Plot deficiencies

[PFC_Mike 2]

Is it just me, or is the plot for resistance really contrived?

First, Nogova had no armored forces. So why did the Soviets bring an incredible amount of RPG's and other AT weapons?

Second, why did Guba decide to use the Su-25's? The Mi-17's could have destroyed Petrovice and Lipany in 15 sec with the 57mm rockets. And why didn't the Russians use the helos more effectively? They could have struck at any known resistance camps very quickly...maybe 5 minutes transit time

Victor was able to get to the airport, so why can't you put craters in the runway? It would really slow down any effort to used fixed-wing A/C.

And what value was there on Nogova? It has no apparent industries, no strategic value, just nothing. And why was there a deserton an otherwise lush island?

Just a few of the inconsistencies I've noticed.

[Kermit 0]

Stop whining. This is not constructive criticism.

[FSPilot 0]

Guba was insane, so it all makes sense.

Insane people don't have to make sense.

[CanVagabond 0]

- Is it just me, or is the plot for resistance really contrived?

Yes, it is just you. Rest assured, it is indeed, just you.

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

- First, Nogova had no armored forces. So why did the Soviets bring an incredible amount of RPG's and other AT weapons?

Be prepared. They might want to take down any "technos" that the rebels may use. That and it was an offensive that would spark OpFlash earlier, so they wanted to be ready for the Americans. They didn't plan on fighting rebels all day long, they were going for an island hop. For all we know that would be the R&R isle while the figthing occured elsewhere.

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

- Second, why did Guba decide to use the Su-25's? The Mi-17's could have destroyed Petrovice and Lipany in 15 sec with the 57mm rockets. And why didn't the Russians use the helos more effectively? They could have struck at any known resistance camps very quickly...maybe 5 minutes transit time

Maybe that was all he had availiable? As for hitting the camps with helos, for all Guba "knows" (keep in mind that this is a game, not real people even though we talk otherwise) the rebels have AA rockets. You never assume, you recon. Unfortunantly, he didn't check for mines. See recon, above.

Typically, I believe though I could be wrong, Russians have more armor and trrops than helos availiable. Mostly because a strong armour force serves Russia better than a strong helo force. The military mindset maybe?

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

- Victor was able to get to the airport, so why can't you put craters in the runway? It would really slow down any effort to used fixed-wing A/C.

What fixed wing aircraft? It was a mission to knock out Helos.

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

- And what value was there on Nogova? It has no apparent industries, no strategic value, just nothing. And why was there a deserton an otherwise lush island?

I quote - "In my mind I see a beautiful peacful world. A world of peace and harmony and granduer. I see us invading this world, and you know why? They would never see it coming." Nogova could be used as the breadbasket for the "island War" Remember, there are now four islands in close proximity, or realitivly.

As for a desert on a lush island..well, most places I have been, in Europe, Canada and the US, there are variances galor in even very small spots of land. Nova Scotia goes from Rocky shores to hard lands to soft rolling hills and the like. Granted there aren't deserts but you get the idea. That and it adds variety to the island.

[Chopstickz 0]

About the helo's. Guba has limited resourses, i.e he is not supported by central govornment, and as a colonal only controls a regiment of tanks, men and helo's.

[Miles 0]

Yes, but he did have helis which throws that argument out the window. However he didn't know where the bases were and the resistance had AA. Victor also blew up alot of his airforce in the first airport mission.

I think guba was trying to get nogova as it would be his own little island for him to live on, as kolgugev is cold and horrible.

The reason he didnt put craters in the runway is 1) it would be very difficult-youd need to put a charge IN the runway itself to make a decent crater, and why blow up your only mainland airport.

He used su25s as these were filled with napalm-far more effective than those rockets, and he didnt have many mi17s left, and even if he did he might not be arming them as this is not thier purpose.

The desert doesnt make sense at all though.

[PFC_Mike 2]

I think the Mi-17's could have been used, Vietnam-style, as a part of a search and destroy force. They could feery men wherever there was a situation. But the island-hopping theory explains a lot. The desert still makes no sense though.

[Ruud van Nistelrooy 0]

If the resistance had any sense they'd move about the place, then wouldn't keep their bases in one area, and since they are taking part in all kinds of undesirable acts all the time, its unlikely the russians could accuratly drop men about the place and hit the resistance max force because they'd be dispersed all around the island. Of course, the resistance prey on convoys and are successful in taking out supply routes, so how can the russians overcome this? use choppers to transport goods about the place, maybe most of them are on supply duty, or maybe they just don't have many choppers.

Remember there are politics behind this, and like was said sometime NATO have observation cruisers all over the place, i'm sure if they saw Mi-17's and Hinds whizzing about the place nuking civilian areas it'd put the russians in a sticky situation - therefore, troops are the most subtle method of doing things without alerting NATO. With troops they'd need a lot of them, maybe they are indeed island hopping, but in any situation if you're gonna take over a country with hostility, you're gonna need to cover a lot of land - lots of troops and tanks. I mean, imagine if irl the Russians invaded a small country with 3 bmps and some colorful language, what chance would they have of holding that country? The large number of tanks could be there to intimidate the locals as well and squash any hopes of mounting a respectable resistance, and also they could be there to provide any resistance to invasion themselves, eg if Nogova had some powerful allies (eg NATO).

