2 Addons nearly everyone wants`!!! [Archive]

Scooby

Sep 24 2001, 16:25

No No No.

I cant get it why some people are wanting so worthless addons as harrier and UH-1.

If BIS adds something they should add such weapons that will make gameplay better and balance it.

OFP isnt too good as an flightsimulator and we've got more than enough flying vehicles in game.

BIS has this far listened completly wrong people when adding vehicles, I hope for the sake of the game that they begin listening people with better ideas than those who suggest such vehicles to game that wouldnt change gameplay much more than add some eye candy for certain people.

CoolCarlos2002

Sep 24 2001, 16:40

I totally disagree with you!

If they had released an SDK people will stop asking for more , more and more SDK is the first thing people wants , let the customer make their vehicles , let BIS handle the bugs

LordZach

Sep 24 2001, 16:55

No real point to the AH-1 U.S. already has 2 transport choppers. 3 if you count the Blackhawk with the M2.

Crazy Medic

Sep 24 2001, 17:14

I don't want a harrier. It wouldn't be cool

RED

Sep 24 2001, 17:17

I agree with USAF we do need to SDK there would be alot less presure on the BIS staff to make new units then

RED

Sep 24 2001, 17:29

I would like to see that Bis first improves internet play before anything else. I had great visions of large scale battles on the internet only to find out that even games with a small amount of players are virtually unplayable. http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard3/non-cgi/emoticons/sad.gif But enough of that has been said already.

Only after internet play has been improved they can continue working on add-ons. Personally, I don't need any more flying vehicles. Perhaps a couple more land verhicles but foremost stuff like mortars or even halfway decent anti-tank weapons. After all, it's first and foremost an infantry sim.

As I think it over, I guess that USAF has a good point in wanting the SDK released. There are enough talented modellers and skinners out there to create vehicles. Let Bis concentrate on the game engine and network code.

My 0.02 eurocents.

Aaron Kane

Sep 24 2001, 21:04

I would like realistic damage values, thats it. If we get it, I'll be happy http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard3/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

Cyberdwarf

Sep 24 2001, 22:32

Let the Russians and Resistance have more stuff before the Americans.

So far, Addons have been ...

America 4 Civilians 2 Russia 1 Resistance 0

Diniter

Sep 25 2001, 00:16

#### yeah get that SDK ready! : |

Devil

Sep 25 2001, 04:44

Who the #### wants a harrier that is just like the BMP and UH1 like a UH60. It's a waste, BIS should be putting in a C-130 and some more civilians.

URKET

Sep 25 2001, 05:32

i'd like a AT gun for the infantry

Unl33t

Sep 25 2001, 06:32

Errr...... Infantry have AT guns.......

Insert a AT Soldier ........

Or RPG\LAW soldier....

Peter Eyres

Sep 25 2001, 14:39

There should be Artillery, and AAA (Anti-Aircraft-Artillery)

Sep 25 2001, 15:34

AAAH WE ALSO NEED AN F-14 TOMCAT GUYS, I WANT TO TAKE OUT A SU-25 FROM 148 km's AWAY WITH MY PHOENIX MISSLES!!! AND MAKE IT LOOK TEH SHINY!!!!! Btw, I don't think the Harrier would fit in the game; it would be totally overkill...

Diniter

Sep 25 2001, 16:49

Haha. NO. We need the SDK .

Cyberdwarf

Sep 25 2001, 17:29

Excuse my ignorance but WHAT does SDK mean?

RED

Sep 25 2001, 17:41

LOL SDK is : Software Developing Kit, it will enable us to make new models and picures that we can't yet. like the paa format and the p3d format.

RED

Cyberdwarf

Sep 25 2001, 17:56

Thanks, Red. http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard3/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

Now I have been enlightened, I completely agree than an SDK would add a lot to the game and extend the program's shelf life.

