Infantry vs. CQB
- Thread starter Psychomorph
- Start date
-
Two Factor Authentication is now available on BeyondUnreal Forums. To configure it, visit your Profile and look for the "Two Step Verification" option on the left side. We can send codes via email (may be slower) or you can set up any TOTP Authenticator app on your phone (Authy, Google Authenticator, etc) to deliver codes. It is highly recommended that you configure this to keep your account safe.
Honestly, I don't see why they move like that sometimes IRL. Even IRL, one nade or RPG could take out quite a few soldiers. You don't need 12 guys to provide 360 degree security.yurch said:
I can only think of two reasons.
1) Soldiers feel more comfortable and 'braver' when others are nearby.
2) Moving together prevents a lot of blue on blue incidents.
yurch:
How specific does the INF team plan on making the HL2 version? Beppo talked about having different kinds of soldiers to choose from. What military units do you plan on having in INF 3.0 ?
Last edited:
I think those are more training pictures, who knows.
@question to yurch:
Good question I would like to know.
What about if you S-Studios guys release some concept information, about your plans and intentions of how HL2:INF will be. You know, something to dream about for us.
@question to yurch:
Good question I would like to know.
What about if you S-Studios guys release some concept information, about your plans and intentions of how HL2:INF will be. You know, something to dream about for us.
But not enought for myself.Crowze said:You dream enough for all of us.
@M. Fenix:
Ok, I try to be better next time.
But the reason why I didn't said why I want to have it the way I suggest, is because INF already have it all, it just have to be sorted and get the right looks and that is something I clearly said at least in my second post.
At the time I thought it was clear enough.
Last edited:
Dont think of it as 12 guys. Think of it as one team. I noted in another thread that INF pretty much defies the concept of teams. In real life, you dont know where the enemy is coming from, you cant swing around 360 degrees in an instant, you can't always hit what you're shooting at, and there's no respawn. Also, we US-ians have this rule called "no man left behind."
--Harrm
If there are multiple types of soldiers and such (Delta, Marines, Spec Ops), make it on a by map basis.
I don't want to see all these types running around together (Like in CS, ugh).
I don't want to see all these types running around together (Like in CS, ugh).
Psychomorph said:
I would without question host a server like this for you. I think it's a very good idea.
Regarding who does what and treats it like what. I recommend you start a team, like me, of people who can be your infantry and have according loadouts and playing behaviours and have your SF group and so on.
keihaswarrior said:
That's why the Marines only do 4 (RTFA!). There's what I think is called MAGTF that they also use to "feel safer" (a sniper team, mortar support, gunship support, air strikes...). I don't see why it's neccessary to have that many people there either. I'd feel mighty proud if I was the guy on the other side with an HE in his hand.
I think that if you want everyone to choose the same type of loadout the map has to demand it. Since each person has a different concept of what infantry should use, and what SF CQB or whatever should use. I would take a 5.56 carbine weapon no matter where I go - open ground or CQB. That is unless the map and the team calls for a sniper, though sniper can't be realistically played in inf right now due to range, camoflage and shooting system/balistics.
Infantry should use weapons real infantry does. As I know the US and Israeli Infantry use M4A1 carbines, but german, spanish, swiss and other infantry do not use carbines. I may be mistaken, but as I know.
But even if it is allowed to use carbines for infantry, even G36K, SIG551, or whatever, my main point is to limit extreme specialized stuff as a SIG552+siliencer+taclight+sight+this+that + sidegun.
And the gear is predefined for the unit. So the infantry soldiers kind of have to wear a helmet and vest if not in to long distanced battles.
As said, they should be small limitations that create a beliveable infantry unit, or a beliveable SpecOps and so on.
But even if it is allowed to use carbines for infantry, even G36K, SIG551, or whatever, my main point is to limit extreme specialized stuff as a SIG552+siliencer+taclight+sight+this+that + sidegun.
And the gear is predefined for the unit. So the infantry soldiers kind of have to wear a helmet and vest if not in to long distanced battles.
As said, they should be small limitations that create a beliveable infantry unit, or a beliveable SpecOps and so on.
Ok, some thoughts.
1. Infantry
I just think the first release should have a solid infantry gamemode, which is about beeing an enhanced TDM.
Large scaled till medium ranged maps with frontlines (symetric, asymetric and always variating).
Area capturing/dominating and enemy force elimination would be the objective.
With a larger ammount of players they are respawns and the battle can take some time. With just few players the gamemode turns into a respawnless 'last standing army' gamemode.
A long battle requires a larger ammount of players, so if the Sentry Studios will make the game kickass fun the player count wont be a problem
- As suggested before, a small CQB SF unit on one of the teams can have a special task to get some stuff from the enemy lines.
