Just out of interest, which experts all agree that this will happen in the next few years, and also what is their area of expertise? Funny Topics for Forums?
Search
Search results: 20 found, showing up to 50
Yet the communist logo isn't disturbing at all? Do you know what the swastika ACTUALLY means? If you did you might be less worried The communist part however...DonFck wrote:
It is kind of disturbing somehow, isn't it?ThomasMorgan wrote:
whats with the swastika in your sig?Cohammer wrote:
NO WAI! mouse and keyboard is so hard
Yeah you are wrong, the wee box at the bottom with the circle in it is the gunners view and where he is aiming. The circle that is present when you first start the chopper and again if you hover nearly perfectly is just that, an indicator that you are hovering perfectly...
The way it is now seems to work pretty well to be honest. From my point of view, if someone is close enough that I can hear them shooting at me I should be dead by the time I figure out where they are unless they are standing in front of me.
If they are far enough away that I can't hear, a silencer won't make any difference. The majority of gunshots that I seem to hear in game are sniper shots or shots that I'm getting hit with. Granted you hear the odd round rattled off in an alley next to you but I don't think adding silencers to one or two classes would be enough of a change to make any impact, its already a very fast paced game.
If they are far enough away that I can't hear, a silencer won't make any difference. The majority of gunshots that I seem to hear in game are sniper shots or shots that I'm getting hit with. Granted you hear the odd round rattled off in an alley next to you but I don't think adding silencers to one or two classes would be enough of a change to make any impact, its already a very fast paced game.
No reason why not, if you are in a chopper you rearm people if you fly/hover over them... so it should in theory work in a plane...
Possibly the recoil means that the 2nd/3rd shots are head shots, therfore instant kills...
Nuclear weapons most definatly stopped an escalation from the "cold" war to a "hot" (or shooting) war between the two superpowers. The whole idea of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD for short, quite apt really) was that if one side launched an attack on the other neither side would stand a chance of winning. This was why at the height of the "cold" war there were tens of thousands of nuclear warheads in each sides armouries. Both sides felt the need to keep making more missiles in an attempt to get the upper hand in technology and numbers, but what they failed to realise was that there were already enough warheads to destroy the world thousands of times over.
Whilst Nuclear weapons certainly aren't a nice thing to have around, they definatly stopped a hell of a lot of people going to war in a war that we could quite possibly still be fighting now.
Whilst Nuclear weapons certainly aren't a nice thing to have around, they definatly stopped a hell of a lot of people going to war in a war that we could quite possibly still be fighting now.
Well technically the Monarch is in charge of the country. The Prime Minister has to ask HER permission to dissolve parliament and she asks HIM to be the Prime Minister after his party wins an election. So basically she rules the country though the PM. If she doesn't like what the PM is doing she can constitutionally remove him and force a new election, or just place someone else in charge. The only reason she dosen't is because Parliament still has to make the law, and if Parliament is run by someone without the support of the majority of the MPs no one is going to be making any laws.
The Queen is like a fall back position for the UK, if the PM starts getting too ambitious and power hungry she can stop him. The PM cannot go to war without the Monarchs permission, only the Monarch can declare war, obviously she won't be doing this alone or against the wishes of her PM. The PM does still have all the power, but technically he is only doing this through the Monarch. So its not like they don't do anything at all, having them there stops our politicians simply doing what they like for 5 years before an election.
Oh but i'd give her about 5 more years before we have a new monach btw
The Queen is like a fall back position for the UK, if the PM starts getting too ambitious and power hungry she can stop him. The PM cannot go to war without the Monarchs permission, only the Monarch can declare war, obviously she won't be doing this alone or against the wishes of her PM. The PM does still have all the power, but technically he is only doing this through the Monarch. So its not like they don't do anything at all, having them there stops our politicians simply doing what they like for 5 years before an election.
Oh but i'd give her about 5 more years before we have a new monach btw
Would it surprise people to find out that Hitler was a Christian?
All religions are primarily peaceful, its when extremist elements feel the need to push their religion upon other people that we have problems. At the moment there are lots of Extremist Islamic groups trying to kill anyone who they see as "infidels" simply because they aren't islamic. If you go back a few centuries you'll see plenty of Christians doing exactly the same in the same area, Crusades.
The majority of Islamic people are peaceful, they don't all feel the need to go out and start beheading christians, hindus or jews. Its just the extremists that have this problem.
The main problem with Israel is that it is on the "Holy Land", this isn't just the Jewish Holy Land it is the Islamic Holy Land, and the Christian Holy Land. So basically you've got a bunch of religions who all hold the same area in great importance to their religion and don't want other religions there.
Anyone read the Koran and the Bible? Scarily similar.... what are we all fighting over?
All religions are primarily peaceful, its when extremist elements feel the need to push their religion upon other people that we have problems. At the moment there are lots of Extremist Islamic groups trying to kill anyone who they see as "infidels" simply because they aren't islamic. If you go back a few centuries you'll see plenty of Christians doing exactly the same in the same area, Crusades.