Satchel

Sep 26 2001, 15:55

SDK= Software Development Kit

that should be only in the hands of capable mod groups, to create completely new units from scratch. There will without doubt much crap units once the SDK is partially released, in form of plugins for 3DMAX a.e.
It´s not only about the 3D model itself, but programming and sounds, textures too to make the unit actually work ingame. This is unlikely a one man job, but more that of an mod project.
It´s a differnce between retexturing an already existant object, or changing its sound or behaviour, than creating something new from scratch.
I hope that there will be tools available soon for retexturing or adding/changing sounds in OFP for everyone, so for simple tasks.
Here is what Marek Spanel wrote as reply to my request about info on the wss soundformat:
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">
Hi Thomas,

wss is our proprietary sound format. Tools to convert sounds into it will be available later this year.

Best regards

Marek Spanel
-
Operation Flashpoint Project Leader
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

The creating of completely new units from scratch is job of pro groups that should get the SDK parts needed for it, it shouldn´t be released to broad public, because then it´s likely, the really good made units will vanish in the sheer mass of crappy attempts, just as with the user made missions. Out of 20 Missions, there are at most 2 that are really of good design, the rest is crap, making it a pain and demoralizes to try new missions, and the good ones suffer from that.
Also don´t forget that everyone needs the exactly same vehicles you use on your maps, else there will be quite some confusion on what vehicles someone needs to download if there are hundreds available, many of the same vehicle, say 20 M2 Bradleys....this would suck.
So i´d prefer quality over quantity, better a handfull of quality addons from dedicated mod groups than 100 addons per months worth s**t.

(Edited by Satchel at 8:24 pm on Sep. 26, 2001)

KingBeast

Sep 26 2001, 16:26

To whoever said so, i do not think a Harrier would be overkill at all really.
Though i agree with some of you in that what is needed is more emphasis on Infantry, perhaps some kind of a stationary anti tank gun (think of the one on everon) and a C130 would be "nice" but on the whole maybe a little innapropriate.
What would be nice is for medics to be able to go and heal people instead of people having to "use" the medics.
And maybe make it possible to bleed to death? Not sure if this is already in game..

Sep 26 2001, 16:48

I said it would be overkill, ok, if we get the harrier, I want the F-14 tomcat with Phoenix Missles and Russian markings on it so that it would only be playable on the Russian side and that it can kill a Harrier from 148 km's away. That should even it out quite a bit.

KingBeast

Sep 26 2001, 17:06

Harriers would be good for low level engagements, they arent comparable to your average fighter jet as far as i know.

Sep 26 2001, 17:10

Well, an F16 U is also good for low level engagements, or maybe the F-16 XL or even the F-14 outfitted with Mavericks...

KingBeast

Sep 26 2001, 17:16

yeah but the Harrier is used to attack ground targets
The F14 is a long range air 2 air fighter andthe F16 is a multi role fighter. So whats wrong with a harrier in OFP?
(other than i dont really want any more air units but it would be nice)

sk8er shep

Sep 26 2001, 19:49

i have the same question. SDK?http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard3/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif

Devil

Sep 26 2001, 22:20

sk8er, just curious, where you from?

Sep 27 2001, 16:22

lol, it's funny to see all the guys from England ask for a harrier, all the guys from russia asking for a BRDM1/2/3 and the Americans want the Bradley http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard3/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif...well, and there's me...wanting the F14 Tomacat :biggrin:

MADAX Diablo

Sep 28 2001, 07:40

I am from holland the harrier could be nice but this is mainly an infantrie game. so the BRDM1/2/3 and the M2 Bradley would be a good adition.
new guns could also be good, more units for resistance, some more civilian things such as WOMEN!!!, also a bit more for the russians.
But I still think we need some more boats cuz it is an island and how the #### did they get there in the first place!!!

Rob

Sep 28 2001, 11:34

i think really we should have every weapon, vehicle and aircraft in that year area in the game so that we have the variety that the whole army did have.

one thing though i think they should add though is a massive cruiser like the one they have but so that u can fit planes, heli's, men,vehicles and be able to take off or land on it.

surely someone has had the idea of doing this?

Cyberdwarf

Sep 28 2001, 11:37

I'm from England and I would rather see more Russian equipment (BTR-80, BRDMs) but I do not particularly want to see the Harrier unless there is a British MOD for OFP.
If that happened, I would want the Lynx helicopter. The Harrier would be a more manageable plane than the A10, hopefully.

Cyberdwarf

Sep 28 2001, 11:52

Rob said ...

