1970 vs 2010

[Sovietzug]

http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/sad_o.gif I have a dude now

OFP2 will be about 1970's wars or eeuu imperialism of 2010 ? http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/sad_o.gif

I prefer 70's conflicts to play as comanche vs hokum with the OFP infantery

[simulacra]

Yea, really fun to drive around in jeeps and fight with m16a1, or not.
2010 rocks 1970 any day...

[NKVD]

look if you prefer 70s go play numerous shooters which already've been made in last 6 months...all of them turned out to be a total crap...jeezus..do we need any more of that ?

[EiZei]

Bah, does'nt matter as long as it is NOT WW2 or Vietnam. http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/crazy_o.gif http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/crazy_o.gif

[kerosene]

I prefer 2010 because it will be a lot better if BIS design a game that incorporates all the modern ideas and concepts in war, and modmakers work backwards than if BIS make a game set in the 70's and mod makers have to fight the game engine when they try and make somethng new.

It's too late anyway, they already announced its 2010.

[Evishion]

i hoped it would be around 2005.. in actual time.. but i dont really care.. http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/smile_o.gif i like 2010 more than 70... waaay to many games based on wwii/nam these days, so its good that some games goes modern http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/smile_o.gif

[Fork122]

OFP2 will be about 1970's wars or eeuu imperialism of 2010 ?
Quoting the Operation Flashpoint 2 press release.


Quote[/b] ]The year is 2010 and the world has changed.

So it's 2010, which personally I prefer over another Cold War era game. I just hope the XM8 isn't in the game http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/crazy_o.gif

[Charon[VW:BB]]

Yeah no vietnam .... that would be cool http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/wink_o.gif http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/tounge_o.gif

[Cpt. FrostBite]

I love the 2010 scenario. Although I would have liked a NAM-game aswell. But as long as they'll support two gunners in a chopper I'm happy and than we'll just create our own NAM addons. http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/smile_o.gif

They probably choose the 2010 screnario, because Earl already had an M249 and M16A4 model http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/tounge_o.gif http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/wink_o.gif (old-timers know what I'm talking about)

[EiZei]

By the time OFP2 will be released 2010 military operations will probably be a trip down the nostalgic lane. http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/tounge_o.gif

[Gollum1]

Bah, does'nt matter as long as it is NOT WW2 or Vietnam. http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/crazy_o.gif http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/crazy_o.gif
Amen. I think 2010 is a fine year to set it in, I just hope they don't make all the equipment super modern, sparkling new high-speed Űbar Special Delta Rainbow shit. We have crap like Battlefield 2 for that.

[ebns72]

i just hope ofp isn't ghost recon. I would have actually prefered like 1979 or something, there are too many futuristic war shooters coming out, I want to see some gold old cold war.

[Heatseeker]

I think 2010 is good for me, not too old, not too futuristic and with enough room for a fictional conflict, im curious has from where will the enemy forces be, Asia? Speculation begins http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/tounge_o.gif .

[Antichrist]

Quote[/b] ]The year is 2010 and the world has changed.
OMG. I didn't seee that one before. So does that mean that we won't see any fighting?

[Postduifje]

2010 sounds really futuristic and lame at start, but when you think about it, in late 2006 it's just far away enough to be in the 'near unknown' so it's just perfect.

[gandalf the white]

Imo it's better, Today's vehicles... UAV's, AC-130's, the Huey, they'll all be reason to break limits (in thesame order: monitors, rotatable guns on planes, multi gun positions)

[Ex-RoNiN]

look if you prefer 70s go play numerous shooters which already've been made in last 6 months...all of them turned out to be a total crap...jeezus..do we need any more of that ?
Your aggressive attitude is totally uncalled for. Nothing he said deserves the kind of response you provided.

I suggest you read the board rules carefully before you post again.

[EiZei]

Imo it's better, Today's vehicles... UAV's, AC-130's, the Huey, they'll all be reason to break limits (in thesame order: monitors, rotatable guns on planes, multi gun positions)
You know that planes similar to AC-130 existed in the 1960s right? And as for UAVs.. I suggest that you check out FDFMOD. http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/wink_o.gif

[Antichrist]

I also rather see 2010 than 1970.

[Cozza]

and if people dont like it. mod it. http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/smile_o.gif I think 2010 is a great place, not to far ahead but still got todays battle tactics. I hope those russians have something to do with guba http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/wink_o.gif

[Heatseeker]

I hope those russians have something to do with guba  http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/wink_o.gif
Yes they do, they are russians too http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/rock.gif .
35 years later Guba's skeleton was found in the sea at the east coast of Kolgujev (thats where i dumped him from the hind helicopter while heading for the scud) http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/tounge_o.gif .

[4 IN 1]

whatever, as there's always be addon makers to make what is lacked in it(thank you addon makers http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/smile_o.gif )

[Evishion]

I hope those russians have something to do with guba  http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/wink_o.gif
Yes they do, they are russians too http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/rock.gif .
Yea.. i kinda like that they use russians again http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/biggrin_o.gif becasuse in all other games they ALL use the standard.. US vs something_every_game_does

So im glad for that BIS still will keep on the russians and not the other standard countrys.. but hey. its 3 different places and enemys here to.. http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/biggrin_o.gif

[MattXR]

It might not just be the US Forces.. its a international coalition contingent which might have others in it to which would be cool.. but theres always american forces in games.. why cant there be UK forces or NATO or something?

[D.murphy man]

Because it sells better in the US if the game has US forces in. Same goes for movies, most of the time.

[hmmwv]

The time, and the units...all are what i´ve been waiting for. US Army, USMC, SpecOps and all of them in a modern combat environment http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/biggrin_o.gif

I´m very happy. To say the truth; i don´t like vietnam era games, but that´s because i´m a lover of modern warfare.

[Sovietzug]

ok, i had lost all interest of OFP2 if this is the USA strike against "terrorism" or another inventios to make war in this days.

If OFP2 not have vietcong, africans guerrillas, koreans soldiers, soviets armys, olds copters, i think it will not my game.

I wait a great game with "comanche vs hokum" gameplay system in a complete conflict between 2 powerfull armys. But i will not pay to play with USA or OTAN forces doing the world police, simply.

I dont like 2010 idea, i think it's boried. I have my dudes about new ammo or modern aircrafts. I supose i can see Abrahms http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/sad_o.gif and Colts, anything new.

Is more futurist projects of 80's era than a infantery game of 2010, when the most important at war now is the logistic capacity, nuclear weapons and sattelites GPS.

[baff]

As long as it's not yet another arab or gook shooter.

I would prefer to see a Soviet vs Nato scenario again as thats where all the exciting weapon systems come from.

My problem with 2010 is the integrated battlesystems.

I suspect that after Vbs 1, Bia have great intelligence about Australian and American Weapon systems........
but will they know much about Soviet systems and be able to simulate them well within the game?

In my paranoia, I forsee a game overbalanced by an Uber USMC. Which will bore me.

1985 was fine by me.
Give me more of the same please.

[Charon[VW:BB]]

How about China & North Korea and allies against the USA & Allies? .... The fight for the superpower of the 21th century http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/smile_o.gif

[kavoven]

Do you know the books of Patrick Robinson? His first book was placed in 2007 and his actual one (Hunter Killer, really great http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/biggrin_o.gif ) is placed in 2010 and there are no cyborgs marching around and so on, so I expect the whole thing to be really cool http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/smile_o.gif In my opinion it doesn't matter if you shoot with an M16 A2 or M16 A4.... it makes bang and that's it http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/smile_o.gif

Thumps up BIS, I like the new "topic" http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/smile_o.gif

[Charon[VW:BB]]

Are his books mostly about submarines? http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/rock.gif

[BlackScorpion]

@<hidden> May 21 2005,23:43)]How about China & North Korea and allies against the USA & Allies? .... The fight for the superpower of the 21th century http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/smile_o.gif
Which side would Russia fight on? With USA, with China (not likely) or on it&#39;s own? http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/rock.gif

[SpecOp9]

I choose 2010, leave all the early wars for mod teams, they will be the secondary developers

[Sovietzug]

I dont understand our

You prefer combat with a Comanche, Cobra, Apache and Abrhams against ż? palestine childrens with rocks ? AK-74 chinesse soldiers ?ż  Missile Scud of 80&#39; age ż?  Iraquis with home bombs, AK-74, RPGs ż? Chechen warriors and arabs combating with AK-74, M16, and Stingers ż?

It is different of Flaspoint1985 Resistence Mods http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/rock.gif??

I prefer a total war, for example. Vietnam.

Because at Vietnam you can combat with vietcong, Vietnam army, Soviets vehicles, copters and tanks against eeuu soldiers in a total war at jungle http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/smile_o.gif

Why at OFP and not at BF or another game?

Because i wait can to play with a complete IA doing resupply, base reparations, recon, coverture, rescue, etc etc etc

The OFP editor has limits to can do it, but a OFP2 was my illusion.

Really i think the best game about a war conflict is "comanche vs Hokum" but yo can not play with infantery http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/sad_o.gif


The most atractive to play a OFP2 is a newer gameplay system, but do you can not enjoy this combating with a Great army against little groups or little armies (with 80&#39;s weapons)

I dont understand why it can be fun


sorry by my english, i speak spanish &#33; http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/tounge_o.gif

[Antichrist]

Unfortunately Vietnam was already extremely overdone in computer games. Also Vietnam setting will mean additional vegetation which will impact framerate dramatically.

[Heatseeker]

Yeah, imagine the fun of vietnam warfare, you get M16&#39;s, cobras, hueys, jets and armor, artilery, napalm, etc against poorly armed VC and NVA, isnt that fascinating ?? Now imagine the great MP fun it would be like, you get to play VC hidden in the jungle with a simonov rifle and a couple hand grenades against the US military, unless they turn it into another BF vietnam, ewww...
Do you see the waste of technology already http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/rock.gif . We need decent oposition, and by that i mean well equiped military forces for balancing sakes, thats where the ruskies were perfect in OFP http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/smile_o.gif .

[gonk]

I am sure BIS will balance the forces, be it by shear numbers or you are part of a group that has been cut off due to factors beyond your control.

2010... I am thinking nukes&#33;&#33;&#33; That should even things up.

Besides as the prevous post mentioned I am sure the mod teams will come up with something to your liking. They will probably cover from 0 to 3010.. http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/biggrin_o.gif

[Cozza]

year 0.

I call this the Jesus mod

Mission One. Turn the water into wine.

Mission two. Have last meal

Mission three. Cary cross across Jeruselm

Mission four. Reincarnate in cave.