- The game can simulate real events, fictional army versus army (which is unlikely in rela life), or just different cammos with a free firearm selection (as long it is all infantry).
2. Spec Ops
If co-op can't be made, I would still LOVE to see a SpecOps gamemode.
a) One team would be the few SpecOps. Their task is to take some secret documents, sabotaging, assasinating an A.I officer somehwere in the base, or whatever.
b) The opposite team would be the regular infantry with a larger ammount of solders protecting a base (village, or other). And now comes the fun!; They have jeeps with MG's mounted, stationary MG's and maybe one or two A.I. controlled tanks.
The base have these large serchinglights scanning the area, it can be controlled by an A.I. soldier.
To make it realistic, the game can begin by a warning of an attack of unknown soldiers from an unknown direction (the base controlling soldiers are warned), because the players know it anyway.
They is no chat between the living and dead, to prevent warnings of where the SpecOps breaked a hole in the defense (to give the SpecOps a chance).
- I imagine having some iraqi base in the desert. It is night. The soldiers are iraqi forces with AK's and A.I. T-72 tanks.
The SpecOps can be U.S, British, German, or whatever.
- It can simulate real events, army vs. army, or freestyle.
3. CQB
And I would love to have some pure fun CQB SF vs. CQB SF gameplay on smaller maps, I really would. Just some pure unit versus unit tactis.
- It would be rather a fun mode, a bit mindless. Total free firarm selection (SMG's and so on).
- Of course the teams can be limitted in armory to use the same weapons, like in real life.
4.Co-op
When possible, in the future, a co-op gamemode can be made, with idle A.I. soldiers and a special stealth missions, that can take for 'hours'.
I only don't know how to deal with dead players, they would be bored to death after few minuters, maybe a kind of re-insertion?
Well, that's it.
1. Infantry
I just think the first release should have a solid infantry gamemode, which is about beeing an enhanced TDM.
Large scaled till medium ranged maps with frontlines (symetric, asymetric and always variating).
Area capturing/dominating and enemy force elimination would be the objective.
With a larger ammount of players they are respawns and the battle can take some time. With just few players the gamemode turns into a respawnless 'last standing army' gamemode.
A long battle requires a larger ammount of players, so if the Sentry Studios will make the game kickass fun the player count wont be a problem
- As suggested before, a small CQB SF unit on one of the teams can have a special task to get some stuff from the enemy lines.
- The game can simulate real events, fictional army versus army (which is unlikely in rela life), or just different cammos with a free firearm selection (as long it is all infantry).
2. Spec Ops
If co-op can't be made, I would still LOVE to see a SpecOps gamemode.
a) One team would be the few SpecOps. Their task is to take some secret documents, sabotaging, assasinating an A.I officer somehwere in the base, or whatever.
b) The opposite team would be the regular infantry with a larger ammount of solders protecting a base (village, or other). And now comes the fun!; They have jeeps with MG's mounted, stationary MG's and maybe one or two A.I. controlled tanks.
The base have these large serchinglights scanning the area, it can be controlled by an A.I. soldier.
To make it realistic, the game can begin by a warning of an attack of unknown soldiers from an unknown direction (the base controlling soldiers are warned), because the players know it anyway.
They is no chat between the living and dead, to prevent warnings of where the SpecOps breaked a hole in the defense (to give the SpecOps a chance).
- I imagine having some iraqi base in the desert. It is night. The soldiers are iraqi forces with AK's and A.I. T-72 tanks.
The SpecOps can be U.S, British, German, or whatever.
- It can simulate real events, army vs. army, or freestyle.
3. CQB
And I would love to have some pure fun CQB SF vs. CQB SF gameplay on smaller maps, I really would. Just some pure unit versus unit tactis.
- It would be rather a fun mode, a bit mindless. Total free firarm selection (SMG's and so on).
- Of course the teams can be limitted in armory to use the same weapons, like in real life.
4.Co-op
When possible, in the future, a co-op gamemode can be made, with idle A.I. soldiers and a special stealth missions, that can take for 'hours'.
I only don't know how to deal with dead players, they would be bored to death after few minuters, maybe a kind of re-insertion?
Well, that's it.
Last edited:
Just to let you know, SF would never go on a direct action mission into an objective where they are immediately outnumbered.
It would be more realistic to have the SF initially have the upper hand, but if they take too long, get bogged down with casualties, or even a BH goes down, then enemy reinforcments come in and **** up their day.
Also, IMO INF should try to do either Infantry or SpecOps, not both.