"i think really we should have every weapon, vehicle and aircraft in that year area in the game so that we have the variety that the whole army did have. "

No. Once you start going down that road, we would want everything that the Airforces and Navies had.

"one thing though i think they should add though is a massive cruiser like the one they have but so that u can fit planes, heli's, men,vehicles and be able to take off or land on it"

I agree with some form of ship to take off or land at but hardly an aircraft carrier as it would need to be d*amn huge in order to launch planes from. Also, no real offensive capabilities.
A cruiser could wipe out anything coming at it unless the attacker had an Exocet missile and that is taking the game too far.

Sep 28 2001, 12:30

"one thing though i think they should add though is a massive cruiser like the one they have but so that u can fit planes, heli's, men,vehicles and be able to take off or land on it"

I agree with this. It shouldn't have any offensive capabilities but you could be part of a Carrier team and your job would be to rearm fighter and helicopters that land on your ship. If this WOULD be added it would certainly make this the best war sim ever made. ####, they could even start adding an F14 http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard3/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

MADAX Diablo

Sep 28 2001, 12:57

f14 are to fast for the game aircraft carrier like the americans have are to big but the once that the british have are smaller and thus better for the game.
the dutch ship roterdam can be added this is an support ship that can carry amphibeos vehicles bouts tanks traucks a lot of ppl in it and it has a landing pad for up to 6 helicaopters or 3 chinooks on it's rear deck.

Rob

Sep 28 2001, 15:52

wot we really need is a f%ck off map big enough to have bout 6 enemy bases on it and enough sea room to put cruisers and maybe an aircraft carrier.

is there anyway of getting someone to make hugh maps?

Krull SGC

Oct 1 2001, 08:08

The beauty of a game which allows the user to modify and expand on the original software is the fact that it allows you to include virtually anything you want to. When BIS are satisfied that the Mission editor is being utilised to its fullest they will release the other software they use to make the maps, models and sounds, what you all call the "SDK". When this happens it will be possible for every single modern weapons system ever used or devised to be created and implemented into the game, and with the map creation software any place, any where can become a battleground. OFP has the potential through the users who will create this stuff to become the most complete and comprehensive battle simulation ever made, look at what the ability to change and modify MS Flightsim has done for that it is the only flight sim software really worth owning, because you can change every single aspect of it. Let BIS put add the sensible stuff which will make the game as it stands at the moment better, and when the necessary software is released let those who want to make what they want whether they are "pro groups" of mod makers or someone just messing around with the stuff, you never know where the great addons may come from.

Venom Viper

Oct 1 2001, 13:58

I see that some want carriers but think the US ones are too big. Vel there are smaller options, the Tarawa class LHA genreral purupose assault ships that can carry helos or VTOL aircraft like the Harrier, have a look at http://www.spear.navy.mil/ships/lha4/facts.html
they are about 247m, 40m longer than the Brittish Invicible class (206m) look at http://british-forces.com/rtw/ships/aircraftcarriers/invincible.html
for more info.
B.T.V. the Russians have the Kiev class carriers (about 270m) (for those who want more russian units).

And please, give the Blackhawk MG a second machinegun on the right side. Also give the Blackhawk SUU (minigun) pods instead of the useless droptanks.

Rob

Oct 1 2001, 15:13

i hope ur right bout the SDK.

Rob

Oct 1 2001, 15:14

how long would it take for them to present this program to us?

drewb99

Oct 2 2001, 01:11

I like that last idea, give me a Brit Invincible class carrier. And if we have that we can have harriers http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard3/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

Aaron Kane

Oct 2 2001, 02:20

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Quote: from Venom Viper on 4:58 pm on Oct. 1, 2001
I see that some want carriers but think the US ones are too big. Vel there are smaller options, the Tarawa class LHA genreral purupose assault ships that can carry helos or VTOL aircraft like the Harrier, have a look at http://www.spear.navy.mil/ships/lha4/facts.html
they are about 247m, 40m longer than the Brittish Invicible class (206m) look at http://british-forces.com/rtw/ships/aircraftcarriers/invincible.html
for more info.
B.T.V. the Russians have the Kiev class carriers (about 270m) (for those who want more russian units).