And thats all of the bible I remenber http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/smile_o.gif

[BlackScorpion]

Actually, Jesus was born 4-8 years before he was born ( http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/rock.gif ), and he died around 30 years... So that&#39;s about year 20 or so... Maybe 25?

[Krycek]

I prefer 2010 because I love all the new and hightech military "toys",besides if again is an fictional USA vs Russia conflict I wouldn&#39;t be worried about poor equipment for opposing side,Russia proved many times that is capable to produce good military hardware.

[bravo 6]

Future wars can be fight by a simple push of a red button..
you guys want that in ofp2? i dont&#33;

..so i think we will need all the old stuff in this new thing.

i like the new Technologie but the classics are always classics like Vietnam. Ill be glad if Nam is in OFP2 also if Gulf war style is in it too.

if we advance too much in Technologie we will only use guided missiles and no guerrilla&#33;

so .. dont advance too much in time.. or the magic will disapear. http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/wink_o.gif

[Krycek]

Well it depends,with today&#39;s military hardware it&#39;s possible to press a button and wipe out a city,country etc. but we still see on news tanks,apcs,warplanes,gunships and soldiers.
If it&#39;s in the near future it doesn&#39;t mean we&#39;ll fight with mechwarriors and ufo&#39;s.Remember it&#39;s 2010 not 2800 or so. http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/tounge_o.gif
In the near future the military will not change so much that conventional weapons like tanks and warplanes will be obsolete.
And from the screenies Ofp2 conflict will not be resolved with a press of a button.
http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/smile_o.gif

I agree the Nam and WW2 were classics but like someone said it&#39;s easier to make mods with those conflicts because there is enough material to start with,while if you want to create a modern mod with all the latest "toys" it will be somewhat difficult to find enough material or pics.

[Antichrist]

The point is that 2010 is not that far away and i real life there might be little or no changes to armed forces of different countries by the year 2010.

[SCFan42]

I don&#39;t really think that 2010 is a great idea either, especially with "conventional" warfare. A lot of the current U.S. technologies are superior to Russian counterparts in a convential warfare scheme, especially with stealth technologies and such. If there was a 2010 US vs. RU conventional war, I believe it&#39;d go a bit like this:
1 - Stealth Fighters (F/A-22s and/or F-35s) gain air superority and eliminate most SAM threats.
2 - Non-stealth aircraft move in and destroy the majority of Russian armor. Abrams mop up the rest of the armor.
3 - Mechanized infantry forces and remote-controlled robots take out the rest of the infantry.

[Madus_Maximus]

"Stealth" doesn&#39;t work I thought I&#39;d let you know. It can be picked up on 70&#39;s Soviet radar, and when it rains it doesn&#39;t work (at least on the F117&#39;s). Even the F-22&#39;s and F35&#39;s. I&#39;d really REALLY love to see an air campaign without using nukes and WMD&#39;s take out "most SAM threats". Russia has the most dense AA field on the planet. Why do you think NATO has so many "advanced" aircraft?

It&#39;ll be next to impossible to destroy the majority of Russian armour. They have more tanks than ALL of the NATO nations combined. The only way it&#39;d be feasable would be again, to use nukes.

Three letters... E.M.P. Set one off big enough and most American "superior" technology no longer works. Only "stealth" technology vehicles are able to withstand EMP because EMP&#39;s are on a similar wavelength to radar. That and it was first developed to deliver a nuclear warhead into enemy territory and they give off a HUGE EMP.

The USA could never take Russia without using WMD&#39;s. A ground war would be suicide against all their armour and infantry, an air war would be suicide with all their AA batteries, and a Naval assault almost impossible because of the lack of places to attack. As big as Russia is it doesn&#39;t have much of a coast line.

[gonk]

year 0.

I call this the Jesus mod

Mission One. Turn the water into wine.

Mission two. Have last meal

Mission three. Cary cross across Jeruselm

Mission four. Reincarnate in cave.

And thats all of the bible I remenber http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/smile_o.gif
I think there was a five...that mentions sometime about hell and how batdog is on the road to there ;-). lol

[Apollo]

By 2010 the USA will probably have more advanced drone&#39;s that cut down greatly on the needs of humans to wage war ,there are already airborne drones with limited weapons onboard and tracked ones armed with MG.

But then i think Ofp2 will just offer a wide range of comparable vehicle&#39;s on both side&#39;s just like it did in Ofp1 ,even in Ofp1 BIs balanced out the unit&#39;s for gameplay reasons ,T80 and Abrams had about same value&#39;s ,then there was M60 and T72 counterpart ,BMP2 and M2a2 ,vulcan and Shilka ,su25 and A10 and etc. ,if Bis understood the value of balanced side&#39;s in the past why wouldn&#39;t they implement it in the future?

By the time Ofp2 comes ot Btw most of the major mods wil have seen completion ,they wont probably take much work to Ofp2 ,so well probably be able to play practicly any time period by the time Ofp2 has come out for some month&#39;s.Ofp2 will also give more potential to those mods due to more soldiers being able to be on field at the same time ,deffinatly for infantry big wars like American civil war or WW1 this will be great.

So in the end i do not care to much about the game period ,I&#39;m confident that Bis will make it balanced and that the modding capabilety&#39;s and community progression will be there to allow us play Ofp2 in a wide variety of time periods.

[Cozza]

"Stealth" doesn&#39;t work I thought I&#39;d let you know. It can be picked up on 70&#39;s Soviet radar, and when it rains it doesn&#39;t work (at least on the F117&#39;s). Even the F-22&#39;s and F35&#39;s. I&#39;d really REALLY love to see an air campaign without using nukes and WMD&#39;s take out "most SAM threats". Russia has the most dense AA field on the planet. Why do you think NATO has so many "advanced" aircraft?

It&#39;ll be next to impossible to destroy the majority of Russian armour. They have more tanks than ALL of the NATO nations combined. The only way it&#39;d be feasable would be again, to use nukes.

Three letters... E.M.P. Set one off big enough and most American "superior" technology no longer works. Only "stealth" technology vehicles are able to withstand EMP because EMP&#39;s are on a similar wavelength to radar. That and it was first developed to deliver a nuclear warhead into enemy territory and they give off a HUGE EMP.

The USA could never take Russia without using WMD&#39;s. A ground war would be suicide against all their armour and infantry, an air war would be suicide with all their AA batteries, and a Naval assault almost impossible because of the lack of places to attack. As big as Russia is it doesn&#39;t have much of a coast line.
And i dont think the marines are that happy about landing in North Siberia http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/wink_o.gif



To all that dont like the seting this is for you, Make a mod of ya favorite period http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/wink_o.gif

[Kin Hil]

I love the idea of 2010, US & Russia. Although I don&#39;t like the idea of US vs Russia, the game can be easily modded into numerous modern conflicts...Iraq, Afghanistan, Chechnya.
And even some fictional but very possible conflicts.. like a Flashpoint in North Korea, Taiwan, Georgia, and whatever else.
With a little more work it can be modded into past conflicts, like Vietnam and WW2.
I wonder what the scenario is going to be though... its tuff thinking up a realistic way in which the US & Russia can become involved in a conflict together in this post-cold war era.
I just really hope they have a Resistence side included... and more countries on East and West than just US & Russia.
I also hope they include some weapons/vehicles in the game that are only prototypes now... because 2010 will most certainly bring some new goodies to the war scene and it will be disappointing if they&#39;re not included in the game.

[BravoBill]

I agree with Kin Hil. I think a US with Russia would be great.
It&#39;s actually not that hard to come up with conflict with the US and Russia. Take the current situation.

Putin is consolidating power and increasingly becoming more of a dictator. This has caused tension in Russia. A civil war is not too unlikely. Especially if it&#39;s triggered by outside forces. Take the Ukraine as an example of the political divide that could arise in Russia. Perhaps the Balkans heats up again. Serbs go on the attack. Half of Russian backs them, half doesn&#39;t. There you go instant conflict in Eastern Europe.

I would like to see some other conflict than US vs Russia but I think from a gameplay point of view it might not happen. After all, what equipment is the US likely to come up against in a conflict? You guessed it Russian. Since you&#39;ll most likely be shooting at Russian made equipment why not go directly to the source. At least that way you get to come against the newest equipment http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/smile_o.gif

[Antichrist]

As long as they make the same kind of dynamic campaign for the "other side" I will be happy.

[Sovietzug]

EEUU vs Rusia at 2010 &#33;&#33;?? I dude it &#33;

better EEUU vs China &#33;&#33;&#33; http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/biggrin_o.gif

[Ti0n3r]

The year 2010, US vs Russia is perfect.
And I&#39;m VERY happy it wont be the US vs Terrorists http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/biggrin_o.gif http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/smile_o.gif

[DM]

Three letters... E.M.P. Set one off big enough and most American "superior" technology no longer works. Only "stealth" technology vehicles are able to withstand EMP because EMP&#39;s are on a similar wavelength to radar. That and it was first developed to deliver a nuclear warhead into enemy territory and they give off a HUGE EMP.
Thats actually very wrong, and a lot of hardware is "hardened" against EMP, but this is not entirely effective.

Even "stealth" units will suffer the wrath of an EMP blast, unless they are properly hardened (using a Faraday cage or similar) to prevent the effects for actually reaching the equipment in question.

Could go off on a long rant/post about how it works, but that would be a bit too OT http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/wink_o.gif

[Bordoy]

Quote[/b] ]even in Ofp1 BIs balanced out the unit&#39;s for gameplay reasons ,T80 and Abrams had about same value&#39;s ,then there was M60 and T72 counterpart
Is that true?

In my view the M1A1 beats the T80, but the T72 beats the M60.

[Bordoy]

The point is that 2010 is not that far away and i real life there might be little or no changes to armed forces of different countries by the year 2010.
Thats true mate, most Small Arms are in service till at least 2010 now.

[baff]

Quote[/b] ]The USA could never take Russia without using WMD&#39;s. A ground war would be suicide against all their armour and infantry, an air war would be suicide with all their AA batteries, and a Naval assault almost impossible because of the lack of places to attack. As big as Russia is it doesn&#39;t have much of a coast line.

Not to mention the worlds largest submarine force.
Modern submarines can sink surface vessels with impunity from 600 miles away merely using conventional weapons. (let alone entire fleets with single nuclear armed ones).

Marine landings supported by carrier groups are all well and good against non naval nations, but with satelitte observation a carrier group on the open sea is a strategic disaster.

[Friedchiken]

I personally think both situation suck, 2010 being just wierd to play realistically, and Vietnam being a survival bore. Though I am itching for some user-made missions about the Nam Navy Seals. Ebud&#39;s mission the Taxman was awsome.

