The m2....

[SKULLS_Viper 0]

umm, the topic is about the, M2.

[Tex -USMC- 0]

I am soo sick and tired of hearing people bitching about the Russian helicopters! If you were worth a shit as a pilot you would be able to throw the Mi17 and Mi 24 all over the sky, and it is possible (because I do it on a regular basis). You just have to take the time to do it. Everything is balanced just fine. West choppers are a bit more nimble, East choppers have heavier armor. And the reason East has less choppers is because the Mi17 and the Mi24 are more versatile than a cobra or a kiowa. A Mi24 can carry a squad of 8, plus its full loadout, not too mention being a flying tank. An Mi17 can carry just about as many people as you can find to get in it, AND it has how many rockets? 180, somethin like that? So get over it, you damn complainers  

[LordZach 0]

yes

AH-1 more fragile, AH-64 more of a match for MI-24

NATO has 2 transport choppers, defenseless against MI-24

NATO has 1 transport chopper with limited defense capabilities

NATO has 2 attack choppers that cannot carry troops

NATO has 1 chopper that is good for not much else except for painting targets

russians have attack chopper that can carry troops, and then support those troops after they have landed

what do you find unbalanced about this? do you find it unbalanced that the SU-25 has rockets and the A-10 does not or merely if the Americans have more suddenly it becomes unbalanced?

[LordZach 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tex [uSMC] @ May 14 2002,21:13)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">AND it has how many rockets? 180, somethin like that? So get over it, you damn complainers  <span id='postcolor'>

192 actually

psst time to complain about the fuel tanks on the UH-60

[Filin 0]

ohh......

[LordZach 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Filin @ May 14 2002,21:31)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">ohh......<span id='postcolor'>

would you mind being a little more vague?

[Seifer 0]

There absolutly NOT balanced

MI-28 vs. AH-64

Mi-24 vs. AH-1

UH-60 and UH-60MG and Chinook vs. one MI-17

OH-58 vs. Ka-25 (not KA-27)

A10 and A10 (LGB) vs Su-25 and SU-25 (LGB)

Chechnya

MI-24 not used that transport, transport Mi-8 (Mi-17 without missiles)

[LordZach 0]

what are you talking about

they ARE balanced

russian choppers carry troops and also have attack capabilities

nato attack choppers don't carry troops. the ones that do don't have any defense capabilities.

MI-17 vs the U.S. transports easily wins, i shoot them down with rockets all the time.

maybe i'm not explaining it correctly but am i the only one that thinks currently the choppers are finely tuned to be balanced?

[Filin 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (LordZach @ May 15 2002,06:32)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Filin @ May 14 2002,21:31)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">ohh......<span id='postcolor'>

would you mind being a little more vague?<span id='postcolor'>

fuck off

[dayglow 2]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (SKULLS_Viper @ May 14 2002,22:11)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">umm, the topic is about the, M2. <span id='postcolor'>

And who the hell are you trying to talk on topic here?

I too don't see the unbalance that has really upset spy17. The NATO side has a few more helicopters than Russia. Does it affect gameplay? Not really. I know when I play from the NATO side I shit myself when a Hind appears. That thing can wipe out your squad quickly. A UH-60 or 47 on the otherhand can harass you with it's 50cal, but nothing too much.

If spy17 likes flying Russian hardware so much he should wait for LOMAC to come out. The Russian hardware outnumbers the American and people whine about on the boards all the time. Where's my F16 etc. He'd love it there.

As for the M2 vs the Russian equivalent I don't think it's too much of an issue. Is the Russian model that much different from the American? It's a heavy machinegun, not a vehicle or anything major.

COLINMAN

[Grey Fox 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (SKULLS_Viper @ May 14 2002,22:11)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">umm, the topic is about the, M2. <span id='postcolor'>

And I think the Russians should have the DSHK. I'm not too sure about its history and wheather it fits the timeline though

[Blake 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (DayGlow @ May 15 2002,07:41)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">As for the M2 vs the Russian equivalent I don't think it's too much of an issue. Is the Russian model that much different from the American? It's a heavy machinegun, not a vehicle or anything major.<span id='postcolor'>

Well, if that's the case you probably don't mind Russians using M-16s since it's basically an assault rifle like AK-74?

I find it very annoying that BIS still has refused to give Soviets a propter, realistic heavy machinegun after so many other tweaks and fixes. I don't need a 100th type of civilian car, but give realistic weapons at least!

Here's the NVS 12.7x109mm heavy machine gun on ground support role, mounted on tripod:

...the tank mounted version, NSVT (T fo tank):

M2 HB in comparison:

[r71 0]

The M1A1 series, produced from 1985 through 1993, replaced the M1’s 105mm main gun with a 120mm gun and incorporated numerous other enhancements, including an improved suspension, a new turret, increased armor protection, and a nuclear-chemical-biological protection system. ----- 1985 -----

And how about the gun on the A10 ?? what happen to the power of it!! they made it weak as hell and slowed the ROF way down.

The gun is extremely reliable. Stoppages are predicted to occur once in 150,000 rounds or once in more than 100 missions when every round is fired. Even then, the weapon can often be cleared in flight by reversing the gun and feed mechanism and trying again. There is no guidance system to fail and nothing to be jammed or deceived. All this adds up to the fact that the kill probability of a GAU8 burst is high: tests have shown that as many as half the bursts may be effective in a diving attack on the rear of a tank, and one third in side attacks. A one second burst from 4,000ft (1,220m) will put 40 shells into a circle little bigger than the length of a tank, and half-a dozen hits are considered to be a lethal strike. With the theoretical ability to deliver 15-20 such bursts, the A-10 is unlikely to have to abort an attack for want of firepower. And lets not even talk about what they did to the angle of the gun.