And please, give the Blackhawk MG a second machinegun on the right side. Also give the Blackhawk SUU (minigun) pods instead of the useless droptanks.
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

Yes! I brought this up... during my first day here, I think... but I dont remember, and nobody else probably does either http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard3/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

The Blackhawks can benefit alot from either additional Hydra pods, or even better, two 20mm. or 7.62 mm. machine gun pods. Or maybe even four 20mm. pods, or just mix and match! The islands are way too small to warrant the use of those big fuel pods.

Rob

Oct 2 2001, 06:04

like ive said over and over....WE need bloody SDK. so we can make maps absolutely huge and have any update we can think of. surely someone is making a carrier by now.

Cyberdwarf

Oct 2 2001, 08:28

OPERATION FLASHPOINT MEETS TOPGUN ?

I don't think so. http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard3/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

It is bad enough when attack choppers in the game knock out your AA positions/troops before you can even see them and then makes mincemeat out of the rest of your troops. Short of bringing in AA-Guns/Missiles, there is nothing that could knock down a Tomcat.

If there were Tomcats in the game, a certain term springs to mind.

Game Balance.

I am working on a long running mission where only a couple of Cobras are up against a Tank Battalion with infantry support. It needs to rearm to stand a chance.

I am in favour of the idea to have an assault ship/carrier where choppers can be rearmed/refueled/repaired. Let the Russians have one as well, BiS.

Supah

Oct 3 2001, 10:37

i dont think more jets and helicopters are really needed.we all ready got loads of choppers and jets are really not that usefull due to the low visibility ingame and the game-engine not being made for a flight-sim. Id like more vehicles, artilery and some new weapons...... and perhaps some GOOD missions to use those in. http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard3/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

MADAX Diablo

Oct 3 2001, 13:19

good point supah and more boats.
cuz ow the #### did they get there in the first place?
i mean it for both of the sides

________
d*amn you Nostradamus why do you always have to be right!

Maldita Vecindad

Oct 3 2001, 13:58

I'll like boats too....

A inflable black one for spec ops like the ones that the seals use.
A mid size aircraft carrier
Some kind of anphibious vehicle ( I love those)

More land vehicles too (specially for the soviets and the resistance)... no more air stuff....

Oct 3 2001, 14:50

Well, I think it's really pathetic that you can manage to have al your units killed by one chopper, I usually can bring down an UH60 with ease with an M60 or an M2 so don't give me that crap of overkill, as for the F14 it can't even fly with only one pilot, you need two. Some of you like the infantry pasrt of OFP, but som eof us like the flying part...too bad the infantry lovers have the majority. http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard3/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

Rob

Oct 3 2001, 17:18

tell me bout it. http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard3/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
if bis ever do give us permission then people can have there bloody missions how ever they want with what ever they want. if their willing enough to create their own mod.
for F%ck sake people if ur that worried have u ever tried not downloading the bloody addons. and even if they do come in a update just take them out, gosh!.

Rob

Oct 3 2001, 17:19

evena retard could figure that out................?

well maybe not but that aint the point!

Satchel

Oct 3 2001, 18:21

No, what what nearly everyone wants is this:
EKV Exoatmospheric Kill Vehicle!
http://boeingmedia.com/boeingmedia/img/D1k1/D1k1s.jpg

Boeing is developing an exoatmospheric kill vehicle for the Army's Ground-Based Interceptor test program, a key element of America's proposed National Missile Defense system The GBI would be launched on demand to intercept threatening missiles in outer space. Its EKV will separate from the booster, detect attacking missiles and destroy them. Army officials said that recent tests proved that Boeing's EKV sensor performance was "outstanding" and that the integrated navigation system performance "exceeded expectations."

Man this is a must have for the serious and realistic wargamer that is interested in OFP´s focus!