I just care that the devs will allow modding support for any era, including sci-fi realistic if need be. In fact, I would be happy with a WWII game as long as the devs give mod support to simulate all things modern to ancient. I just think that making the game with modern in mind is good because the dev&#39;s will directly solve any programming bugs hindering the simulation of modern equipment, rather than having to deal with final code that cannot be fixed after the game has gone gold.

Maybe I have too much faith in the modders who want to do older era&#39;s, but I&#39;m willing to gamble on the future of the BIS war franchise and on the community.

[xnodunitx]

I think if its gonna be staged in 2010 the equipment should be more advanced,by 2010 we would atleast have M1A3&#39;s,the soldiers would probably wear new helmets with a kind of ballistic shielding around their entire faces,and a bunch of other stuff,then again who knows... guess we&#39;ll have to wait till 2010 irl.

[Bordoy]

We need multiple gunpoints so we can fire out of a BMP while inside of it. But, 2010 sounds good

[Sputnik Monroe]

Sheesh you know 2010 is only four and a half years away. Look how much the worlds militaries have changed in 5 years. Has it really changed that much since 2000? I mean the M16 has been in service since the 60&#39;s  nearly all of NATO and Russia&#39;s aircraft since the 70s and 80s.  Do you really think that military technology is going to completely change in four and half years?

    I mean helmet changes? The M1 steel pot was used by the United states from about mid 1942 to the mid 80s before they went to the fritz. skip ahead 20 years and they are switching from the fritz to the MICH. Do you really think the the MICH will be replaced in the next four and half years?

[Bordoy]

Hopefully they don&#39;t add to many future weapons. I don&#39;t wanna see an XM-8, maybe a M-16A4 or something.

M1A2 Abrams and a M1A1 for when you first &#39;join&#39; the armoured corps.

Would like to see really what countries or groups of countries (eg EU, UN) will be in the game.

[funnyguy1]

Hopefully they don&#39;t add to many future weapons. I don&#39;t wanna see an XM-8, maybe a M-16A4 or something.

M1A2 Abrams and a M1A1 for when you first &#39;join&#39; the armoured corps.

Would like to see really what countries or groups of countries (eg EU, UN) will be in the game.
Feel invited to the discussion HERE (http://www.flashpoint1985.com/cgi-bin/ikonboard311/ikonboard.cgi?act=ST;f=56;t=45674;st=0)

I don`t know any other game, In which I could play with those fancy toys, made so realisticaly(?) as in ofp2.
The 2010 sounds good, besides, there could be a lot of fun.

Maybe they should left it to the spec op guys? Maybe some field tests? I don`t know.

As it had been said, in one part of the game you would be a spec op...so? dream on...

[Pathy]

Sputnik Monroe just said what i was thinking reading through this. What major differences have come into being between the year 2000 and now, military-wise? Not alot, for at least 90% of the worlds military activity its the, same tanks, same guns, same gear, same jeeps and trucks, same aircraft, same tactics....

Give it 4 1/2 more years and i dont expect anything ultra futuristic, maybe a new radio system here or there, a next generation of some gear like NVGs or whatever, but nothing major.

2010...just fine, as long as BIS dont get carried away on visions of the future, its not going to be hugely different at all.

[Bordoy]

Sputnik Monroe just said what i was thinking reading through this. What major differences have come into being between the year 2000 and now, military-wise? Not alot, for at least 90% of the worlds military activity its the, same tanks, same guns, same gear, same jeeps and trucks, same aircraft, same tactics....

Give it 4 1/2 more years and i dont expect anything ultra futuristic, maybe a new radio system here or there, a next generation of some gear like NVGs or whatever, but nothing major.

2010...just fine, as long as BIS dont get carried away on visions of the future, its not going to be hugely different at all.
Yep agreed there mate.

Can&#39;t see much changing in the current major armies of the world tbh (USA, UK, European Nations, Russia and China)

[baff]

Munitions are the fastest changing equipment currently.
They are using a lot of them and they get upgraded with each new batch.

Humvee&#39;s will be replaced too, since they have lost so many.
So far they have been replacing them with mothballed M113&#39;s.

M16&#39;s have just been replaced (last 3-4 years maybe?) by M4&#39;s, not OICW as Ghost Recon suggested, so they are here to stay for a while yet.
(How many rounds fired does it take to wear out a rifle, and how many does the average soldier fire a year? work that out and you will have a good idea when you will see the next generation of rifles coming into service in the U.S. )

[Icabola]

I would better see 2010 scenarios in OFP2.  http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/wink_o.gif

[Friedchiken]

"Stealth" doesn&#39;t work I thought I&#39;d let you know. It can be picked up on 70&#39;s Soviet radar, and when it rains it doesn&#39;t work (at least on the F117&#39;s). Even the F-22&#39;s and F35&#39;s. I&#39;d really REALLY love to see an air campaign without using nukes and WMD&#39;s take out "most SAM threats". Russia has the most dense AA field on the planet. Why do you think NATO has so many "advanced" aircraft?
I once talked to an Air Force Academy recruit (upcoming freshman) and he said that the myth that stealth tech is completely invisible or completely useless is a little bunk.

He said that what stealth tech on planes does is limit the end range of radar stations so that the far away signals never return to the dish. The tactical advantage to this is that it creates "holes" or "gaps" in the enemy&#39;s AA defense system allowing the stealth planes to move through the corridor of non-detection. The problem is that sometimes you can misjudge the enemy&#39;s AA capability on the map, and then a pilot gets blown away as he flys right over a unknown AA nest. It seems to require lots of planning to use stealth technology from my point of view.

Sorry I wanted to talk about this late in the discussion. I just thought the discussion was interesting.

But yeah, with those facts, the US could not touch Russia because the Russians understood how this technology worked and built a dense network of AA to render stealth useless.
In that case, unfortunately we can only rely on very "advanced" (fast with a crapload of chaffs) aircraft to completely waste money.

EDIT: I can&#39;t spell... How the hell did I just pass High School? Microsoft Word? Uh, that&#39;s actually it...


Quote[/b] ]M16&#39;s have just been replaced (last 3-4 years maybe?) by M4&#39;s, not OICW as Ghost Recon suggested, so they are here to stay for a while yet.
(How many rounds fired does it take to wear out a rifle, and how many does the average soldier fire a year? work that out and you will have a good idea when you will see the next generation of rifles coming into service in the U.S.
I heard that the M4 is nearly as accurate as the m16 and soldiers like it for the &#39;cool factor.&#39; But then I heard that the Marines keep the M16A2 for a good reason. I guess single shot selectors are still tactically viable for soldiers these days...

From the guns topic:

Quote[/b] ]Actually the Marines for the most part haven&#39;t bought into the M4 hype. They&#39;re moving to an M16A4 with the ACOG sight and a RIS (RAS?). Hopefully by 2010 the Army brightens up and realizes the M4 isn&#39;t all that effective past 75yds and they&#39;ll go back to the 20" barrel w/ a collapsible stock like the Canadians or they&#39;ll adopt the 6.8SPC as their new cartridge instead M855.
Well, I&#39;ll never claim to have any experience with guns. http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/smile_o.gif This is just a recent High School graduate whose family&#39;s only gun is a Daisy pellet gun with a crappy 2X telescoptic sight and rudimentary 3 tick iron sight.

EDIT2:: I might as well say that I have trouble using the said pellet gun to shoot a soda can at more than 13 meters

[Moving Target]

I once talked to an Air Force Academy recruit (upcoming freshman) and he said that the myth that stealth tech is completely invisible or completely useless is a little bunk.

He said that what stealth tech on planes does is limit the end range of radar stations so that the far away signals never return to the dish. The tactical advantage to this is that it creates "holes" or "gaps" in the enemy&#39;s AA defense system allowing the stealth planes to move through the corridor of non-detection. The problem is that sometimes you can misjudge the enemy&#39;s AA capability on the map, and then a pilot gets blown away as he flys right over a unknown AA nest. It seems to require lots of planning to use stealth technology from my point of view.
Eh? Stealth works by reflecting signals skywards or to the ground, anywhere but to the reciever. The coat of paint absorbs the Radar waves energy, reducing the "echo" that gets reflected.

OH, and 2010 sounds just perfect for OFP2. Far enough that there is going to be some optimism about what is going to be around, but close enough that there is some realism.

[Aeronautico]

What was wrong with the 80&#39;s?

http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/rock.gif

[ebns72]

What was wrong with the 80&#39;s?

http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/rock.gif
nothing. They&#39;ve just been done already http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/smile_o.gif

[harley 3 1185]

Let&#39;s face it, the difference between CWC and the game world isn&#39;t going to be that geat from the sound of things. 1985=Cold War. 2010=New Cold War, which means West vs East, as before. Bliss.

I wouldn&#39;t have minded Vietnam in the OFP2 engine though-guess I&#39;ll have to wait for the follow-up to SebNam 2.0 http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/biggrin_o.gif

[Friedchiken]

I once talked to an Air Force Academy recruit (upcoming freshman) and he said that the myth that stealth tech is completely invisible or completely useless is a little bunk.

He said that what stealth tech on planes does is limit the end range of radar stations so that the far away signals never return to the dish. The tactical advantage to this is that it creates "holes" or "gaps" in the enemy&#39;s AA defense system allowing the stealth planes to move through the corridor of non-detection. The problem is that sometimes you can misjudge the enemy&#39;s AA capability on the map, and then a pilot gets blown away as he flys right over a unknown AA nest. It seems to require lots of planning to use stealth technology from my point of view.
Eh? Stealth works by reflecting signals skywards or to the ground, anywhere but to the reciever. The coat of paint absorbs the Radar waves energy, reducing the "echo" that gets reflected.
I guess this sorta deals with how effective radar will be in the game. http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/wink_o.gif

Well, I never thought about that point. That would have been a nice question to ask him. He&#39;s hoping to become a F-22 pilot so I&#39;m sure he would have thought of it.

But my uneducated guess is that if the radar dish distance is close, you can&#39;t help it when a stray wave actually returns to reciever, catching the interest of the AA personel. Now I don&#39;t know if that&#39;s true (no idea other from the conversation) but I just think that any technology is not totally perfect when it hits the battlefield. I read about some Pavelow pilot rescues during the Gulf War, but I can&#39;t remember how the pilot got himself in that situation...

[Madus_Maximus]

I once talked to an Air Force Academy recruit (upcoming freshman) and he said that the myth that stealth tech is completely invisible or completely useless is a little bunk.