The majority of Islamic people are peaceful, they don't all feel the need to go out and start beheading christians, hindus or jews. Its just the extremists that have this problem.
The main problem with Israel is that it is on the "Holy Land", this isn't just the Jewish Holy Land it is the Islamic Holy Land, and the Christian Holy Land. So basically you've got a bunch of religions who all hold the same area in great importance to their religion and don't want other religions there.
Anyone read the Koran and the Bible? Scarily similar.... what are we all fighting over?
Go on arabeater, find me a quote somewhere in THIS thread where ANYONE says anything bad about the US... I bet you can't! So try reading the thread and coming up with a sensible answer instead of a "we won you 2 world wars you ungrateful bastards"
Granted yes the US were a very large part in helping win both world wars, more so in my opinion the first world war than the second as their assistance shoved the Russians out of that war. In the second world war there was no way that the German forces were ever going to get accross the water to the UK so either we'd still be going now or the UK would eventually have amassed enough men to do D-Day on its own (with help from its loyal colonies). The only reason the US joined in the 2nd world war is because they were attacked by the axis. If the Japanese had the forsight to wait till Hitler had finished playing around in Europe they could have quite easily have taken the rest of Asia with Germany's support and then once that was sorted taken on the US with no one else to worry about.
This is an argument that every uneducated American and European will have until history disappears, its boring now. Thank you for your help in both world wars, stop reminding us that we came close to speaking German but don't think you "won it for us" because last time I checked two fifths of the D-Day beaches were landed upon by British forces, the same as the US
Granted yes the US were a very large part in helping win both world wars, more so in my opinion the first world war than the second as their assistance shoved the Russians out of that war. In the second world war there was no way that the German forces were ever going to get accross the water to the UK so either we'd still be going now or the UK would eventually have amassed enough men to do D-Day on its own (with help from its loyal colonies). The only reason the US joined in the 2nd world war is because they were attacked by the axis. If the Japanese had the forsight to wait till Hitler had finished playing around in Europe they could have quite easily have taken the rest of Asia with Germany's support and then once that was sorted taken on the US with no one else to worry about.
This is an argument that every uneducated American and European will have until history disappears, its boring now. Thank you for your help in both world wars, stop reminding us that we came close to speaking German but don't think you "won it for us" because last time I checked two fifths of the D-Day beaches were landed upon by British forces, the same as the US
See I always seem to think of Canada being French, they all speak French right? lol
Granted the Empire would be able to match China for numbers, and spank them technologically but those numbers would HAVE to be spread out accross the Empire stopping all the uprisings by those horrible little men with grass skirts and sharp kiwi fruit! :p
Granted the Empire would be able to match China for numbers, and spank them technologically but those numbers would HAVE to be spread out accross the Empire stopping all the uprisings by those horrible little men with grass skirts and sharp kiwi fruit! :p
Firstly this is totally unrealistic as Tucker said, its near impossible to rule over that sort of empire effectively and keep hold of it. The British Empire couldn't even hold on to Ireland and that was right next door, what hope did it have of keeping hold of the US?
However if you do ignore the difficulties of governing a state from the other side of the globe you would have an empire on which the sun really never would set. The US, Australia, India, half of Africa, and who knows maybe even the majority of Europe.
The problem you'd have in these times however would be that whilst England would be in control of these areas how do you define the control? There is always going to be opposition to any form of government and this opposition is usually unifed when the governement is from the outside of your homeland. Look at how India dealt with the Empire before it won its freedom, everyone, muslim, hindu or whatever other denomination was pretty united in their aim of getting rid of the colonials. This would simply be going on in every other state that the Empire consisted of, other than Scotland Wales etc. but they are to close to be a problem. Then you've got to worry about the other major powers that are present in todays world, China and to a certain extent Russia (the US doesn't count as its part of the "Empire") Both Russia and China would of course be very interested in destablizing the British Empire and getting some of the pie for themselves. It may end up being another Cold War, with three sides. You'd also have to take into account the size of their potential empires, as if the UK was able to keep an empire surely they would be capable too.
This also begs the question of the other major colonial powers of the colonial era, France, Spain, Germany, what happens to their empires? Before the colonies were almost all granted freedom the international politics surrounding these countries were very tense, hence the almost constant wars throughout the latter half of the 19th Century up to the end of the 2nd World War.
So England could be at war with countless other countries, but assuming that it still held all of its colonies it would still be the biggest power in the world and as such should still be able to deal with all the threats. It would be todays America, but with more land. This also means more to defend so maybe it would be even more vulnurable than the US is now. Of course whose to say that the Empire wouldn't have simply carried on rolling and taken everything it wanted. I just can't see people such as the Chinese submitting to British rule quite as easily as the African colonies did.
Nice subject... soooo large!!!
However if you do ignore the difficulties of governing a state from the other side of the globe you would have an empire on which the sun really never would set. The US, Australia, India, half of Africa, and who knows maybe even the majority of Europe.
