| Mail |
You might also like: WoW Insider, Joystiq, and more

Reader Comments (18)

Posted: Feb 17th 2011 3:33PM Tethadam said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Since you obviously have no clue, the Army Infantryman has a 16 week OSUT. Not a 8 week basic training.

Posted: Feb 17th 2011 3:49PM Issmir said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Tethadam

I applaud your sense of accuracy and all that, but is that relevant in this case?
Reply

Posted: Feb 17th 2011 3:56PM Sireangelus said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Issmir

Well since the entire tone of the article is "Marines are better than Army, neener neener" I'd see it as relevant.
Reply

Posted: Feb 17th 2011 5:26PM JFink said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Sireangelus

As a former Marine, we are...
Reply

Posted: Feb 17th 2011 5:50PM Sireangelus said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@JFink

As an former Army Combat Medic veteran I disagree. I understand how and why the different services poke at each other, but the truth is that it isn't really a case of "better."

Each branch of the armed forces is best suited to different tasks. That's WHY there are different branches to begin with.
Reply

Posted: Feb 17th 2011 8:11PM Mystal said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Sireangelus

As some one who trained with and against the Army (as Opfor), I think the difference in quality between the average Marine and the average solider is pretty obvious.

The army certainly has its share of disciplined badass types (light infantry, airborne, rangers, etc) but in my experience, soldiers as a general mass are pretty undisciplined and unprofessional, and have very little esprit de corps (at least, compared to Marines, Seals, or the "elite" Army units).

In simulated operations against armored cav units, for example, they seemed completely incapable of dealing with the idea of an ambushing infantry force. Knock out the lead vehicle in a convoy, and the rest would mill about in a disorganized blob, afraid to dismount and assault the blocking position. What's the point of even having infantry if they're only trained to sit in a vehicle?

I'm not trying to rag on soldiers, or the army in general. I think the article was rather bizarre and the author seems like maybe he just got out of Marine Corps boot camp and is still drinking the koolaid. I'm just saying, go to a base where there are Marines and soldiers, and you can see a huge difference in bearing, discipline, physical fitness, and general tactical competence.
Reply

Posted: Feb 17th 2011 9:11PM Sireangelus said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Mystal I do agree with a lot of what you said. Spending any time in the Army it becomes obvious that there are "Soldiers" and there are, "people who wear a uniform and happen to get paid by the Army."

On the other hand there was a former Marine in my unit who was one of the most useless individuals I have ever know. No matter where you go you're going to find some twits.

I think your comment about the Kool-Aid is pretty accurate, the obnoxious part was the assumption that all Marines are amazing and all soldiers are bumbling chuckle heads.
Reply

Posted: Feb 17th 2011 6:16PM Hurlbut said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
And all marines are expected to be proficient with the rifles.

Posted: Feb 17th 2011 7:22PM Tethadam said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Hurlbut

As are all Army personnel. You have to qualify every 6 months in the Army no matter what your MOS is. If it is some form of combat arms though, you have to qualify with much more than just the M-4/M-16. Grenades, Pistols, and more.
Reply

Posted: Feb 17th 2011 8:50PM Hurlbut said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Tethadam
Hm was it that all Marines are trained riflemen or sharpshooters whereas not all Army personnel are.
Reply

Posted: Feb 17th 2011 10:23PM Patrick Mackey said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@everyone

I think it's important to note the humor tag.

Also, my statement about basic training is correct. MOS schools or even extra infantry training was not included, because if Army infantry course is 16 weeks, be advised that Marine non-infantryman combat training also extends about 16 weeks (slightly more).

Posted: Feb 18th 2011 4:05AM pcgneurotic said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
For an essentially ranged attacker, it sounds like the Soldier is more effective close-up. I could imagine this being so, because I know with my Marksman main that she's obviously more effective at range. I made a Soldier last week but haven't really been motivated to play him much (ha ha).

One thing I didn't know about was the relationship between CON and passive energy - is that Inferno-specific or should my Marksman being paying attention now too?