Supah

Oct 3 2001, 18:48

why we "infantry-lovers" are that adament about not needing anymore choppers and having them as addons is that they take up the place and time needed to design that could have been spent on more groundvehicles.... I mean they put in a SU-25 frogfoot, a AH-64 and the Chinook..... mb now its time to put in some new ground vehicles, MORE TARGETS FOR U GUYS http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard3/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif btw. ive been "into" aviation for as long as i can remember my dad and most of his friends being fighterpilots. But honestly if u want to fly tomcats i think OFP and its engine will annoy u to death. Try Falcon 4 ...... great flightsim even if its a F-16 C

Oct 3 2001, 18:51

Ya, but I think the game should also have possiblities for us "air-lovers" like an F14 :biggrin:

Supah

Oct 3 2001, 19:05

do u honestly think it will be flyable??? i seriously doubt it.......... /me thinks ur kiding

Rob

Oct 3 2001, 21:09

y u all talking bout flight sims for this is ofp we're talking bout here
:biggrin:

Cyberdwarf

Oct 4 2001, 02:26

Okay, for the "airlovers" out there, supposing you get the F-14, what do the Russians get in return?

I still don't think a Tomcat would be suitable for OFP.

In the Falkland Island War of 1982, we had Harriers. If there has to be another aircraft, the Harrier could plausibly be there in the Malden Islands Crisis.

However, I think a Tomcat at full speed would overpass the island in a couple of seconds. Blink (or have a slow PC (PII 450)) and you'd miss it. Fog over Kolgujev and there's a high chance you'd fly your Tomcat straight into the mountainside.

I like warplanes and choppers but OFP is not the place for an Air War. If I want an Air War, I'd buy a flight sim.

Rob

Oct 4 2001, 08:07

these planes r gunna have to stop.

think bout it. everyone says their gunna pass ove the islands in secs, which is true but wots the point in having them. r u really gunna have a chance of hitting anything?

u would have that sort of thing if it were planes against planes.

Satchel

Oct 4 2001, 15:30

There is absolutely no point to have Fighter or Bomber A/C in OFP, other than just to look at the 3Dmodels.
Technically their playability and realism values would be equal zero.
Their tactical value because of the shortcomings is equal zero.
OFP is not suited to display fast or high moving planes; at a height of 600m you won´t see the ground anymore, all is white and foggy, you can´t tell if you´re flying upside down. Your´re imprisoned in a 600m Diameter bubble, so you will never see any targets other than on the radar. At 833 KM/H you have 2.5 seconds to spot, lock and engage a target, assuming you spot the target directly at 600m range, what is pretty much impossible. The min standoff range of most weapons is way more than 0 (zero) metres, so instead of 2,5 seconds you maybe have 0,2 seconds to spot-lock and engage, so that the weapon will actually hit the target.
You won´t be able to dogfight, because you can´t see your opponent and therefore not what hes doing. And whats the use and challenge and/ or fun in firing a missile via the OFP arcade radar on an opponent you don´t see, it doesn´t require any sort of skill and is just as usefull as a nuke in OFP, total nonsense and doesn´t justify a Jet unit in OFP. Apart from that the flightphysics and general (non existent) avionics of OFP are a punch in the face for a serious Flightsimmer like me, they are at best to describe as Quake in the air action arcade style, and have nothing to do with Flightsims.
IMHO Fighter and Bomber as all other A/C capable of fast moving would screw OFP completely and make an utter joke out of it. Why should BIS intergrate something in OFP that doesn´t work out and destroys the concept?
So either you want to play OFP or a Flightsim, that´s 2 different things.
buy a Flightsim if you want to fly Planes, that´s what it´s for and what it does best. OFP is not suited for this, period.

Oct 4 2001, 16:17

...But it's sure phun to have in a self made map! And what's that about unrealistic? If you don't want it, don't put it in your map. I doupt that it will be used in MP, but I thought that it would look good in one of my self-made map. An airfield with ten A-10 looks really stupid.

Rob

Oct 4 2001, 17:23

u can have wotever u like. if u don't want it don't bloody use it. its simple isn't it!

Satchel

Oct 4 2001, 18:20

"Phun" indeed, probably the same fun a Diver would experience diving in a glass of milk while trying to observe the animal live in it....................
If BIS would make a.e. an F-14 addon, it will without doubt be in some MP as single player missions, where you are forced to play with that crap.

(Edited by Satchel at 10:22 pm on Oct. 4, 2001)

Rob

Oct 4 2001, 18:47

:biggrin:
i personaly i would love to have lots of planes but i wouldn't only use them for show to make the level look more army like. :biggrin:

(Edited by Rob at 9:48 pm on Oct. 4, 2001)

Cyberdwarf

Oct 4 2001, 23:57

Red Storm wrote ...

