I wanted to reinvigorate the G_Realism 1 discussion now that there's an actual CQB release to give the discussion context with respect to existing features and capabilities.

While it's completely valid for a Developer to incorporate as many features as satisfy his idea of fun, a recent discussion with some Tactical Realism Fans I was trying to interest in trying out CQB got some intersting responses that reaffirmed the value of a g_realism 1 var.

While CQB got favorable reviews of some of its features like realistic scopes and more realistic movement, other features like akimbo weapons and some of the speed moves still possible were regarded as laughable parodies of realism that would strongly discourage their interest.

In a nutshell they see a lot of potential for CQB to be a game they like, but that looks like it will be lost to them due to features that are a deal-breaking turn off...

What I've gleand from my own experience, posts on these forums by the few that are clearly TR fans, and first hand discussion is that we'd still like to have the option for more restricted realism which generally would include:

· no akimbo weapons
· no kant in lean FPP view (or no leaning)
· no, or much more limited jumping
· slower more realistic first Alpha PPM metrics
· context correct weapon attachments
· one-life objective game modes (VIP cited by 11 people)

Summarily all expressed more interest in the quality of feature implementation as it effects how realistically a game is actually played as more important then quantity of features.

All appreciated that CQB was a one man show, and thought it was impressive, but could be a better game with half the assets and feature flexibility in the load out system -- with just a few good maps, more realistic functional metrics, and objective play-modes.

Games (especially free games) get hammered with Players exploring and exploting the limits of movement and maps -- often culminating at a point where it is literal explit play that diverges radically from the Designer's intention, and the nature of FPS game perspective and play design magnifies this.

Just one example can be seen at the start of the typical 'Action Realism' FPS round where map knowledge virtually always has Players sprinting along very precise routes, exploiting precise grenade launching points, raceing to key-hole fire positions; making the start of a round a competitive race between team mates to these critical spots on the map; TC game thus far have been no exception.

Movement restrictions, in some cases even sub-scale restriction greatly curtails this sort of scenario where opportunistic play consistently prevails over more realistic, careful, team oritneted, tactical maneuver as you can't quickly escape a position of exploit after you've leveraged the exploit, and if your speed is greatly curtailed you have to rely more heavily on cautious and maneuver and cover of your tema mates

Circle strafing offers yet another and perhaps the 'poster child' illustration of liberating movement speed (that can even be to scale) permitting tactics that would never prevail no less work in the real world...

I would also like to see slower weapon change when changing from sidearm to primary weapon.

Another big issue is healing. It would be cool if you have something like C-A-T Combat Application Tourniquet with you what you could use to stop bleeding on arms and then your teammate would need to heal you so you could be back on fight.

If anyone else has played OF: Red River yet they do this healing very handily in the game.

While I like the way healing systems work in realistic, tactical larger scale combat games and mods; in a CQC setting where both the well designed one-life match and the real-life counterpart of the confrontation is over in under three minutes: any casual injury is typically considered down or 'out of action' to prevent collateral and/or friendly damage from compromising a mission.

In a Police action it's an issue of avoiding casual injury to civilians, and in both Police and a Special Operation in CQ there's always concern that a critically injured man may fail to cover, hit a team member, or otherwise loose control of his weapon or role in a mission as his stability deteriorates; so often the injured man is left behind.

From a game standpoint, this also works well, it keeps the damage system simple: anything that would keep you from keeping up with the team or shooting straight and your down; and in a realistic three minute CQ game/mission there's really not much time to focus on taping up a man. Not saying it couldn't work here, or is totally inappropriate, just that there are bigger (and easier) fish to fry. That said there both 'injured' and 'healing' code and animation in ET, so...

Well, on the contrary, what's good in "crawling" over your own spawn area for the first 5 minutes before contact with enemy?
IMHO g_realistic should (as it says) make the game mechanics more realistic. And I mean here damage model, movements, etc and not forcing player to use certain tactics.
Actually realistic tactical combat game would look more like first R6 games when you first plan your mission and then go. That would be tactical. Without planning that kind of game would be simply annoying.

If that's the case, then you might want to find yourself a different game.
With what you're asking for you basically want a new game. Coroner maintaining two games, that's unfeasible beyond belief.