Posted: Feb 18th 2011 5:54AM Patrick Mackey said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@pcgneurotic No, the Inferno's a bit of a strange case. The Inferno has Thermal Reverberation, which scales to Presence. All PRE-granting item slots in the game -COULD- be CON-granting instead, giving Inferno characters a tough time when deciding how to gear up.

The Marksman is an interesting case because she ALSO has reason to get PRE, because Quarry has a special healing advantage (and most heals scale to PRE). Unfortunately, that advantage was added recently and I actually don't know what it scales to.

In all cases for all characters, CON is good. You should have some in any build you get. CON is always a good stat for talents and a competitor for gear slots.

As for the Soldier, he definitely does a little better in close range, but he really only wants to get Aggression procs and back off. Because he can move while firing both Shotgun and SMG, he can kite safely more easily. I think this is a big advantage for the Soldier. Also, Assault Rifle is best at long ranges and he can also move while shooting it. If there's an AT that benefits from in-combat movement boosts such as Acro or SS, it's the Soldier. Acro's Versatility advantage is highly recommended.
Reply

Posted: Feb 18th 2011 4:06AM Balraw said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
It's so nice to see all these comments about a Champions Online archetype, you know the subject of the article! Oh wait .....

/sarcasm off



On topic: I haven't really played about much with this archetype as it (to me at least) seems not so much of a super hero type character but it does have some interesting toys in its closet so it may be worth more than a little look at some point..

Posted: Feb 18th 2011 5:58AM Patrick Mackey said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Balraw There's a bit of a reference to Frank Castle ("a punishing arsenal" header), obviously a superhero/anti-hero that uses modern firearms. The Soldier works great as any kind of paramilitary dude, or even just a disgruntled civillian. In fact, if you avoid Frag Grenade, all of the Soldier's weapons are technically civillian-legal until the Gatling Gun/Rocket choice (although modifying the SMG and AR to fire full auto isn't legal, you can do that with a bit of research).
Reply

Posted: Feb 18th 2011 6:35AM Balraw said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Patrick Mackey Different people have a different perception of what makes a super hero and for me at least being able to shoot a multitude of guns just doesn't fit my definition. Each to their own of course :) I will take a look at it as I said but this archetype isn't one that leaps out and says play me,

Oh and as far as legalities of owning a firearms I will just say that they are not consistent all over the world so making an assumption on that basis is not a good practise.
Reply

Posted: Feb 18th 2011 8:22AM Patrick Mackey said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Balraw Well, since CO takes place in Detroit, we have a bit of real world info on that! Obviously you can't really own an assault rifle in Canada, iirc. The Desert is a special case I suppose because part of the Desert zone is in California, but only the Sniper Rifle (and the gatling, and the explosives) might actually fall under California law.

Because the game takes place mostly in America though, it's totally a possibility to have a civillian gunsmith Soldier who doesn't use any of the explosive weapons or the gatling gun.

And you're absolutely right, if a guy with a lot of guns and maybe superhuman reflexes doesn't jibe with you, that's cool! There's quite a number of other archetypes and billions (maybe trillions) of possible freeform characters so there's really something for everyone.
Reply

Posted: Feb 18th 2011 12:26PM pcgneurotic said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Balraw

That's an interesting point you make there, about what we define as 'superheroic' and how that fits with the characters we play in Champs or CoX etc. My main in CoX was for years an arms-based soldier dude - a Punisher, GI Joe type, but I made his skin really pale white and put big purple bags under his eyes. The story is that he's a supernatural soldier, a Warren Zevon 'Roland the Headless Thompson Gunner' type character, roaming the world and fighting for those who can't fight for themselves. Of course, his CoV nemesis is military-type pet class ( I forget the official name), who is the officer that betrayed him and yadda yadda.

Then I made this Champs Soldier to try and replicate him, which sounds - after reading this article - like it's going to be real fun and different enough from my Marksman to be worthwhile. But it raises the question of what is a superhero, and although my guys (and Frank Castle too) aren't your traditional hero types, I think you could probably classify their activity as somehow heroic. Eh, I could sit and talk comics all day, but I want to get in-game and check out my Marksman's PRES and CON! :D
Reply

Featured Stories

Engadget

Engadget

Joystiq

Joystiq

WoW Insider

WoW

TUAW

TUAW