He said that what stealth tech on planes does is limit the end range of radar stations so that the far away signals never return to the dish.  The tactical advantage to this is that it creates "holes" or "gaps" in the enemy&#39;s AA defense system allowing the stealth planes to move through the corridor of non-detection.  The problem is that sometimes you can misjudge the enemy&#39;s AA capability on the map, and then a pilot gets blown away as he flys right over a unknown AA nest.  It seems to require lots of planning to use stealth technology from my point of view.
Eh?  Stealth works by reflecting signals skywards or to the ground, anywhere but to the reciever.  The coat of paint absorbs the Radar waves energy, reducing the "echo" that gets reflected.
I guess this sorta deals with how effective radar will be in the game.  http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/wink_o.gif

Well, I never thought about that point.  That would have been a nice question to ask him.  He&#39;s hoping to become a F-22 pilot so I&#39;m sure he would have thought of it.

But my uneducated guess is that if the radar dish distance is close, you can&#39;t help it when a stray wave actually returns to reciever, catching the interest of the AA personel.  Now I don&#39;t know if that&#39;s true (no idea other from the conversation) but I just think that any technology is not totally perfect when it hits the battlefield.  I read about some Pavelow pilot rescues during the Gulf War, but I can&#39;t remember how the pilot got himself in that situation...
Maybe his engine failed and was forced to crash land? American helicopter engines are quite well known for their... kinks. I think more Blackhawks have been lost to engine failure than been shot down, which isn&#39;t a good record for something 80% of the US Military ride around in (well one version or another... Seahawk uses a different engine that copes with wet conditions better, and is generally a better engine). In Mogadishu they lost 5 Blackhawks that day. Two were shot down, and three had engine failures. One managed to make it back to base and crash land but the others went down around the edges of the city I think... ok they lost 4, 1 was repaired.

[Jakerod]

Quote[/b] ]In Mogadishu they lost 5 Blackhawks that day. Two were shot down, and three had engine failures. One managed to make it back to base and crash land but the others went down around the edges of the city I think... ok they lost 4, 1 was repaired.

Atleast 3 of them were shot down. The two in the movie and then one more took a hit to the engine but managed to get to a safe zone before crashing.

[Antichrist]

What was wrong with the 80&#39;s?

http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/huh.gif
They sort of sucked&#33; http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/tounge2.gif

[RavenDK]

Guys.. 2010 any day and why? well we all allready seen the 60&#39;s 70&#39;s and 80&#39;s a current date game is nice to see.


Modmakers will be with OFP2 so dont you worry

[EiZei]

For those about bitching 2010, well, this new ghost recon 2 expansion pack (summit strike) will be set in 2012: http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/crazy_o.gif

http://www.gamespot.com/xbox....?page=8 (http://www.gamespot.com/xbox/action/ghostrecon2summitstrike/screens.html?page=8)
http://www.gamespot.com/xbox....?page=9 (http://www.gamespot.com/xbox/action/ghostrecon2summitstrike/screens.html?page=9)
http://www.gamespot.com/xbox....?page=2 (http://www.gamespot.com/xbox/action/ghostrecon2summitstrike/screens.html?page=2)

[The Frenchman]

As long as the 2010 campaign won&#39;t be a generic War on Terror crapfest than I&#39;ll like it. http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/xmas_o.gif

[bravo 6]

Vietnam is a Classic&#33;
Should not be removed&#33; http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/mad_o.gif

EDIT:

http://www.vietnampix.com/bilder/face2a.jpg

http://images-eu.amazon.com/images/P/B00009P50V.03.LZZZZZZZ.jpg

<span style='color:grey'><span style='font-size:23pt;line-height:100%'>Vietnam is a Classic&#33;</span></span> <span style='color:black'><span style='font-size:19pt;line-height:100%'>Don&#39;t Change it&#33;</span></span>

#vote: Vietnam Should not be removed.

Im sure if BIS dont creat Vietnam for OFP2* there will be patches for Vietnam for sure. (so no worries for the Nam lovers)
Im sorry if you guys play those stupid games and your already bored with Vietnam (no game is compared to OFP), But being a Classic is a Fact&#33;
Don&#39;t try to change it.

If BIS are changing plans it might be because OFP2* release was delayed.
What If they dont release OFP2* untill the end of 2006? Are we still going to have present wars in game&#33; :yammer:

How modern is it going to be? Hope not that modern, cause i dont want to have a missile fight only. "Modern Wars" will be like this. :nuke:

I think most OFP players want guerrilla war and not missile fight.

PS- Im sure BIS know&#39;s what they are doing http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/wink_o.gif i will trust them even if NAM doesnt come in OFP2*

GO BIS&#33; http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/notworthy.gif

Edit2: ok dude http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/smile_o.gif

[Ti0n3r]

Yepp, &#39;Nam wont be in OFP2.
Back in june 2001 when I purchased OFP, I didnt buy it becouse of the mods or the addons http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/wink_o.gif .
I bought it becouse it involved realistic fighting in a european land scape.

It&#39;s too late to change back now. And there will be at least one exelent Vietnam mod for OFP2 anyway.

Edit: If the game is going to be about the war on terror then PLEASE think twice BIS. Im tierd of it.
One of the best things about OFP was that it was balanced. It feelt like real war. It wont feel like war if we are suposed to kill braindead terrorist armed with AK47&#39;s. IMO a conflict betwen the US and Russia is the perfect theme for OFP2.

[Placebo]

bravo 6 remove image tags when quoting please http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/smile_o.gif

[firedrake]

At least with 2010 the Ka-50 (V-80)will seem believeable it wasn&#39;t adopted by the Russian Federation until 1996. So no Mi28N Havocs either since they went with the former not the latter. Although they could be sold to other countries maybe.

[therealFerox]

i hoped it would be around 2005.. in actual time.. but i dont really care.. http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/smile_o.gif i like 2010 more than 70... waaay to many games based on wwii/nam these days, so its good that some games goes modern http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/smile_o.gif
dont worry.... 2010 wont be much different then now anyways in terms of military technology and combat tactics rofl... its only in 4 and a half years :P.


I personally would prefer more 1980s cold war stuff. Thats what I loved about op flash because every stupid developr and their mother has jumped on the ww2 fps bandwagon in the last 6 years, and now the vietnam bandwagon.

[ninjatek]

2010 is so close to now it&#39;s basically not sci-future. But does give way for concept vehicles, weapons and story line. I&#39;m thinking they chose 2010 because the idea of war on terror should have pretty much run it&#39;s course and new global comflicts of super powers could resurface. It would probably be a 3 way super powers battle NATO vs. China. vs. Russia. And 5 more years give cause to allow Russia to gets it military act back together and be a more modern threat again, not that it isn&#39;t already. China&#39;s war technology development is nothing to sneeze at.

Using NATO insteadl of just the US it allows them to reuse some of the stuff from Aussie, UK, etc. they developed already for VBS. Howerver I&#39;m just guessing here of course.

It may even have to deal with the oil crisis that will only get worste by that time, and a war over oil would NOT include the middle east countries as much as the US, Russia and China again. Check out the documentary movie "Oil Storm".

Then again it may just be another rogue General Guba again
http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/tounge2.gif All is speculation.

[Reclus3]

I dont think it really matters what year or location they choose to make the game with. I mean think about it for a second. Almost everything you can possible want in a game is available somehow or another now in OFP why would it be different in ArmA?

Im sure if you want a Vietnam or WWII sim one will be available for ArmA sooner or later. The only thing to complain about would be that it wont be there when the game ships.

In all honesty it does not really matter what the game has when it ships, because IMHO OFP has the best modding community around. I have yet to play a game that has more passionate modders than this game here. And simply its the only thing that has probably kept us around along as we have been.

[firedrake]

The only trouble with the latest military technology is that its classified or speculation. Will I see a realistic T-95 or BTR-90 or will they use the same unrealistic armour system from OFP1.

At least with the 80&#39;s most information can be obtained about military hardware and organisation.

With the US being the only real superpower at the moment and probably in 2010 it seems rather one sided.

[gandalf the white]

With the US being the only real superpower at the moment and probably in 2010 it seems rather one sided.
If Iran keeps their act up it looks like we might be able to add another country to that list... http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/crazy_o.gif http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/tounge2.gif

[firedrake]

What list, its just the USA.

http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Superpower

[bigsouth1981]

Oh here we go, here comes the anti war brigade......... http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/mad_o.gif

Anyhow back to the subject, I think its great that they are not going to use a Vietnam setting, its all been done before and its stale and boring. Using a semi fictional conflict set in 2010 gives everyone from the BIS, to the players (ie: us) to the modders a huge spectrum to play with. Just thnk of all the technology we have now and in the near future that could be incorperated via mods and modding, its fucking mind boggling.
Also, it gives great opportunity to include countries such as russia who are now allies (well in a fashion). For example it&#39;d be a strange twist of fate to play as a russian soldier, on the allies side (uk and usa) fighting a scenario in say Chechnya, whilst the Uk and Usa are coming in from the west.
All hypothetical of course but its worth a think about it.

http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/pistols.gif

[crave22]

I agree with bigsouth. If the game is set in 2010, it also allows BIS more creativity in drawing up who is on what side. Everyone is stuck thinking in the Cold War with US vs. Russia. What if Russia becomes an ally of the US in 2007? What if it&#39;s NATO w/ Russia vs. say, the "Asian Alliance" (N. Korea, China, Vietnam, etc.) or something like that. It gives alot of room to think about what can be done with the story.

[ninjatek]

Anybody catch the news about the joint war games between Russia and China this last week? "Sending a clear message to the West" so the reporter says.

US would have a tuff fight on their hands going up against China or Russia in a conventional war. China and Russia allied together against NATO would be very interesting indeed.  Combined they out produce the US in weapons. Ya we may have the superior technology, but remember WW2? The German&#39;s had superior technology but it was only because of our mass production capabilities that allowed us to beat them. Same thing.  As I remember a documentary of a Tiger Tank creman saying that they could easily take on 10 american tanks, but there always seemed to be an eleventh.

[xnodunitx]

Technology itself isn&#39;t gonna get ya everywhere,an AH-1T could be just as effective as an AH-1W or Z,depending upon the crew one can be more effective or the older can be more effective than the other.

[Batukhan]

Sure, but the probablity of the newer one succeeding is higher.. That&#39;s what military equipment is all about, raising the probabilty of soldiers surviving, so they could kill more.