Your suggestions about "mindless fun" gametypes like TDM is a VERY very very bad idea. TDM attracts the worst kind of gamers and compromises INF's realism goals.
It would be more realistic to have the SF initially have the upper hand, but if they take too long, get bogged down with casualties, or even a BH goes down
, then enemy reinforcments come in and **** up their day.Also, IMO INF should try to do either Infantry or SpecOps, not both.
Your suggestions about "mindless fun" gametypes like TDM is a VERY very very bad idea. TDM attracts the worst kind of gamers and compromises INF's realism goals.
You're right about SF.
Why INF should be pure Infantry, or SpecOps? Why I have to play INF for infantry, where I could play Insurgency too and need to switch to AA:O to play as SF, which sucks due to unrealism?
No game will reach INF's realism (I think), why I have to do without the variety in a mod with the most realism?
Can you explain more why you like INF to be the one, or the another?
If you fear people wouldn't play infantry due to all the nice'n'fun SF and SpecOps gamemodes I would say you might be wrong.
Infantry would be instant action. You respawn and play more often, you are in a contineous battle, shooting around, moving further, proning and rock'n'roll again. The machine gunner would have a fulltime job and the sniper counting kills.
But only when they are many players, otherwise infantry doesn't work and I would like to have gamemods which requires less players to be able to work.
@Mindless fun:
Mindless fun means fast and short team game, where you don't need time to run toward an objctive, or to think further about captured points and all that.
The CQB SF would have no grenade launchers, maybe no frag grenades. No spamming, just pure gunfire team-tactics, shooting on sight thing. A gamemod where you actually would draw the sidegun more often.
This gamemode could be a good training for the game.
Why INF should be pure Infantry, or SpecOps? Why I have to play INF for infantry, where I could play Insurgency too and need to switch to AA:O to play as SF, which sucks due to unrealism?
No game will reach INF's realism (I think), why I have to do without the variety in a mod with the most realism?
Can you explain more why you like INF to be the one, or the another?
If you fear people wouldn't play infantry due to all the nice'n'fun SF and SpecOps gamemodes I would say you might be wrong.
Infantry would be instant action. You respawn and play more often, you are in a contineous battle, shooting around, moving further, proning and rock'n'roll again. The machine gunner would have a fulltime job and the sniper counting kills.
But only when they are many players, otherwise infantry doesn't work and I would like to have gamemods which requires less players to be able to work.
@Mindless fun:
Mindless fun means fast and short team game, where you don't need time to run toward an objctive, or to think further about captured points and all that.
The CQB SF would have no grenade launchers, maybe no frag grenades. No spamming, just pure gunfire team-tactics, shooting on sight thing. A gamemod where you actually would draw the sidegun more often.
This gamemode could be a good training for the game.
I thought AA:Overmatch was all about the SF side taking on a bigger side and winning due to superior coms / training / toys?
That said, I believe that gamemode is going to be a co-op thing.
That said, I believe that gamemode is going to be a co-op thing.
Last edited:
I honestly don't know enough specifics about SF, but I highly doubt they’d only enter direct action when they have numerical superiority. These aren’t SWAT/ETF guys which almost always outnumber hostiles. I mean I doubt any SF team would land an immediately seek to engage a force larger than their own (I don’t think any military or police group would.) But surely over the course of the mission (multiple areas/objectives etc) they would likely encounter an overall force larger than their own (maybe that’s what you meant.) Also consider that SF includes things like rangers and SEALs.
As for TDM if setup correctly it would represent one force encountering another, perhaps on patrol, perhaps spotted by recon etc. Even a planned engagement of divisions of troops could be represented by TDM, simply that reinforcements take time to arrive or are engaged on a different map etc. Even clearing a building of hostiles is TDM, a little bit of backstory helps to immerse the player but it isn’t necessary IMHO.
As for TDM if setup correctly it would represent one force encountering another, perhaps on patrol, perhaps spotted by recon etc. Even a planned engagement of divisions of troops could be represented by TDM, simply that reinforcements take time to arrive or are engaged on a different map etc. Even clearing a building of hostiles is TDM, a little bit of backstory helps to immerse the player but it isn’t necessary IMHO.
As I know military SF are a small group of operatives that have special missions in a hostile area with obviously an overpowered enemy force. Thats why their task is it to be a ghost. Invisible, uncapturable, ...
That would be the task of the SF in this gamemode, to be tactical and strategical tough.
Exactly that is what I mean with TDM. Most military combat situations are sort of TDM.
That would be the task of the SF in this gamemode, to be tactical and strategical tough.
Exactly that is what I mean with TDM. Most military combat situations are sort of TDM.