The problem you'd have in these times however would be that whilst England would be in control of these areas how do you define the control? There is always going to be opposition to any form of government and this opposition is usually unifed when the governement is from the outside of your homeland. Look at how India dealt with the Empire before it won its freedom, everyone, muslim, hindu or whatever other denomination was pretty united in their aim of getting rid of the colonials. This would simply be going on in every other state that the Empire consisted of, other than Scotland Wales etc. but they are to close to be a problem. Then you've got to worry about the other major powers that are present in todays world, China and to a certain extent Russia (the US doesn't count as its part of the "Empire") Both Russia and China would of course be very interested in destablizing the British Empire and getting some of the pie for themselves. It may end up being another Cold War, with three sides. You'd also have to take into account the size of their potential empires, as if the UK was able to keep an empire surely they would be capable too.
This also begs the question of the other major colonial powers of the colonial era, France, Spain, Germany, what happens to their empires? Before the colonies were almost all granted freedom the international politics surrounding these countries were very tense, hence the almost constant wars throughout the latter half of the 19th Century up to the end of the 2nd World War.
So England could be at war with countless other countries, but assuming that it still held all of its colonies it would still be the biggest power in the world and as such should still be able to deal with all the threats. It would be todays America, but with more land. This also means more to defend so maybe it would be even more vulnurable than the US is now. Of course whose to say that the Empire wouldn't have simply carried on rolling and taken everything it wanted. I just can't see people such as the Chinese submitting to British rule quite as easily as the African colonies did.
Nice subject... soooo large!!!
Hmmm Canada just got a whole lot easier to invade I'm not so worried about fighting men with Airsoft "guns"
(not that I have a problem with airsofters being a paintballer lol)
(not that I have a problem with airsofters being a paintballer lol)
I get killed my grenade launchers quite a bit, so long as its not from 2 foot away I don't complain. Thats what they are made for, shooting grenades at people...savannah_lore wrote:
I sick and tired of getting killed by grenade launchers every 30 seconds. Also the balancing of the teams is a joke and not even a good one. Until EA takes responsibility for this shit I'm boycotting them. I refuse to buy, rent or so much as read a review for anymore of their games until this crap is fixed
More often than not I'll get blown up from 20-30 foot away which is just fine with me. Thats what they are designed for! Stop bloody moaning... and we'll miss ya
The Heel shoot for the Heel, it worked back in ancient greece....S=Unit92 wrote:
I get this a lot two. I don't know how someone would be able to dolphin dive just as I put 6 rounds of any caliber weapon into his chest, even if he had armour, and still be able to squeeze off an accurate headshot.
I have tonnes of America's Army experience that hinders me, I aim for the chest because in that game no matter what, three to the chest or one to the head is death and since you pull up and to the right if you start at his shoulder you'll almost always hit the head with the second or third bullet. In BF2 it doesn't work that way, I put three in the chest and it's three in the chest, which is apperantly not my enemies' weak point. It must be their toes.
Oh and to answer the orignal post "6% accuracy on one account, 17% accuracy on the other" says it all really. You ain't hitting them every time. Those three shots that hit your enemy are probably only one if you are lucky, then he turns around and shoots you in the face... down you go.
DAMN! Over here in the UK we bitch and moan about how bad the National Health Service is... but jesus, I'm glad I don't have to pay for it! $26k for a week in hospital... I just had my apendics out, I don't even want to think about what I'd have to pay over there for that... especially on a students earnings
Anyway, i don't know you but hope it all works out Things normally tend to just do that by themselves for me
Anyway, i don't know you but hope it all works out Things normally tend to just do that by themselves for me
I've had a few kills against attack choppers from a tank when its been coming straight towards me.
A nice shell into the cockpit and the pilot and gunner are dead and there is a nice little chopper spiraling out of control over the map for a few minutes.
A nice shell into the cockpit and the pilot and gunner are dead and there is a nice little chopper spiraling out of control over the map for a few minutes.
Its normally ok when you are playing on a nice light map because the US uniform is so much lighter than the other armies uniforms so basically all you need to remember is which team you are on, if you are the MEC and a light tan soldier runs towards you shoot him he's a Marine. If you are US shoot anyone in a dark uniform. I guess this doesn't help with snipers much tho...
Must suck in the dark maps of SF as you obviously wouldn't be able to tell the colour of the uniform so easily. (I haven't got SF so can't really comment)
For me this glitch seems to occur only on Karkand... does anyone else have similar trends? Or is it just my luck?
Must suck in the dark maps of SF as you obviously wouldn't be able to tell the colour of the uniform so easily. (I haven't got SF so can't really comment)
For me this glitch seems to occur only on Karkand... does anyone else have similar trends? Or is it just my luck?
Nooo a trip wire, it would be great to see your opposition fall flat on their faces as they ran towards you
Oh did I miss the point somewhere?
Oh did I miss the point somewhere?
I'm not entierly sure that a pilot and a footsolider would be able to communicate effectively enough to make this worth while, either that or you'd have 20 targets all nicely lit up and the pilot wouldn't have a clue which one to aim for. Maybe the commander having this ability would work better, but he can already do this by ordering the pilot to attack a certain target I guess... maybe, maybe not.