[crave22]

Yeah. Plus, US military doctrine these days concentrates on smaller groups of Spec Ops with full air support going in to cause chaos. It&#39;s more conventional tactics deal with a massive air assault, the raids I mentioned, and then a land invasion. When it comes to the air assault, I wouldn&#39;t want to be a Chinese or Russian MiG up against an F22. No matter how many MiGs there are, all of China&#39;s MiGs have outdated hardware. The only thing that would probably work would be their guns since the F22 is stealth and has paint which reduces it&#39;s heat signature. That makes radar-guided missiles and heat-seekers useless. Plus, don&#39;t forget about the B-2. It takes luck just to see it at night. However, if the US didn&#39;t use it&#39;s air power and just did a mass ground attack, we&#39;d get creamed. Getting back on topic, that would also be a pretty good scenario for "Game 2". Although, it seems a little suspicious that Russia and China are co-operating, since a couple years ago they were at each other&#39;s throats... http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/confused_o.gif

[breaker44]

The quality of training is also higher in NATO countries than former Warsaw-pact and eastern nations, which still use the soviet doctrine of overwhelming, massed fire and attacks using combined arms.
But, it would be interesting to see the new, downsized US military take on the old tactics.
-Breaker Out

[Metal Heart]

Quote[/b] ]The only thing that would probably work would be their guns since the F22 is stealth and has paint which reduces it&#39;s heat signature. That makes radar-guided missiles and heat-seekers useless.

I don&#39;t think the paint cools down the jet engines&#39; exhaust which the heat seekers lock-on to and I don&#39;t think that radars rely on heat signatures.

[xnodunitx]

Sometimes a certain paint will reduce a radar signature,black or something like that,a special kind,anyway usually to reduce exhaust heat signatures you would need exhaust bufflers,for instance what the AH-64 in real life has on the back of the engines are exhaust buffelers which would reduce its heat signature.

[Jakerod]

Quote[/b] ]US would have a tuff fight on their hands going up against China or Russia in a conventional war. China and Russia allied together against NATO would be very interesting indeed.


Quote[/b] ] What if it&#39;s NATO w/ Russia

Russia is part of NATO now just to let you know

[crave22]

Actually, according to this (http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Nato#Member_states) Russia is not a member of NATO. It is a member of the UN and several other organizations which deal with international matters, but not NATO. http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/smile_o.gif

@<hidden> Heart
I also mentioned it is stealth. This of course means radar-guided missiles are usually useless against it. However, if the F-22 uses an active radar instead of passive, radar-guided can be used. But anymore GPS is used for aircraft to navigate, which can&#39;t be locked on to by radar. http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/smile_o.gif

[Jinef]

I don&#39;t see much of a difference. The fundamentals are still the same between now and then.

Look at today&#39;s conflict, Iraq, and compare it with Vietnam.

BLUFOR = Offensive Force
OPFOR = Oppositional Force

Comparison:

OPFOR side has little weaponry.
OPFOR has little technology.
OPFOR  has to use local populus to support it&#39;s war effort.
OPFOR resorts to bombing behind BLUFOR lines for max effect.
OPFOR relies on superior manpower to end the war.
OPFOR leads a costly war with many dead.

BLUFOR side has little weaponry.
BLUFOR relies on high technology.
BLUFOR uses great mobility and firepower to overcome OPFOR.
BLUFOR destroys lines of supplies from countries/populus.
BLUFOR has limited manpower.
BLUFOR has very low casualties.

The tactics are exactly the same, the weapons are just as effective. Nothing really changes from a tactical standpoint.

The main difference between one situation and the other is:

BLUFOR cannot kill as many civilians as they would like to.
BLUFOR has learnt from experience how to reduce casualties.

The battle doctrine hasn&#39;t really changed either.

If you fear casualties : Enemy contact front 300 metres. Fix the enemy with suppresive fire. Call in airstrikes/mortars to destroy the enemy.

If your force ratio is 3:1 : Enemy contact front 300 metres. One/Two sections fix with suppresive fire. Three section moves to < 100M. Two section moves to < 100M. One section disengages. Two/Three sections move to ENY positions to destroy ENY with rifle/bayonet/fragmention grenades.

-----------------------------------------------------------

Of course people can create mods to show different eras however the fundamentals have remained the same since the Germans created infantry &#39;tactics&#39; in WW2.

Before then the general idea was to get up from your position with bayonets fixed and walk slowly towards the ENY. Despite any ENY MG fire.

Anyway, I don&#39;t want BIS to spend time making vehicles and guns. I want them to focus on functionality and realism so that MP works and people are immersed.


Edit: Grammar

[crave22]

As do I. Leave it to the mod teams to make the amazing weaponry and vehicles.

Now, about these tactics mentioned...
It is true that in almost every conflict in modern history, the BLUFOR has been armed with the better weaponry and OPFOR with more men. This is mostly because it&#39;s usually an east vs. west situation. eastern tactics have always involved huge movements of troops. I do admit, most modern eastern nations have much higher tech than usual, but they still pale in comparison to the western nations.

However, let&#39;s replace BLUFOR with something else. Let&#39;s look at it from Russia&#39;s point of view in the 70s and 80s. They, of course, knew it as REDFOR vs. OPFOR, US obviously being the planned OPFOR. Essentially, it was a role reversal; REDFOR being the invaders, OPFOR being the defenders. However, REDFOR would have less tech to more men and OPFOR (what most of you know as BLUFOR) would be more tech to less men.

If that war occured, it wouldn&#39;t really fit in to the OPFOR/BLUFOR (or REDFOR) genre. It would be a completely new genre of it&#39;s own: BLUFOR/REDFOR. Neither invading or defending. Neither with an explicit advantage. Both of them being equals balancing each other out. That&#39;s what I want G2 to be. Not high tech vs. low tech. High tech vs. lower tech. Personally, that would be fun. Two superpowers duking it out at FULL strength. Unlike OFP in that way (since OFP was more or less an isolated incident). That would be fun to me. Two modern superpowers duking it out in an all out war.

[Jinef]

What you describe is essentially what OFP1&#39;s campaign could be given more real circumstances/force sizes. CWC was about REDFOR advancing on islands OPFOR was defending with small numbers of troops. However in OFP1 they were on relatively equal tech terms and troop numbers.

What 1985 CWC and elements of OFP:R could be in a modern game engine:

Situation:

AO: Island 1 (60*60km/3600 sq km). Due to upset in the government of this Island a coup was launched and a person appealed to the USSR to help them transfer to socialism/communism. US troops (1 Coy US Marines) stationed near the island are ordered to deploy just offshore IOT to respond if requested by the former goverment.

USSR decides to aid the transfer over to communism and deploys troops.

Inital Phase:

Large REDFOR (2x Battalions Airborne) sent to occupy and stabilise island 1 IOT to allow transfer to different political system. They land at airport to North.

US Marines land on south of island.

ROE for both sides: Weapons hold, only return fire if fired upon.

Mission REDFOR:

Provide security as new government forms, deter BLUFOR intervention by limiting all movement in the north. Set up a defensive line to south in case BLUFOR uses force. Do not provoke BLUFOR.

Taskings: Checkpoints, Patrols, Sentry Duty, Escort, House to house searches for weapons/explosives.

Mission BLUFOR

Set up defensive positions in case REDFOR attacks. Begin hearts and minds campaign to remove civil support from new government. Do not provoke REDFOR. Provide security for personnel tasked to contact members of former government to try and re-establish democratic governement.

------------------

Well as long as the highly trained soldiers of both super powers have orders for weapons hold things should go smoothly and the best political system best at winning support shall win, right?

-------------------

Viva Le Resistance&#33;  

Rebel groups form that support REDFOR intentions.
Rebel groups form that support BLUFOR intentions.
Rebel groups form that do not like foreigners at all.

Actions:

Bombings - Car Bombs, Bombing CPs, bombing other rebels.
Hit and run. - Attacking BLUFOR/REDFOR convoys
Hostage taking.
Sabotage.

------------------------

Pretty volatile situation, BLUFOR and REDFOR on a big standoff. With hostile actions against both in between. Obviously each side believes the other is recruiting people to attack them; maybe they are, but we infantry are not classified at that level though http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/tounge2.gif

So, the time bomb is ticking. The politicians are being fucking useless as always. Most of them have been taken hostage so it&#39;s hard to get them all together for a discussion anyway. You are left with an island full of rebels and 2 super power&#39;s military units.

The balance:

The REDFOR has like 1200 regular troops. Supported with:
light armour
light artillery
3 helicopters - 2X Mil-24D, 1X Mil-8 Hip
motorised pool.
Attachment of 10 spetnatz operators.

Radios are available from Bn HQ down to PL HQ. Squad Leaders need to shout and hand signal intentions. They need to send a runner to platoon HQ for message delivery if it comes to that.

The BLUFOR has roughly 200 troops. The platoon leaders have a night imaging device, they have radio comms to each squad leader. Infantry are issued with an NBC suit as the enemy has many gas mortar rounds. The company has starlight night vision devices to mount on machine guns in static fire roles.

The coy is supported by:
Troop Landing Ship
Supply Ship
Light Frigate
Pl 81mm Mortar Sections. (300 Rounds)
Pl 60mm Mortar Sections. (2000 rounds)
Offshore 105mm naval artillery fire (2000 rounds)
2 AH-1 Marine Cobras
2 HH-60 SeaHawks
1 CH46 Sea Knight
A USMC Force Recon Sniper Unit (8 men)

In 3 weeks an aircraft carrier with several supply ships will be on station providing air cover/cas. If your company is alive in 3 weeks.

-------------------------------

As long as this remained conventional warfare without expanding to other theatres or going nuclear I think it could be fairly plausible and also tricky to decide as to how it would end. In reality it just wouldn&#39;t happen, BLUFOR would dissapear in the night denying they were ever near the Island, much better to have a tiny island go communist than
-200 military personnel in the BLUFOR public eye.

The campaign as a soldier could be showing the tensions of holding a fragile peace together, then slowly becoming more volatile where the player has to really think about whether he should take the safety off or not. Other situtations could be trying to stop the rebel actions while not provoking REDFOR.  Missions to capture rebel leaders, house searches for weapons, arrests, looking for suspected rebels on patrols all under the watchful eye of the nice man sitting behind the 12.7mm machine gun on the other side of the minefield.

The campaign as a commander could be very interesting. Deciding where to defend. Looking for the best positions. Giving your soldiers ROE which reflect your directives from Washington. Hell, you could suprise attack the REDFOR garrison and kill them all if you want to get it over with quick. However chances of success are below 0%.

You could also go after the rebels with no remorse.

However all the time, either playing as a commander, soldier or civilian. You understand that without warning war could start.

REDFOR could use 82mm mortars to drop gas on the US forces positions, then use mechanised infantry to close in under a screen of smoke and proximity fused 82mm rounds.

Or the BLUFOR could have a sniper team assasinate the enemy Rgt. CO (Guba possibly http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/biggrin_o.gif) and use a cruise missile with cluster bomblets to disable the ENY aircraft and runway.

Whatever. However I think this campaign would be a nice mix of fragile tension and full scale conflict. I&#39;m sure I heard BIS wanted some more peacekeeping style gameplay somewhere.

