Hate the BLUFOR helmet changes

[oryang 10]

Tell me lads, is it just me, or does someone else agree that the new changes BI made to NATO helmets is just complete b*llshit? Cuz seriously, it doesn't fit with the rest of their uniforms at all. Especially the tan desert camo helmets and the striped camo helmets. I mean, NATO is a regular army, and should have similar gear with same camos, and now BI's got them looking like a ragtag bunch of unorganized guerillas scavenging for supplys.

Can any kind soul post a consoling comment or two below to ease my grief? And BI, could you guys please return the NATO helmets to how the used to look like? Please? (I mean, if anyone wants NATO to look like a bunch of guerillas, they can always script it up in the editor, right?)

Thanks:D

[instagoat 133]

The "old" Nato helmets are still in, they're now the SF helmets. I don't mind these changes, the US Army of the A3 verse is different from the current era one. Mind, the draft has been reinstated and there probably have been system changes affecting discipline and orderliness. It's a bit reminiscent of the vietnam era, where soldiers would decorate their helmet covers, or the korean and WW2 eras where you had stuff like embroidered jackets and helmet covers and things like that.

And I don't think they look like a ragtag bunch of unorganized guerrillas, they rather look like they belong to an army that's stretched thin in a world with high political tension. I wouldn't be surprised if the reason for the Slammer's existence is merely the fact that the tanks are lend-lease from Israel, because the US Army's own stocks have been depleted or displaced to "hotter" conflict areas after major cutbacks and size-downs of the forces, and possibly more bad decisions with equipment aquisition in the past 15 years.

This US Army is not the one you know today, just like the Iranian CSAT contingent is likely not the Army of Iran that we know today.

[cozza 24]

I quite like it.

What annoys me is every soldier having the same equipment. I like a bit of variation between them.

[13islucky 10]

You do realize that it's exactly the same thing minus all the bells and whistles, right? You're not at all wrong if you prefer the older helmets (I do too), but it's not as big a difference as it seems.

[simon1279 52]

I really like the new camos, but don't like the less helmet equipment

[smiley_ie 7]

First thing i noticed after patch was the helmets, They do feel a little odd.

[Brisse 78]

You do realize that it's exactly the same thing minus all the bells and whistles, right? You're not at all wrong if you prefer the older helmets (I do too), but it's not as big a difference as it seems.

You don't know what this thread is about, do you? The one without "bells and whitles" was there before the patch. This thread is about the new texture variations implemented in 1.10.

[odie0351 67]

Kinda like them myself, to me it makes the regulars look less like wanna be spec ops guys. Would prefer helmet covers instead of painted up helmets but at least now there is some kind of distinction between them and the Recon guys.

[Marksman5147 10]

I never got why the standard issue NATO helmet is the FAST/Mich-2001 whatever it is normal troops shouldn't have tac-lights lasers rail's camera's etc. Though the plain mod troops like sole of the USMC etc look too old. The normal Bluefor have like white combat shirts its retarded and the color of their gear is like a weird black or green to me the normal Bluefor look like Specops not normal troops though there are already standard US Army mods so easy fix then.

[scrim 1]

Regarding looking rag tag: What was it someone said about the combat preparedness of an army fit for the parade ground?

Suck it up, it's not the Napoleonic wars, every single soldier doesn't look like the spitting image of each other.

[2nd ranger 282]

I'd like it if units randomly had the scrim covers. Maybe they do and I just haven't seen it yet. I don't like the 'new' helmet without all the stuff on it, but I guess it does make SF more distinct.

[instagoat 133]

Regarding looking rag tag: What was it someone said about the combat preparedness of an army fit for the parade ground?

Suck it up, it's not the Napoleonic wars, every single soldier doesn't look like the spitting image of each other.

"No Army ready for combat has ever passed a parade review, no army dressed for parade has ever survived combat."

And especially in a situtation like this, where this combat post is evidently regarded as a minor location, you can't expect equipment to be top notch. They don't even have plate carriers for everybody. They look as rag tag as they should, unfortunately the supposedly backwards AAF look more uniform and up to scratch than them. I can deal with the looks of the CSAT troops: contrary to the US soldiers they have a working economy and an advanced military complex behind them at this stage.

[antoineflemming 14]

I never got why the standard issue NATO helmet is the FAST/Mich-2001 whatever it is normal troops shouldn't have tac-lights lasers rail's camera's etc. Though the plain mod troops like sole of the USMC etc look too old. The normal Bluefor have like white combat shirts its retarded and the color of their gear is like a weird black or green to me the normal Bluefor look like Specops not normal troops though there are already standard US Army mods so easy fix then.

The regular helmet isn't the FAST helmet. It's the ECH helmet. I think there's something odd about the shape of the plain helmets, and I think it'd help if they had a multicam cover. Also, I've never had issue with all the SOF gear on the ECH. Why? Because the vanilla US forces, with their vests not matching their uniform, their Crye Combat Uniforms, and with their SOF helmets, looked more like what you'd expect of 75th Rangers than 7th Infantry. They've never looked like regular infantry to me, from the first time they showcased them in 2011.

[lennard 447]

I agree with antoineflemming, they do have a bit of 75th Rangers feel to them. Not much but just a bit.

For me playing with vanilla units is a no go anyway. I'm using these textures since their release. I encourage BIS however for bringing in more variety and I hope some more gear lay outs on the vests will be added.

[Marksman5147 10]

The regular helmet isn't the FAST helmet. It's the ECH helmet. I think there's something odd about the shape of the plain helmets, and Ir think it'd help if they had a multicam cover. Also, I've never had issue with all the SOF gear on the ECH. Why? Because the vanilla US forces, with their vests not matching their uniform, their Crye Combat Uniforms, and with their SOF helmets, looked more like what you'd expect of 75th Rangers than 7th Infantry. They've never looked like regular infantry to me, from the first time they showcased them in 2011.

I agree fully on there. When I first saw the videos months ago I thought they were Rangers over normal infantry. I truthfully agree with everything you posted, I liked the look because they look like 75th Rangers where they have more freedom with their gear. I thought it was the FAST based on the adjuster on the back of the helmet Ill have to look up he ECH.

I agree because with the under armor looking shirts random mix of grey Multicam ad green Camo and gear I wouldn't call them infantry nor poor second rate. It be cool to see some mixess of older Camo like Woodland and DCU's maybe some Tiger Stripe and ACU if they were to look more rag-tag. I think they look too high tech for what they're supposed to be though I like the look myself.

[big_wilk 12]

The hole futuristic rubbish is not good, deal with it or mod it! lol... but since we are on the subject, also stop putting double tail fin thingy on contemporary aircraft from Arma 2 as this does not make them futureistic aircraft! It just means when people have to reskin them to contemporary cammo patterns the aircraft have extra tail fins the aircraft should not have!

Edited January 30, 2014 by Big_Wilk

[mistyronin 1181]

Interesting... In really love the new ones, now it looks a bit more like a proper army with differences between soldiers, not like the previous "Star Wars' clone army". In fact in my experience, armies welcome / allow certain degree of "customization" in the battlefield ( like diff. boots, vests, etc. ), quite the opposite than in the parade/drill grounds.

[antoineflemming 14]

Interesting... In really love the new ones, now it looks a bit more like a proper army with differences between soldiers, not like the previous "Star Wars' clone army". In fact in my experience, armies welcome / allow certain degree of "customization" in the battlefield ( like diff. boots, vests, etc. ), quite the opposite than in the parade/drill grounds.

Uh, maybe that's the case in Finland, but in the US, which is the only thing that matters (since the NATO forces in the game are US 7th ID), the only thing you're really allowed to "customize"/personalize are gloves, boots, and the layout of the pouches on your vest. You wear the same standard issued body armor. You wear the same helmet. Hence why it's called "uniform". That said, the NATO forces in the game would look a whole lot more like regular infantry if the plain helmets had a MTP (really Multicam) helmet cover texture instead of being plain helmets, and if the vests were also in the same camo pattern.

---------- Post added at 02:41 ---------- Previous post was at 02:39 ----------

The hole futuristic rubbish is not good, deal with it or mod it! lol... but since we are on the subject, also stop putting double tail fin thingy on contemporary aircraft from Arma 2 as this does not make them futureistic aircraft! It just means when people have to reskin them to contemporary cammo patterns the aircraft have extra tail fins the aircraft should not have!

1) Chill out. 2) So what if the "futuristic" aircraft have double fins? It's set in 2035. It's a design choice. If Mil came out with a helicopter with double fins today, you wouldn't be complaining, or maybe you would because you think it's ugly. Bottom line, you don't like that design. Boo hoo. It doesn't break the game. Nor should BI design their game with your contemporary reskins in mind.

---------- Post added at 02:52 ---------- Previous post was at 02:41 ----------

I agree fully on there. When I first saw the videos months ago I thought they were Rangers over normal infantry. I truthfully agree with everything you posted, I liked the look because they look like 75th Rangers where they have more freedom with their gear. I thought it was the FAST based on the adjuster on the back of the helmet Ill have to look up he ECH.

I agree because with the under armor looking shirts random mix of grey Multicam ad green Camo and gear I wouldn't call them infantry nor poor second rate. It be cool to see some mixess of older Camo like Woodland and DCU's maybe some Tiger Stripe and ACU if they were to look more rag-tag. I think they look too high tech for what they're supposed to be though I like the look myself.

Well, the helmet looks kinda like Revision's Batlskin Cobra helmet with side rails. The FAST, as in OPS-CORE FAST, helmet is the ECH lite. I think they need to have an A3 MTP (really, Multicam) helmet cover. Then they'd look like regular infantry. The Special Forces ECH (originally the standard one) is appropriate if the US 7th ID were really Rangers.

Edited January 30, 2014 by antoineflemming
misspelled break

[lennard 447]

Well, the helmet looks kinda like Revision's Batlskin Cobra helmet with side rails. The FAST, as in OPS-CORE FAST, helmet is the ECH lite. I think they need to have an A3 MTP (really, Multicam) helmet cover. Then they'd look like regular infantry. The Special Forces ECH (originally the standard one) is appropriate if the US 7th ID were really Rangers.

Sabre's reskins do just that. See here.

[antoineflemming 14]

Sabre's reskins do just that. See here.

I know. And they look better.

[oryang 10]

Sabre's reskins do just that. See here.

Yeah I know. But I'd love it if BIS gave us some "official" helmets/plate carriers in Multicam. It would make the difference between individual NATO soldiers' helmets so much bearable.