"An airfield with ten A-10 looks really stupid"

I agree. Ten Frogfoots look better but if you want to do a mission where you are defending your airbase from a Soviet attack, you have not got much choice.

Yes to Aircraft as scenery.
No to New Usable Aircraft.

I am not going to reopen the UH-1 argument on this thread. Give one to the Resistance. They could do with a chopper.

Regarding the 600m view distance, apparently there is an initialisation code to see further. I'm sorry I can't remember which site I got it from to give them credit. I can't quite see the difference yet having a relatively slow PC (PII 450) but does give me a good game.

Just put the following in your initialisation field for your character (or perhaps put a trigger or script)

setviewdistance x

where x represents distance in metres.

Anyway, today's addition to the pot for Additions.

- More official weapons
- More vehicles (Russian, Resistance, Civilian)
- More Civilians (I'm tired of that whitish shirt for Man & Man3)

That's my entry for the day, guys http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard3/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

SpaceAlex

Oct 5 2001, 00:56

We need more civilinas, yes. Males, Females, childrens. You could have a mission by rescue more civilians, not just three mens.

Supah

Oct 5 2001, 06:50

All this talk of fast fighter a/c is pretty lame and useless. It wont be implemented im sure. Id reallyy question the developers sanity if they did. Incase u didnt notice its a squad based infantry sim. Haviong TRIED to fly the a-10 i would think that any fast aircraft added to the game would be unflyable due to high approach speeds..... come on honestly does anyone with some serious flightsim experience (ms flightsim and/or falcon 4) find the a-10';s handling realistic?

Rob

Oct 5 2001, 15:06

i agree with alex. we should have a vote on what we really need in the game.

so far in reading these posts we should stop the aricraft and bring in more boats infantry and civs. we don't have alot of civi's 3 men and nurses. not alot.

Oct 5 2001, 16:31

I actually wanted the F-14 as a static shape...something like the AT cannons on everon.

Scooby

Oct 5 2001, 16:50

#### no for voting.

There are too many idiots on these boards.

Rob

Oct 5 2001, 18:57

well yeah but im getting pissed off with the arguing!

Oct 5 2001, 19:06

well then, that's easy! Read my off-topic post on how to make a bowl of cereal. Eat that bowl of cereal and you will feel relaxed!

Rob

Oct 5 2001, 22:18

Rob

Oct 11 2001, 10:11

i just had the most brilliant brain storm........... how bout someone make a sub?

Antichrist

Oct 11 2001, 10:22

Screw the sub
I want a Death Star!!!

Die Alive

Oct 11 2001, 14:35

Where is my light saber?!?!?!?

I also want Ewoks and AT-AT walkers!!!!!!

-=Die Alive=-

Rob

Oct 11 2001, 15:29

hehe :cheesy: not funny

SpaceAlex

Oct 11 2001, 15:44

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Quote: from USAF on 5:16 pm on Sep. 24, 2001
The Addons that nearly everyone wants is:
An AV-8 Harrier and a UH-1 chopper!

i dont understand why they didnt insert a M2 Bradley IFV

Please include these Vehicles , if you want to i can provide info and every pictures of them , front , side , back , top , bottom etc...
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

M2 Bradley was not avaible in 1985.

Rageman

Oct 11 2001, 16:56

Actually the Bradley was just being introduced into US army units in 1985, besides the campaign finishes in the early 1990's.

I'd like to see a bradley, but only if the russians get a BTR (preferably BTR-70 or BTR-60) by the way the addons that BIS have produced a have been equalizing several areas, like introducing the M163, counter for the Shilka, SU-25 Counterpart of the A-10, and i've seen pictures of a OFP model in progress for the BRDM which is akin to the Humvee.

Cyberdwarf

Oct 14 2001, 01:18

If anyone from BIS is reading this, could they give us a hint of what is coming in the next expansion?

barret

Nov 17 2001, 00:03

Hehe, you can find both the sea hawk and the harrier onboard lhd's http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard3/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif, that would be nice to add on to!