Edit: Mathematical error

[echo1]

No matter how many MiGs there are, all of China&#39;s MiGs have outdated hardware. The only thing that would probably work would be their guns since the F22 is stealth and has paint which reduces it&#39;s heat signature. That makes radar-guided missiles and heat-seekers useless. Plus, don&#39;t forget about the B-2. It takes luck just to see it at night.
If a MiG got close enough to an F/A-22 it would easily be able to get a lock. With the wide proliferation of modern manerouverable missiles such as the AA-11, it wouldn&#39;t be impossible to shoot down an F-22. The Raptor isn&#39;t invisible, it just merely has a higher chance of getting the first shot, which is really what air combat comes down to. As for the B2, the newest Russian SAMs are aparently able to get a lock, and they&#39;d be dead meat if they were intercepted by fighters. Thats why the US only use them at night.

[Sabin Stargem]

2010: Perdition of Sara, alternate scenario

In 2010, China and Russia form an alliance and begin attempts to expand their territories, with emphasis placed upon conquering Europe and taking Japan and Taiwan. The United States and Canada are unable to prevent this, because China halted all exportations of goods to the Western Hemisphere. Suddenly left without the goods that China manufactures, and that the United States and Canada are incapable of producing many goods themselves, they play relatively little role in the conflict, due to negotiations over restablishing the economic ties that China has severed.

At present however, the defenders against the Eastern Star Alliance turn to the black market for weapons and mercenaries. Without the West&#39;s support, it is a neccessary measure. These events could very well result in World War III. An important campaign takes place on an island code-named Sara. It has certain qualities that could turn the tide of the war, by a fair amount. Every bit helps, and this is where our story takes place.

The Perdition of Sara...in stores, 2006.


*False, unlikely scenario. Just made something that I felt that could sound different from all of the &#39;US vs Russia&#39; scenarios people think of.

[duck_rat]

Wouldn&#39;t it be more realistic if it was Korea and China seeing as both these nations are communist and Russia isn&#39;t?

[hundwerfer]

the game&#39;s set in the future

the soldiers are seen wearing interceptor armor...they&#39;re fighting the russians, they are using modern weaponry and vehicles

[duck_rat]

The soldiers infact are wearing SPEAR body armour which is unrealistic because it was made for special forces, therefore they SHOULD be wearing Interceptor. Moreover because it is set in the future the Army should really have MICH helmets and ACU pattern uniforms.

[Richmuel]

The Thing that made OFP so special was that it was fictional yet believable. I think you need two well equipped armies. At the moment the Americans and UK seem to be singled out by the rest of the europeans. Maybe a scret conflict on yet another &#39;islan between them and europeans. Two well equipped modern armies. It would be alot of conspiracy with a secret conflict none of the world knew about. Can&#39;t think of a reason they would fiight.

[Llauma]

The soldiers infact are wearing SPEAR body armour which is unrealistic because it was made for special forces, therefore they SHOULD be wearing Interceptor. Moreover because it is set in the future the Army should really have MICH helmets and ACU pattern uniforms.
As I&#39;ve said before this is a full scale war scenario against a strong opponent so things don&#39;t always follow the rules. The soldiers would be using anything they can get their hands on.

The majority of a few million(?) soldiers wouldn&#39;t be using ACU pattern and MICH helmets, at least not when the war begins. After all it&#39;s not really the future, only four years ahead in time. How much has a US soldier changed since 2001 even though they have been in war which normally accelerates the development?

[duck_rat]

I suppose so, but if a quick reaction force was sent I think they would get the latest gear for deployment. As seen in Iraq troops are receiving the newest equipment so these would come up at some point in the game.

[BraTTy]

I am not so hot with a 2010 theme,depends on how futuristic it is.Sounds like they will have to balance the sides and it can&#39;t be realistic.I&#39;d like it as realistic as possible and on that note...how does Bis really know how technology advanced a country like USA is,the citizens hardly know.I trust Bis judgement and they will make it fun and realistic I am sure.

As long as its moddable for other eras,alot of you say Vietnam and WWII has been done,but not good like Bis could do it.I still think someday they should make OFP a all era war simulator,that would be intense.
I still dream of Pacific Scenario in OFP,thats some good fighting back then.

[PainDealer]

I am not so hot with a 2010 theme,depends on how futuristic it is.
well, 2010 is just around the corner only 4 years away http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/biggrin_o.gif

[duck_rat]

I am not so hot with a 2010 theme,depends on how futuristic it is.Sounds like they will have to balance the sides and it can&#39;t be realistic.I&#39;d like it as realistic as possible and on that note...how does Bis really know how technology advanced a country like USA is,the citizens hardly know.I trust Bis judgement and they will make it fun and realistic I am sure.

As long as its moddable for other eras,alot of you say Vietnam and WWII has been done,but not good like Bis could do it.I still think someday they should make OFP a all era war simulator,that would be intense.
I still dream of Pacific Scenario in OFP,thats some good fighting back then.
I understand what you&#39;re saying, seeing that in the present day the US is the only real superpower and the countries associated with it. It would be a lot more realistic if they did a scenario which would be comparable with conflicts such as the Vietnam War and the recent Iraq war; the US/NATO invading a country they consider to be a walk-over and don&#39;t expect much resistance. Then the shit hits the fan which is similar to what happened in Iraq and Vietnam and it turns into a full scale conflict between local rebels and the US/NATO. As we have seen from both these wars, just because the rebels are ill-equipped and ill-trained dosn&#39;t mean they are an inadequate enemy for professional armed forces.

[NeMeSiS]

I am not so hot with a 2010 theme,depends on how futuristic it is
Back in 2001, did you call 2005 "futuristic"?
really, 2010 isnt that far away  http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/wink_o.gif

[funnyguy1]

I think testing the xm8 in game wouldn`t be a problem for ppl who don`t like to much speculation about the future gear.
I mean, come on, of course there won`t be any revolutionary changes, but changes are indispensable.

Besides, in comparison to what we have in CWC even equipment used nowdays seems to be futuristic...

[BraTTy]

2010 isn&#39;t that far away, 2 years of electronics can be alot tho.Are we just gonna sit there with spy sats and launch long range bombs?
And by saying its 2010 ,Bis can technology advance an enemy to fight againts who? The USA? China,Russia? Can&#39;t go creating imaginary wars,too much controversy.
Sounds like it may be 2 imaginary superpowers

[Llauma]

2010 isn&#39;t that far away, 2 years of electronics can be alot tho.Are we just gonna sit there with spy sats and launch long range bombs?
And by saying its 2010 ,Bis can technology advance an enemy to fight againts who? The USA? China,Russia? Can&#39;t go creating imaginary wars,too much controversy.
Sounds like it may be 2 imaginary superpowers
Why would we suddenly start launching long range bombs/missiles? We have had cruise missiles since 1917.

95% will look just the same as now. The thing that might change a little are the percentage of the different weapons/vehicles.

If there will be full scale war in 2010 I&#39;m sure that there are some military people making up the plans for the first strike as we speak. Those plans doesn&#39;t include any new super weapons but the same units we see in Iraq today.

All the armoured vehicles, helo&#39;s, planes and transports will be basically the same. They might maybe add some lighther armor platings to some transport vehicles but that&#39;s pretty much it.
Making it 2010 allows BIS to add the Osprey and the F-35 without people complaining and vice versa, but they will most likely play a small role. The F-16 and A-10 will still be the main planes in the USAF. The Osprey won&#39;t replace the sea king and sea stallion by 2010.

[JdB]

The state the modern (and in the near future) Russian armed forces are in makes them no worthy opponent to the US, which is a far more modern force (just look at the &#39;&#39;elite&#39;&#39; soldiers that shot up entire groups of women and children in Beslan, barely trained bunch of conscripts). The Chinese would be a more logical choice (also to finally rid us of the constant US vs Russia plot that BIS apperantly loves so much) as their armed forces are expanding like crazy.

[Mr_Tea]

Not only the Chinese Armed Forces are expanding like crazy. Theire economy is doing the same, with that the demands expanding like crazy. Right now as we speak, there are not only plans that made fore a future war. The armies going to set in tactical positions right now. US and China are trying to "control" lands with natural resources. I´m realy afraid of the complete stage of this, because we know only very little about the hole thing. Sooner or later this can only lead to armed conflict between America and China. http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/sad_o.gif
God help us all.

[JdB]

The same was said of the USSR, but we never actually fought with them in a full scale war (we as in the &#39;&#39;free&#39;&#39; West).

[Mr_Tea]

Time will tell, and i hope that i`m wrong about that, realy.

[guyguy1]

I&#39;m all for the China vs USA idea for this game. Just seems realistic because of all the tension building between the two nations right now and since they&#39;re basically the strongest countries in the world.

[Llauma]

Keep in mind that BIS said that USA would win the war in the end so It&#39;s probably not China as the outcome wouldn&#39;t be that certain. My bet is that it&#39;s about a conflict in the middle east, USA vs. Iran. Russian still has to show that they have military capabilities so they attack some neighbouring country. This will get EU involved in the conflict hence the Russian units and european terrain.

[Raptor]

nice bonus campaign would be a balcan conflict with KFOR units or other freedom conflicts, example SFOR...

for a Addon (like resistance) maybe? http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/smile_o.gif

[ziiip]

Maybe Arabian forces united under Pakistan&#39;s banner vs USA and Russia. It would be nice, Pakistan has a suspicius nuclear program atm anyways.

[Sovietzug]

If you know economic system you can see that Russia need sells weapon equal than USA and if there is a war between China (+ assian or latinamerican alliance) and USA (+ OTAN) is very possible that Russia will be allie of China.

It is possible. Actually China and Russia are making modern war simulations exercises. In asians country the weapons are ex-sovietics. And China has own weapons.

Or Asia, or eastern europe can be good place to a futurist international war confrotation.

And i think Russia need international market as USA and Europe and China and in this capitalism. I don&#39;t believe in a USA-Russia coalition if USA attack China or if continue making operations in the ex-sovietic&#39;s influence area.

[Feliks]

I like the idea of 2010, but maybe not more American vs. Russian combat. I think a nice setting would be Central Asia/Eurasia, not many games have been done there. And the reason I liked BAS&#39;s Tonal campaign was because the sides were quite an alternative to NATO vs. USSR.

I think maybe a war in proxy between Russia and the US, conflict in a small Eurasian state that goes high-intensity, both sides being equipped with high tech weapons but you are still not an American or Russian.

[Sniper Pilot]

I think 2010 is good for me, not too old, not too futuristic and with enough room for a fictional conflict, im curious has from where will the enemy forces be, Asia? Speculation begins http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/tounge2.gif .
man what are we going to do in the future... man when all the newer generations love their new Comscan stuff...

And as i do recall, arn&#39;t the russains in Game 2? the screenshots seem to support so...
Heres one of them (Notice the flag?)
Russian Game2 pic (http://img.gamespot.com/gamespot/images/2005/138/914623_20050519_screen025.jpg)

[Jakerod]

They could be friendly though. I really don&#39;t know who I want the OPFOR to be in this game.

[AfrographX]

I&#39;d really like to see some 1980s type scenario. This modern stuff involves too much high-tec in my opinion. Keep it simple and more challanging without GPS, mini-computers, etc.

[Jakerod]

I&#39;d really like to see some 1980s type scenario. This modern stuff involves too much high-tec in my opinion. Keep it simple and more challanging without GPS, mini-computers, etc.
I would also prefer the 1980s type of scenario but I highly doubt they would change that now. Maybe we could do a mod or something for that.

[AfrographX]

Haven&#39;t followed the ArmAs coverage so closely, but judging from the latest screens it needs a 1980s mod too http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/inlove.gif

[Jakerod]

I&#39;m sure there will be one at some point.

[Sturmwolf]

I&#39;d love to see the XM8, its just so.....superior http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/biggrin_o.gif

I guess most of you guys say it looks like a super-soaker (which i can not disagree with in a way...)

but the futuristic look is really the first step into a new era imho...
just imagine...i always found the g36 to be one of the coolest looking weapons ever....but since i know the xm8 the g36 looks really old....
its just the thing that modern battlefields need. though id find it cooler to be a SF weapon instead of USA issuing it as standard GI arm.

[Bloodnick]

I personally prefer 2010 (as many other people does), Vietnam would be cool, but it&#39;s too late now and besides, think of the game specs http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/crazy_o.gif

USA vs. Russia is the best concept, I&#39;m so tired of EA games making games where they set up China, USA and the middle-east against each other (Take C&C generals and BF2 for example). US vs. Russia is a fiction that would be disasterous, but would sell as hell. CWC made a very good impression on how that war would be and what it could evolve into http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/yay.gif

[Garritos]

I like the late 70&#39;s european cold war example. It was the peak of pre-computer age warfare and huge tank battles across europe would be fantastic. The equipment from that era had alot of class and its a senario that has been largely ignored by the major game developers. How about 1979, a soviet backed east Germany tries to re-unify Germany.

the bottom line is that War it pretty much peace keeping, counter insurgentcy and opinion polls these days. I would perfer something with a little more action.


my 2 cents...

[Ares1978]

The 70&#39;s.

Africa, South America, Indochina, the Middle East.. Even if there wasn&#39;t a world war in the 70&#39;s, that decade was pretty insane and perfect for infantry sims. Face it, massive tank battles won&#39;t be possible in the near future either and there&#39;s no point trying to squeeze them into an infantry sim.

[Avena Quaker]

I prefer 1970 over 2010 any time... I wouldn&#39;t like to see the game full of fancy "ghost recon like" weapons with at least 4x of zoom, or stuff like that.. just plain old bullets please &#33;

[t80]

2010, If it´s a war sim, the only possible weapons to use is russian vs american, the only "complete" armies in the world in term off equipment, as every part in equipment has a counterpart, like us may not have defence against it´s own stuff, russian sure have it. so it´s probobly even better to have russian vs us, than us vs us south vs north or somthing, http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/pistols.gif

[echo1]

2010, If it´s a war sim, the only possible weapons to use is russian vs american, the only "complete" armies in the world in term off equipment, as every part in equipment has a counterpart, like us may not have defence against it´s own stuff, russian sure have it. so it´s probobly even better to have russian vs us, than us vs us south vs north or somthing, http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/pistols.gif
No, China has a counterpart for most things I believe

[Connors]

I would have thought the UK would have had a counter part in everything.

[t80]

Us                     Russia                     China


Apache              mi-28/ka-50/52         ? ? ?

Comache            ? ? ?                        ? ? ?

f-16-f-15           mig-29/su-27-37         ? ? ?

B-52                  Tu-160 or somthing       ? ? ?

Patriot 3             S-300/400                    ? ? ?

Made in USA/USSR/Russia.
Thats just some minor stuff without serch, i could go on and on X 1000. What the chinese can do, and are doing are, take one mi-28, glue some metal bar to it, and call it chao deong or somthing.

Uk? ? ?
http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/goodnight.gif

[Bordoy]

Us                     Russia                     China


Apache              mi-28/ka-50/52         ? ? ?

Comache            ? ? ?                        ? ? ?

f-16-f-15           mig-29/su-27-37         ? ? ?

B-52                  Tu-160 or somthing       ? ? ?

Patriot 3             S-300/400                    ? ? ?

Made in USA/USSR/Russia.
Thats just some minor stuff without serch, i could go on and on X 1000. What the chinese can do, and are doing are, take one mi-28, glue some metal bar to it, and call it chao deong or somthing.

Uk? ? ?
http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/goodnight.gif
As far as I know, the Commanche program has been cancelled..............too expensive. But I may be wrong.


Hmmm I would probably prefer something like 2010, but not with stupid weapons or owt like that. But I do love the CWC setup and they way thats been done and the military equipment involved at that time.

[t80]

Quote[/b] ]
Bordoy
Advanced Member



Group: Members
Posts: 1097
Joined: April 2002  Posted: July 17 2006,02:14  

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote (t80 @<hidden> July 16 2006,21:44)
Us                     Russia                     China


Apache              mi-28/ka-50/52         ? ? ?

Comache            ? ? ?                        ? ? ?

f-16-f-15           mig-29/su-27-37         ? ? ?

B-52                  Tu-160 or somthing       ? ? ?

Patriot 3             S-300/400                    ? ? ?

Made in USA/USSR/Russia.
Thats just some minor stuff without serch, i could go on and on X 1000. What the chinese can do, and are doing are, take one mi-28, glue some metal bar to it, and call it chao deong or somthing.

Uk? ? ?


As far as I know, the Commanche program has been cancelled..............too expensive. But I may be wrong.


Yeah think youre right.. so i change, add somthing..



Us                     Russia                     China


Apache              mi-28/ka-50/52         ? ? ?

Hercules            An-12                         ? ? ?

C-5                    An-124                      ? ? ?

f-16-f-15           mig-29/su-27-37         ? ? ?

B-52                  Tu-160 or somthing       ? ? ?

Patriot 3             S-300/400                    ? ? ?

Ohio                  Typhoon/Borei                 ? ? ?

Chinook               Halo                           ? ? ?

M270 MLRS        Smerch/Grad/Uragan         ? ? ?

Paladin         To many similar to describe         ? ? ?

SAM 23 Hawk           Sa-11 Gadfly                ? ? ?



Made in USA/USSR/Russia.
Thats just some minor stuff without serch, i could go on and on X 1000. What the chinese can do, and are doing are, take one mi-28, glue some metal bar to it, and call it chao deong or somthing.

Uk? ? ?

[CTU24]

Hey guys, I think that in "Game2" I would much prefer it during current times rather than the 1970&#39;s. This is just my opinion but, I just like modern warfare better than 70&#39;s. (Plus Game2 will probaly have mods and all that stuff so you can always make 1970&#39;s game). http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/tounge2.gif Thats just my opinion.

[MadRussian]

I&#39;ve got a novel idea...

First off, I believe OFP and ArmA can really simulate anything.  http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/wink_o.gif

However, they do modern combat the best (i.e. anything from Vietnam forward).  There are a number of reasons for this, not the least of which is how the command structure is implemented, with the built in radio you use to command your men (or likewise be commanded).

Consequently, pre-moderm combat mods (i.e. WW2) suffer a bit due to the command structure.  http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/confused_o.gif  So...

Why doesn&#39;t BIS release not one, but two new games&#33;

1. Game 2 (as we&#39;ve come to know, taking place in 2010)

2. And then a seperate WW2 game based on their engine, similar in scope, execpt highly optimized for this type of combat.  Obviously, I&#39;m talking about way more than just units here.  The biggest difference would be the command structure, which would be optimized for WW2 style communication. http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/smile_o.gif

This way everyone would be happy.  And even better still...

All of our mods (modern and pre-modern) would have a truley appropriate starting point&#33;&#33;&#33; http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/biggrin_o.gif

[Pajama]

I likes me "vintage" gear and equipment&#33; http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/inlove.gif

[AWDrift]

The main thing I dislike about modern times is ACUs in real life they are okay, in games like ArmA they make you stick out like a sore thumb. If it wasn&#39;t just the U.S. vs. ____ I wouldn&#39;t mind much since you could be from a country that doesn&#39;t use ACUs. When you&#39;re stuck with them though and you have to fight in a forested area it feels like I might as well paint a big red bullseye on my chest.

[Denz]

While I wouldn&#39;t mind the game being in a modern setting. I do prefer the "what if" historical scenarios.
I will admit, I&#39;m having a hard time getting into the storyline for ArmA whereas OFP&#39;s Cold War background had me hooked from the start- maybe because I was brought up in that era and distinctly remember the tension that happened in the early 80s.
Anyway, the one area I would like to see explored would be the friction that occurred between the USSR and China that nearly came to a head in the late 70s. The Soviet Union at the height of it&#39;s power going against the emerging military might of China. A gigantic Communist showdown with the West having to decide the right posture to adopt.
The West wouldn&#39;t be able to just sit it out because of the strategic area, not to mention global stability. The US reeling from the unsatisfactory conclusion of Vietnam would hardly have been ready for a mammoth conflict but the fact that several US allies would be affected along with past European colonies would have brought just about all the global players in.
At the very least it would be a 3 way conflict, not to mention all the little off-shoot occurances. Just think about what other nations are in the immediate area and would be indirectly involved. How would they react? How would they see the situation and try and turn it to their advantage?
I think it would make for a really interesting scenario that wasn&#39;t out of the realms of possibility and in fact, very nearly happened.

[stakex]

While I wouldn&#39;t mind the game being in a modern setting. I do prefer the "what if" historical scenarios.
I will admit, I&#39;m having a hard time getting into the storyline for ArmA whereas OFP&#39;s Cold War background had me hooked from the start- maybe because I was brought up in that era and distinctly remember the tension that happened in the early 80s.
Maybe its becuase OFP, and more so OFP:R had really good stories... as where ArmA&#39;s feels half hearted and very flat IMO.

As for the setting of "Game2", modern setting is better I believe. Especially with the dynamic campaign. It just seems to fit better with a modern setting as opposed to a vietnam time frame. Communications, and technology of the modern era will make a dynamic campaign alot more intresting, and believable... at least I think so.

[Jack-UK]

Yeah seriously i think people are thinking that 2010 is going to be some super-futuristic game...

Its in 3 years... so people who think the game will be futuristic have seriously got it wrong... The fact that BIS will base it in the near future means they can create their OWN scenario much more easily...

[Max Power]

OFP2 will be about 1970&#39;s wars or eeuu imperialism of 2010 ?
Quoting the Operation Flashpoint 2 press release.


Quote[/b] ]The year is 2010 and the world has changed.

So it&#39;s 2010, which personally I prefer over another Cold War era game. I just hope the XM8 isn&#39;t in the game http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/crazy_o.gif
I think that that was an anticipation of the release date. Hehe.

[vilas]

if anyone wanna WW2, 1970, 1914, 1985 - thats why there are MODS
game such as ARMA for me is not good to 2010 battle, why ?
in modern war infantry fights are not present
modern confilct is ; mass bombing against poor equiped guerillas with AK, G3, FAL, UZI
ARMA cannot symulate electronical warfare an termovision
thats why it is better to 1985, 1970, 1950, 1944 wars
there is no trigger of waypoint "shoot on area" which clould be good, for example you make mission, that artilery support attack of infantry or bombing before land troops will enter city

in OFP as well in ARMA there is no such thing
ARMA is simulator of man and vehicles
not war simulator
conflict in 2010 is for me not whit this engine now
also no bullet proof vest work
so where technical advantage of modern US/NATO technics against poor country like nothern Sahrani republic ?

if you wanna make war as man vs man (infantry) or even motorized troops - it is okay, but not as modern conflicts

modern armies are developing weapons such as PDF (personal defence weapon)
M4 or maybe futere HK construction fires at lowe distance than Mauser or Mosin rifles
because modern soldier do not need rifle killing at 1 or 2 kilometers
sniper has such weapon

modern HK PDW as MP7, UMP, or other constructions as FN P90 cannot be comparable to for exaple Garand or G3 or FAL

moder soldiers enter city when it is crushed to ruins, first enter heavy tanks
so mission like this in ARMA should be:

script to bomb city , few man left with AK, so Abrams goes into city, after some time from Bradley few man with M4
what is sense or joy of playing like that ?

so my vote is for history MODS
of course everyone can do his mod in 2020 http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/wink_o.gif
modern war is not equal, it is not "fair", it is what money you have on equipement
what is sense of this without thermal vision, without artillery, bombing waypoints/triggers implemented in engine, without vests, without ERA reacting armor

so let everyone do his own MOD as he wants
i am making 1985 and those who like it play, whose who want 2010 play another mod

[Sickboy]

Vilas, they&#39;re talking about the next generation game. I&#39;ve seen OFP2 mentioned and Game2, not about mods for ArmA.

Also, I don&#39;t think that "Modern", means "Far Future", I&#39;ve seen ppl talk in here about "Modern" when it was just "After Vietnam ERA", aswell as ppl talking about "Modern" 2010 Warfare.
Prototypes of weapons, sure, and when do you believe such weaponry would really be standard gear for grunts etc?

No infantry warfare you say? Maybe not in 2050, but for now I don&#39;t see how a town, city or metropolis is going to be taken without Infantry.

[vilas]

city, yes, not field, not large areas

but what is city fight if you don&#39;t have working vest, when you cannot see by thermal view ?
in "modern war" if enemy is spoted firing from block/house tanks shoot at this building, can it be implemented in game ?
AI is moving badly in buildings, the cannot take some positions and fire from buildings
i say about war on existing engine
in game AI engage too much, it should be moving in group, because 2 engage target, 3 engage other target is too dangerous

i think warfare situation should be fited to engine
fights in city in existing OFP, ARMA are far from real, there were bugs reported when AI see you inside buildings through the walls
i expect from OFP2 much better vehicle/AI engine and behaviour
existing game is good for fields

[Sickboy]

but what is city fight if you don&#39;t have working vest, when you cannot see by thermal view ?
in "modern war" if enemy is spoted firing from block/house tanks shoot at this building, can it be implemented in game ?
AI is moving badly in buildings, the cannot take some positions and fire from buildings
i say about war on existing engine
in game AI engage too much, it should be moving in group, because 2 engage target, 3 engage other target is too dangerous

i think warfare situation should be fited to engine
fights in city in existing OFP, ARMA are far from real, there were bugs reported when AI see you inside buildings through the walls
i expect from OFP2 much better vehicle/AI engine and behaviour
existing game is good for fieldsI don&#39;t understand the relevance (what the current ArmA and before OFP have to do with possible Modern warfare in Game2). (Other than serving as ur personal way of telling all the bugs or missing feature in every thread you can get your hands on). Btw maybe we should keep terms clear, OFP2 = not by BIS, and kinda not really interesting http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/smile_o.gif

[vilas]

so if game2 will be in modern warfare as on screen posted
than it must include thermal technology, scripting to bomb/fire on area from cannons
better wound of AI behaviour
better moving AI inside buildings, maybe 2 different waypoint as for example : "hide" and "defend"
those 2 waypoints can be put at building and each memory LOD of building model should have points as "safepoint" away from windows and "fireposition_01" to be holded by AI
also there should be trigger as "bomb place"
than you gave waypoint "shoot at area" and airplane or howitzer shoot some at this area , such trigger can take few shots, few seconds to be active, or can ba activated repeating radio command

and in game 2 vests must be working to represent technical adventages between different armies

good if shock to unit could be added, than i will say 2010 enough

also i have no idea if in existing engines AI decides HEAT or Frag bullet
game 2 should have threat properties in bullets
like now in units
for example
frag bullet threat 1,0.1,0.2
heat 0,1,0
when x,y,z means; soft (man, car, building), armed vehicle, air

to avoid situation in which AI shoots from HEAT togroup of man, of by Stinger to tank

[Sickboy]

...
Right on. I guess you kinda sum up the nececairy ingredients indeed. Electronic tank systems etc, monitors, the whole bunch http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/smile_o.gif

[fasad]

My personal preference is towards the past, because of the closer engagement ranges due to less precise weapons. Less capable anti-air anti-armour missile/rockets allow tanks and aircraft to be used in closer quarters to the enemy, adding to the intensity of a battle. I&#39;d prefer this is done in a time where this was realistic, rather than done solely for gameplay purposes.

Being killed by a missile launched many kilometers away is less exciting from a gameplay point of view.

[Nephilim]

im up for some newer theme..
but ffs&#33; please no vietnam or WW2 theme..
is been done so often now it gets really boring....

id rather watch some documentaries about ww2 or nam rather playing that stuff over and over again..

[Sennacherib]

2010. something like that: http://www.frontlinesgame.com/

[chefd261]

I would vote for 2010 for a few reasons not the least of which is personal preference

a. BIS has ALWAYS given us the ability to Mod so wwII and nam should be around soon after the game release.

b. Ground war is very much a likleyhood in 2010 a perfect example is Afganistan or Bosnia Plenty of field fighting

c. Relates to point a it is much simpler, for lack of a better word to reverse engineer scenarios that to try to create tools for new ones.

just my humble opinion

http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/wink_o.gif

[M. D. Geist]

Russia and low tech http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/rofl.gif, give me a break. A few examples of "low" Russian technology:

AN94
T-95 -arguably the best tank in the world
Su-3x (Su-30MKI (4.5th gen.); superior to all F-1x variants, and probably the EF Typhoon as well)
MiG-39 -5th gen. stealth fighter
Mi-24/28/35
Ka-50

It was a Russian scientist who developed the first generation stealth formula, which later Lockheed picked up and built the F-117. Russia also had the HMS (Helmet Mounted Sight) system some 20 years before the USA recently adopted it. And also had thrust vectoring way before the F-22 got it.

Anyway, personally I would like to see Europe vs USA set in 2010.

[churnedfortaste]

I&#39;d love to see America and U.K. vs China and Russia

[alext223]

I would go for the 2010 time frame. Has more potential IMO, and we still have the mod&#39;s and addons to try to be in history. So every one is a winner, untill we find out what bugs we have to deal with.
Just got to save up for the upgrades to make it run well.

[Xendance]

How about 2100 era? I love scifi, and you could have anything in it, based on newtonian physics of course. Think of railguns, they&#39;re definitely doable in real life, but the power it requires is huge. Maybe a mini fusion plant powered AA platform that uses a railgun? :P

[~Pantera~]

How about 2100 era? I love scifi, and you could have anything in it, based on newtonian physics of course. Think of railguns, they&#39;re definitely doable in real life, but the power it requires is huge. Maybe a mini fusion plant powered AA platform that uses a railgun? :P
YEAH&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;

It can be like BF2142&#33;&#33;&#33; HOW AWESOME WOULD THAT BE???

[CrazyDentist]

How about 2100 era? I love scifi, and you could have anything in it, based on newtonian physics of course. Think of railguns, they&#39;re definitely doable in real life, but the power it requires is huge. Maybe a mini fusion plant powered AA platform that uses a railgun? :P
YEAH&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;

It can be like BF2142&#33;&#33;&#33; HOW AWESOME WOULD THAT BE???
I hope to God that you&#39;re being sarcastic as hell... http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/crazy_o.gif

For me personally, anything from WWII to present day is ok... but no sci-fi crap&#33; (I do love sci-fi movies, but not games...)

[Xendance]

How about 2100 era? I love scifi, and you could have anything in it, based on newtonian physics of course. Think of railguns, they&#39;re definitely doable in real life, but the power it requires is huge. Maybe a mini fusion plant powered AA platform that uses a railgun? :P
YEAH&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;

It can be like BF2142&#33;&#33;&#33; HOW AWESOME WOULD THAT BE???
BF 2142 &#33;= good scifi

I said based on newtonian physics, morons. I didn&#39;t mean lasers and all that shizzle.

[Turkeys]

Ty for insulting us http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/smile_o.gif http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/yay.gif http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/band.gif http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/pistols.gif

[Money]

2010 is a great time.
We should be able to see some of the weapons that are currently in development on that game.
Like XM8 , HK416...
Pretty much anything you see in Future Weapons would be cool in this era.

[PMD]

2010 is a great time.
We should be able to see some of the weapons that are currently in development on that game.
Like XM8 , HK416...
Pretty much anything you see in Future Weapons would be cool in this era.
that&#39;s my thoughts exactly.
i would like to see artillery in the game. My Battery is getting HIMARS in october (high mobility artillery rocket system)
picture a 5ton with a rocket pod holding 6 rockets on the back of it and that&#39;s what it is.
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/himars-980730-A-0089G-003.jpg

[xnodunitx]

post edited, sent via PM