 

Also, what happen to the guns on the CH-47 and the Blackhawk?? they killed that too!

Armament Two 7.62mm mini-guns  

..

.

So I am sure you can see now that they cut alot on the NATO side also, and there is more then what I list in the game that they left out.

[USSoldier11B 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Well, if that's the case you probably don't mind Russians using M-16s since it's basically an assault rifle like AK-74?

<span id='postcolor'>

Excellent point.

[LordZach 0]

hmm true dat

but i thought we were bitching about choppers now?

[dayglow 2]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Blake @ May 14 2002,23:16)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (DayGlow @ May 15 2002,07:41)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">As for the M2 vs the Russian equivalent I don't think it's too much of an issue. Is the Russian model that much different from the American? It's a heavy machinegun, not a vehicle or anything major.<span id='postcolor'>

Well, if that's the case you probably don't mind Russians using M-16s since it's basically an assault rifle like AK-74?

I find it very annoying that BIS still has refused to give Soviets a propter, realistic heavy machinegun after so many other tweaks and fixes. I don't need a 100th type of civilian car, but give realistic weapons at least!<span id='postcolor'>

Again like I stated the fixed HMG is not the center of attention of the game. Something like the AK-74 is, as are the vehicles, but a mounted HMG isn't. Remember this is just my opinion. If I saw Russian soldiers running around with a M16 it would effect the game ( even though I spend half the game with a AK-74 b/c I can never carry enough ammo )

On the other hand the mounted HMG doesn't effect me the same way. It's part of the periphery for me. Again I'm talking about me. I didn't play the game and go " OMFG what is that, why do the Russians have a M2 instead of the DV...whatchmacallit. Does the game model different east and west binoculars? ( I know that's a bit more trivial, but not much)

COLINMAN

[Blake 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (DayGlow @ May 15 2002,08:29)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Again like I stated the fixed HMG is not the center of attention of the game. Something like the AK-74 is, as are the vehicles, but a mounted HMG isn't.<span id='postcolor'>

Heavy machine-guns are very powerful weapons in defence, can't tell how many times it has been crucial in stopping attacks (altough I wish they had real iron sights and not the zoom function!. OFP has tanks which work in their role as well as helicopters altought not accurately simulated, and also basic grunt combat. To me, OFP's center of attention is the entire modern warfare. Frankly I don't get your point why heavy machine guns should be excluded?

[Antichrist 0]

Well seeing M2 on russian side affects my experience!

But I don't really care about anything else!

If it was for me I would've not added any new vehicles or weapons to the game!

Only tweaked the engine itself! ModMAkers can do all the addons later!

[Tex -USMC- 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (R71 @ May 15 2002,07:20)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Also, what happen to the guns on the CH-47 and the Blackhawk?? they killed that too!

Armament Two 7.62mm mini-guns  

..

.

So I am sure you can see now that they cut alot on the NATO side also, and there is more then what I list in the game that they left out.<span id='postcolor'>

Well, if you want to pick nits, the picture you posted is a Blackhawk armed with miniguns (which I badly, desperately want in OFP)

[LordZach 0]

this addmagazine "kegkiowagun"; this addweapon "kegkiowagun";

hot doorgun action

[dayglow 2]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Blake @ May 14 2002,23:44)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (DayGlow @ May 15 2002,08:29)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Again like I stated the fixed HMG is not the center of attention of the game. Something like the AK-74 is, as are the vehicles, but a mounted HMG isn't.<span id='postcolor'>

Heavy machine-guns are very powerful weapons in defence, can't tell how many times it has been crucial in stopping attacks (altough I wish they had real iron sights and not the zoom function!. OFP has tanks which work in their role as well as helicopters altought not accurately simulated, and also basic grunt combat. To me, OFP's center of attention is the entire modern warfare. Frankly I don't get your point why heavy machine guns should be excluded?<span id='postcolor'>

I agree with you and I have no problem with a new HMG for the Russians. In a perfect world it would be nice, but it hasn't affected my experience in the game. I don't think it should be excluded. I haven't really thought about it until this discussion. In game I noticed that they were the same and that's that, no more thought on the subject. Kinda weird when I look at because as you said if the assualt rifles or pretty much anything else was out of whack it would have affected me. Can't explain why. If BIS does change it, it would be great, but not a really important point for me overall.

Personally I would love to see a mini-gun on the UH-60. Man that would rock.

For me the next step I would love OFP take is to develope a dynamic battlefield where missions aren't scripted, but a stratigic/tatical wargame engine running in the background does the troop movements and you choose which missions to do or attach yourself to a squad and fight out the dynamic war. That would be sweet.

COLINMAN

[r71 0]

Tex if you read what I put in that section you would see that I said BH and CH-47, hence the pic of the BH on top and the two pics of the CH-47 below it

[Tex -USMC- 0]

I figured that was what happened, but, cmon, you put:

Armament two 7.62 mm Machine Guns right over a pic of a BH with miniguns. I just had to bust yer balls over that

[kegetys 2]

This thing balances it more than a BRDM with MG:

[Blake 0]

Looks perfect, Kege, as always. Maybe you'll release it soon pretty please?

or was it the muzzle flash bug again stopping it?

Anyway, if BIS doesn't make heavy machine gun to Soviets 3rd party addon crafters will.