Devil

Nov 17 2001, 00:08

Harrier will be released soon.

Maverick101st

Nov 17 2001, 02:41

how do you know that devil? is it going to be official??? i sure as #### hope so

Devil

Nov 17 2001, 02:54

A little bird told me. Official new model!

Cyanide

Nov 17 2001, 03:01

well if NATO stuff is going to be released it will ruin the game's balance of power! the west will have too many combat options to choose from!
you know, russia wouldn't be fighting with sticks and stones at that time! i don't mean that for every western unit there should be a russian counterpart; there just should be some "fairness": if NATO gets say an aircraft, give the russians more variety of firearms

out-of-topic wish: i reckon snipers and special troops should get handguns (maybe even silenced! maybe not the specials but definitely snipers: those precision rifles are useless at close-range combat (too long to reload etc.)

2 devil: what is your "Đëvďl" supposed to mean?

(Edited by Cyanide at 11:03 pm on Nov. 16, 2001)

Devil

Nov 17 2001, 03:05

If you want to talk about fair, do you think it was fair to start that war in the first place? Who cares if the East has less stuff, it was like that during the Cold War.

What do you mean what does my name mean?

Cyanide

Nov 17 2001, 03:23

ok if you want go into further detail about what it really was like back in those days here are my "dream addons":
1. a bio-toilet for the western troops (i think they were already in action in '85)
2. chemical warfare + gas masks
3. nukes (not the "nuclear grenade", it's too weak)
4. a certain % of women soldiers(there should be some respect of human rights after all!!! and the sports car addon would get a new use - getting chics...)
5. vodka for the russians (you westerners reckon it's the russian power source/fuel/food/aim of living)
6. combat divers armed with special rifles firing trident arrows
7. prisoner of war' camps (like the one in the "Great Escape") so that there would be missions to get out of the camp or to free captured fellas
8. body armour
9. fireworks after every victorious mission and on important holidays
10. troops should have the need to sleep/eat/.../... because "otherwise it would be unrealistic" imagine the following scenarios:
(i)a black beret going for a night operation and suddenly falling asleep behind enemy line
(ii)in the mission where the pilot has to get back after a crash he would also need to steal food from an enemy's base
(iii)a sniper getting distracted by a fit girl and thus missing his target
(iv)the russians would need to nick a NATO chopper to fly and get some vodka somewhere far away because there are no liquor stores on the 3 islands...

i've got loads of other wise ideas, just ask and i'll deliver!
*****
now all this was meant to be funny and the point was to show that my previous post about "fairness" was rather sensible...

(Edited by Cyanide at 11:32 pm on Nov. 16, 2001)

DarthBeavis

Nov 17 2001, 04:15

About the Bradley not being available in 1985, here is the final word:

I graduated from Armored Reconnaissance School in Feb. 1985 (trained from Oct 84 to Feb 85) as with 19D MOS, Bradley qualified. Stationed in 2nd AD (mechanized infantry unit if Bradley IFV's) until 1986. Being a scout, I was on an M3 Bradley CFV instead of the IFV. Bradleys were used in the 1st Calvary Division on my base also, as well as in our sister units in Germany (we had Bradleys there for our use during REFORGER).

-----
Served as M3 Bradley Squad Member in Army 1984-1986, Calvary Scout 19D - Yes, in Real Life you really swell guys

M79

Nov 17 2001, 06:28

devil , you shouldnt say things like that ,those screenshots floating around of the harrier are for VBS-1

Nyles

Nov 17 2001, 14:03

another reason is availability....I still don't understand how they could add a G36A.... I'd rather seen a G3 which at least was invented in '85

Renagade

Nov 17 2001, 16:17

well id like to see all the bugs and issues before any new stuff is added.
If after that was all done then i would like the harrier,think chopper but can go a lot faster and a proper working scud missile.
Respawning vehicles in multiplayer if it hasnt been done also the option for the host to enable other players to enter a game thats already started.
The LST, it has the space to land a chopper in the back,i tried it, but last time i done it my chopper fell straight through the ship http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard3/non-cgi/emoticons/sad.gif
last of all how about putting in a few weapons like the british SLR or sa80(complete with bayonet and susat sights http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard3/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif