add The Witcher to the list. That game is also amazing.
It looks like F-16 tbh. Probably looks Russian for you because F-16's are used in "Agressor" training program.Superior Mind wrote:
It looks Russian.
From far left to moderate left with a bit of conservatism, maybe even from far left to center.
BF2 is a bit overplayed by majority of regular bf2s'ers, dont ya think so? I'll never say BC2 is better then BF2, it's sertainly not even close, but it is a newer game.DrunkFace wrote:
BF2
I second that, 2142 is by far the most balanced battlefield game in the franchize.Sydney wrote:
2142 is 10 times better than BC2 IMO, and in many ways it's better than BF2.
p/s pace, hower tank was awesome mate, I guess you were just using it wrong.
But to be honest, is there a better alternative on a PC FPS market now? I think no. MW2 is just a complete ****ing shit compared to BC2.Bevo wrote:
Lol'd. Maybe you don't disarm MCOMs enough, but every fucking time there's a weapon next to it, you will pick it up if you move your cursor even slightly from the MCOM. If DICE realized this they'd have a different key bound to pick up kit and disarm/arm MCOM. It's stupid, and it's lazy.
Loading just exit is fucking stupid and unnecessary, no matter if it takes me 2 seconds or 20. It's not any less of con just because you don't value 8 seconds of your life.
Chat only picks up 4-5 lines and disappears far too quickly and there's no way to see what was said once it's gone. It's terrible.
Choppers are terrible, I can fly them "just fine" but that doesn't make them any better. They handle like boats, they auto-balance themselves any time you try roll. Noob friendly with no learning curve.
Anyone with a brain uses VOIP, you have to stop to type, which is bad bad bad in an FPS.
Just because you're so enthralled with this game doesn't make it any better. Don't get me wrong - I played it, and had fun. I'll probably still play it for a bit and have fun. But you're defending a game that has numerous glaring issues and I don't know what the hell for.
stopped reading hereVector wrote:
...I must say I wasn't impressed with Battlefield 2...
You don't get the idea. Phantom requires concrete runway while mig can operate from dirt runways, having concrete runways at his home airfield though. This tactic is called "usage of jump runway" in russian, dunno how it is translated properly in english. The idea is to refuel near frontline and join the battle while having superiority duration of flight due to full fuel tanks compared to large and heavy aircraft that can't land/take off from dirt runways and have to fly a few hundred/thousand kilomethers from their main airfield without any refuel close to frontline. That way, aircraft with theoretically smaller operating radius recieve advantage over their more heavy opponents even taking into account their theoretically longer duration of flight.pace51 wrote:
Yes, but they have to return early, anyways. So, wait, chase, smash.
p/s I'm not taking airtankers into account as they were not used that much for refueling jet fighters during Mig-21 vs Phantom II era.
This is really sick.
21's can operate from field airfields, so range factor isn't an issue. They can easily fly close to combat zone, land, refuel and join the fight.pace51 wrote:
Yeah, but if the AIM-7 doen't malfunction, smash the mig from range. If not, evade the migs, because they run out of fuel quick. Then attack them on their way home.
not in close air combat, mig has far superior maneurabilitypace51 wrote:
and you don't need something like a tomcat to smash a mig-21. Any old phantom will do.
Non offence taken, since I'm not trying to be funny.seymorebutts443 wrote:
he's funnier than you will ever be.
jet above has 2 engines, conventional scheme (not "duck") & was never exported to any country. I dont see any similarities with J-10...or if I misunderstood you and you pretend to be funny, well, you're not.13/f/taiwan wrote:
j10
correctRTHKI wrote:
F-111f
Hard, others are too easy imo
I'm pretty sure you can't legally buy T-72 in Ukraine.
Technically USSR did not expand, it stayed within it's 22/06/1941 borders. Only Kenigsberg was added to Russian Federation. But yeah, commie influence sertainly expanded all over "freed" eastern european states.Cybargs wrote:
I think he meant the USSR expanded beyond Russia by a shitload after WW2.
Those 10% of generals actually recomended themself as quite skillfull commanders of armies and army groups. I dont deny the fact that german officer school was probably the best one in the world during WWI-WWII, but dont underestimate red army staff officers.cl4u53w1t2 wrote:
- stalin had 90% of the generals and 60% of all the officers executed between 1935 and 1939. and leading on the battlefield doesn't substitute for a general staff education
I personally read a lot of books regarding the subject, and I believe Stalin of course hadn't knowledge and skills of a staff officer, but he certainly was able to take proper decisions on tactical and strategical level. He screwed up in 1941 though, thats a fact.cl4u53w1t2 wrote:
- there are several reasons why hitler and then stalin were able to conquer half of europe but none of them was their (non-existent) military leadership and operational skills
Same goes for Hitler, early blitzkriegs are the proof of that.
For millions of soviet soldiers and officers german attack on 22 of june, 1941, was completely unexpected. German summer offensive in 1942 was absolutely obvious and red army was well prepared for it.cl4u53w1t2 wrote:
- yeah, the red army was near the line of demarcation, but they could have easily been withdrawn to the east (which was done in the summer of 42 during the german offensive in direction of stalingrad and the caucasus)
I would say it's a quite strong theory and I believe in it. I might be wrong, but there are gazzillion facts that are prooving that Stalin was about to attack Hitler in late summer of 1941.cl4u53w1t2 wrote:
- it's a myth that stalin planned to attack germany (at least not within the next 5 years or so). that preemptive-war theory (hitler anticipating stalin) is simply not true
At early stages of war, yes. At later stages of war they were even.cl4u53w1t2 wrote:
- the mistakes of the soviet generals far outweighed these of their german counterparts
Urban combat negates the number of anything but infantry. Tanks are easy target when there are panzershrek and faustpatron teams in each 3-4 stores building. Artillery & aircraft hadn't that level of precision for attack inside of a large town. Battle of Berlin was won by a rifle and bayonet. The biggest loss of personel was suffered exactly after soviets reached Berlin suburbs.cl4u53w1t2 wrote:
- at the battle of berlin, the germans had about 1 million soldiers 800 tanks and 100 aircraft, the soviets had 2,5 million soldiers, 6250 tanks, 7500 aircraft and far more than 10000 artillery guns. plus the german soldiers were mostly elderly or very young or weary
Nazi Germany never had real long-range strategic bombers so thats quite obvious that soviet industry at Ural and in Siberia was out of reach.CC-Marley wrote:
The Russians also mass produced effective tanks (T-34) deep in her territory. Far out of reach of Hitler's bombers.
As for T-34, yes, it was perfect medium tank which served well in russian conditions (e.g. cold and snowy winter, rainy and dirty spring, hot summer) but T-34 sertainly wasn't the only factor that effected situation at front. Russian artillery & rocket artillery were far superior to their german counterparts. Russian aircraft in mid-late stage of war was even if not better than german ones. Famous IL-2 Shturmovik (tank buster and CAS aircraft) was one of the best during WWII. T-34 was the most produced, but not the only type of tanks, there were lots of other successful war-proven tank designs.
Majority of german army was fighting at eastern front, you know..unnamednewbie13 wrote:
The Soviets were helped in large part by the fact that Germany was fighting everybody. Change that, and they might not have even been able to keep up with production.
Theres a theory that Hitler was still dreaming he could establish cease fire or even military treaty with brits at that time. Obviously, there was no chance of that, but it's Hitler after all..JohnG@lt wrote:
His idiocy is what let the British escape at Dunkirk instead of finishing them off and possibly finishing the war.
Dude thats 1 army, possibly the best one on eastern front, but germans did not lose simply due to loss of 6th army. On strategic level, they simply werent able to compete with Russia due to several factors like size of territory, Hitler being a moron (since 1942 or so, b4 he acted quite wise speaking of his military decisions), lack of oil, improper treatment of civilians in occupied territories, etc etc.cl4u53w1t2 wrote:
1. the german army had the chance to withdraw from stalingrad and in doing so saving the 6th army. a lot of the highest german military leaders urged hitler to do so. but he refused
Yet lots of talented officers & generals survived wipe outs and leaded military during WWII, obviously they got their experience & skills not in military academies but at the battlefield.cl4u53w1t2 wrote:
it's true that the highest military leadership in the soviet union was far inferior to their german counterpart (one reason was that stalin almost wiped out the higher and highest officer corps in the 30s).
If they were that bad, why one of them conquered entire Europe and other one won war at Eastern front. And please, dont say that that were the generals - there sure were ton of advisers, but in the end the last word/decision is up to one man. As for 1941 Eastern Front disaster - Stalin did not order red army to beat the germans at german-soviet line of demarcation, red army was ALREADY THERE, at the state border lines. Theres lots of proof that both Stalin and Hitler were planning to attack each other, Hitler just had a little bit more balls and started earlier, completely wiping out defenceless red army that was about to strike itself (e.g. - lots of troops near border, lots of military supply right next to troops and shit like that). Red army simply wasn't able to fight in summer '41 due to complete loss of supplies that were destroyed/captured by germans. Once supply lines were re-established german offensive began to slow down and eventually was stopped by russian winter. Germans still had initiative in their hands back in 1942 due to lack of combat experience of russian top generals, but in the late 1942 they already began to lose.cl4u53w1t2 wrote:
well, hitler and stalin were both extremely bad military decison makers, but at the beginning of the war, only stalins wrong decisions had consequences (he ordered the red army to beat the germans near the german-soviet line of demarcation. that's why entire soviet armies got encircled).
German generals also made mistakes (hint: Orel/Kursk)cl4u53w1t2 wrote:
the soviet generals got better during the war, but still were no match to the germans. it was the sheer mass of humans and material, that won the war, not military knowledge.
Urban warfare + Hitler's order to stand till death means anything to you?cl4u53w1t2 wrote:
shit, the soviets lost 350000 or so soldiers during the battle of berlin, when the war was pratically over
I believe it would have the same ending, just like those Battle of Midway theories "what if japanese haven't lost 4 large aircraft carriers" or Pearl Harbour ones "what if american carriers werent on their training but were statitioned in harbour when the attack occurs". Speaking of Pacific, US would still won simply because they had much better industry and proper organization of naval pilots training (adequate numbers, unlike japanese).
If Hitler had let his generals to run the campain, they would for sure capture bigger territory, but overall, I doubt they would completely destroy Russia simply because in 1941 they lacked a lot of military stuff that was introduced in 1943-1944 (when germany wasn't able to produce it in needed numbers). War on Eastern Front would for sure be more bloody, long etc. but I really doubt that germans would succeed overall.
If Hitler had let his generals to run the campain, they would for sure capture bigger territory, but overall, I doubt they would completely destroy Russia simply because in 1941 they lacked a lot of military stuff that was introduced in 1943-1944 (when germany wasn't able to produce it in needed numbers). War on Eastern Front would for sure be more bloody, long etc. but I really doubt that germans would succeed overall.
Then tell me why Russia had the most success in economy, military, science/innovation during reighn of authoritarian, somewhat tyranic leaders? Hint: Vladimir the Great (Kievan Rus, IX-X centuries), Ivan IV (XV century), Peter the Great, Katherine II, Stalin, Khrushchev & now (somewhat) Putin? Democratic leaders simply do not succeed in Russia, the seem weak compared to those above.JohnG@lt wrote:
He doesn't seem to understand that the Russian people don't NEED an authoritarian government in order to succeed. They went from one system, serfdom, where the people were entirely reliant on the government (or, more precisely, their local lords) to make all the decisions for them, to another system of serfdom that also kept individual thought and power in check. That's all a system like socialism/communism does, it makes the individual wholly dependent on someone else to make their decisions for them. Hell, they're taught to distrust their own decisions and chalk any display of self interest up to the evils of greed. It's sad really.
Pretty damn right, exept for the part that Stalin did not commit revolution, it was Lenin. Stalin just accepted the power and had to run what was already done with ex-Russian Empire. You can't blame the man for revolution, he certainly took part in it but wasn't the mastermind.JohnG@lt wrote:
Hey Shahter, it's ok to admit that you've been fed a bunch of propaganda throughout your life about your own country. Hell, if you tried to learn about American history from a textbook they use in grade school it would be full of factually correct, as in they get the dates right, but they do their best to tell the story in a way to make America look good. It's the same reason they have kids recite the pledge of allegiance and the national anthem every morning before class, to instill nationalistic fervor.
Now, all that out of the way, you may view Stalin as a man who did good for your country and ignore the means he used to justify the end. The reality is you have no idea how your country would've turned out if the Bolsheviks had not won power. You could be ultra-capitalist and experiencing a higher standard of living than the US or you could be like an African nation, in constant civil war and entirely backwards. You don't know. The fact that your country is middling between the two outcomes I described should tell you enough that Stalin was, if anything, a failure because his legacy is what you are experiencing today in your country.
All for it, gun makes a loyal citizen & criminal equal.
I'll skip commenting that, every single leader is a power freak ffs.Cybargs wrote:
Yeah he was not a power freak at all.
Oh sure, thats why it probably was in top5 world's biggest economy & military states.Cybargs wrote:
If you read ANY history, sure russia was in a shit state
Everybody did, but by the time of revolution Russia infact had more success fighting germans than the rest of Antanta (exept for Royal Navy).Cybargs wrote:
lost lots of troops during WW1
Russian food is fineCybargs wrote:
food is shite
Lenin eliminated Duma, ministers cabinet & ordered to kill emperor's family. Truly democratic approach.Cybargs wrote:
Hell at least Lenin let in a bit of democracy with the Duma
Ever heared of "military communism"? And yeah, it's not Stalin who introduced it.Cybargs wrote:
but noooooooooo Stalin just had to kill everyone he didn't like.
Assassinating Trotsky was a necessary pre-war move. If you conduct pararrels with Trotsky & Lenin you would understand how dangerous it was to leave opposition leader alive during world war.Cybargs wrote:
Even killed Trotsky in fucking Mexico. Yeah completely necessary.
If you would have at least a little knowledge about russian history in XX century you would have understand how wrong you are. Lenin & the gang were about word revolution thingy, they did not give a shit about russia. It was just the country and it's resources that they were about to suck off and 'throw into flame of world revoultion'. Stalin was probably the only sane person in the head of communist party during mid 20's. Stalin did not turn the state into totalitarian, it was already totalitarian. And by the way, greatest revolution massacred most of russia's political, military & science elite. How great for a greatest revolution, huh? Point for germans, for investing into Lenin's revoultion. If not him, Russia wont be so fucked up during last 90 years.Cybargs wrote:
Stalin successful turned one of the worlds greatest revolution right back into a totalitarian state.
Königsberg and territory around it is a small price for what nazi germany did in 1941-1945. I doubt Russia will ever return it, as it's also strategically important naval base in Baltic sea.
In case you guys return AlaskaJohnG@lt wrote:
You guys do have the area around Königsberg though shahter... Should really give that back to Germany one of these years...
She's power hungry bitch that cares only about own enrichment. Teh gangsta that became a president aint much different anyway.JohnG@lt wrote:
Why did you guys vote out the hottie with the braids?
protip: I didn't vote
Under current circumstances possibilty that Russia would act agressively towards ex-eastern block countries is miserably low. Modern Russia is about trading gas and oil, not ideology.Vilham wrote:
Im sure they would rather have no defense in case Russia feels like raping (literally and figuratively) the shit out of their country again.
I'm not so sure that Polish people do want to have those missiles in their country. Might be their goverment & US goverment. Just conducting parallels with our goverment that is (or was, idk what new president will do) trying to drive Ukraine into NATO while the majority of population was against that.JohnG@lt wrote:
Sure, why not? Anyway, there's nothing illegal about Poland wanting to defend itself. If a battery of Patriot missiles helps the people of that country sleep at night then that's all that really matters in the grand scheme of things isn't it? Any governments primary mission is to protect it's citizens from outward harm, Poland seems to be doing just that.
Speaking of Poland, I'm 99% certain that the threat is ruskies. Unless new bloody Hitler comes to power in Germany...JohnG@lt wrote:
What is any military unit there to defend against? Gotta be ready for any/everything. 99% of the time there isn't a specific threat.
Screw that, I wasn't able to play MW2 with my mate today - friend list doesnt work and it's impossible to stick together via ingame options I hate steam.
ICBM's are not the only source of delivery for nuclear warheads, and I'm pretty sure Patriots can hit long-range bombers therefore creating potential threat for Russia's ability to respond if being hit. Dont forget that cold war was 'cold' only because there was some sort of balance - you werent able to safely nuke your opponent without recieving adequate ammount of nukes on your head. Deployment of Patriots in Poland certainly doesn't eliminate Russia's ability for nuclear responce, but theoretically it does some damage to that ability. What I'm trying to say is that I believe that things are ok as they are now, when both Russia & US/allies have reasonable ammount of nukes and ability to launch them at each other and sane enough leaders that will never do it. If one side would lose a capability of nuclear responce balance will be ruined and in a no time we all might get screwed.ATG wrote:
Patriots are designed to get them on the way up or the way down, not at the edge of space, hence the desire to have the at mother bears gates.
Shelf oil?Hurricane2k9 wrote:
Why does either country care about a tiny fucking island?