Think about it, the russians take over Nogova, which is basically russian land and russian people who are whinging a lot, they go in, take over the place, NATO responds, Guba the madman gets his massive war that he always wanted etc...

Like has been said the desert is pretty wierd

[billytran 0]

Nogova did have armed forces. In one of the scenes you hear over the radio that the President has ordered the military to lay down its weapons. I'm guessing that the Resistance got its T-55's from the Nogova military, since they had been out of Russian service for quite a while.

An Mi-17 could flatten one or two cities, but the Su-25's could flatten the entire island. Mi-17's had rockets, the bombers had napalm. Guba didn't know the exact location of the camps, so he couldn't strike at them. Also, when they found out Resistance had AA they were afraid of losing the choppers.

I don't think a satchel charge can put a crater in the runway, you need something much bigger. Besides, the engine doesn't support it.

[Baztard1984 0]

Nogova had a militia. Not a military. Armed civilians.

[Infidel 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Typically, I believe though I could be wrong, Russians have more armor and trrops than helos availiable. Mostly because a strong armour force serves Russia better than a strong helo force. The military mindset maybe?<span id='postcolor'>

An Afghanian friend of mine, who fled from Afghanistan in 1986, vividly remembers a scene he witnessed in Kabul: On one afternoon he and his family heard some kind of thunder coming from a distance and they went out of the house to see what it is. Shortly after dozens of MI-17s flew by, rather low and in very impressive formation.

Now about other inconsistencies I found with the story:

- There would have been no need to transport ammo and men via perilous mountain paths. Choppers or boats would have sufficed.

- Napalm could have been fitted to the choppers and the Russians could have decided to just burn down all forests where they might expect rebels (just like the US tried in Vietnam).

- I'm pretty sure that the Russian's recon could have made out any Resistance camp in no time.

- It would have been much wiser, as someone else already said, if the Resistance didn't have any fixed bases or take up direct confrontations, but work like the Vietcong or the Mudjahedin, who actually did defeat the Russians that way. Or, even more likely, like the Palestinians in Israel (suicide bombings, etc.).

- Instead of moving enough forces into a confrontation the Sowjets always only sent a trickle, especially in the early missions.

The Sowjets had a highly disciplined and very effective army, technologically even more advanced than the US forces. In reality they 'd have taken over an island like Nogova in days.

Infidel

[HellToupee 0]

1. its a game

2. "the difference between fact and fiction is that fiction has to make sence"

[FSPilot 0]

I've got one answer that explains all of the questions.

Without a big helicopter force, or tank force, or infantry force, there would'nt be a plot in the first place. If Guba just came along with a BMP full of troops, there would be maybe one mission worth of resistance.

[taimaishu1103 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The Sowjets had a highly disciplined and very effective army, technologically even more advanced than the US forces.

<span id='postcolor'>

that is most likel the most stupid and unbacekd comment ive ever read on this forum.

time and again, history has proven that the russians won wars not by great armies, tactics, nor technological superiority, but by luck, and innumerous amounts of poorly trained soldiers.

soviet war doctrine calls for a large quantity of low quality military machine, while us doctine calls for a lower quantity, higher-quality military force.

russian soldiers are essentially slaves, drafted into the army and forced to fight a certain amount of time.  they are poorly trained and horribkly motivated.  The technology they operate is also horrible.  The Ak47, while reliable, is a horibly inaccurate rifle, and its effective range on a poiont target is over 100 meters less than the m16.   A russian bmp fresh out of factory will shed 1 kilogram of steel from its engine within its first hour of operation simply because the moving parts are so crudely made.  Even their most advanced jet-fighter still uses tube-transistor technology, something us americans quit using over 20 years ago.  

In short, the russian military is a worthless piece of shit.  You think we got raped in vietnam?  look at what happened to the russians in afghanistan.  they got raped even worse than us, by an army that was much less formidable than the vietnamese.

[Harnu 0]

Now, here's what I don't get. People say when Russia attacked Afganistan, it became Russias Veitnam. They lots a few ten(s) of thoushands of soildiers? How is that a Russian vietnam when the Afganas lost over a million people.

[HellToupee 0]

we're headin a bit off topic but in vetnaim the us were fighting a gurrila war, they had the advantage it was their terrian the m16 wasnt suited to the conditions it would jam a hell of alot. Theres a story of sum americans who uncovered a dead enemy soldier buried for about a month with his ak, they were able to fireoff shots from it with out cleaning it after it being under ground for that time. Me being a lazy person would prefer reliabilty over accuracy and in a gurrila war u often get to pick the battle field thats my POV.

[Kermit 0]

The AUG is extremely reliable, almost never jamming (according to all I've read and heard). It is also very durable. The testers backed a MOG (like a BDRM only bigger) over one thirty times and it still fired normally, although the casing cracked. It is almost totally plastic, so it requires less care. It is the same caliber as the M-16, but it is shorter while having the same barrel length. The only thing that could be considered a minus is that the receiver is right by your face when you fire, so if it blew up it would be most unpleasant. But then, you will be in trouble if your receiver blows up no matter where it is. And when's the last time an AUG's receiver blew up?

The main problem about Vietnam was not our equipment, nor even our soldiers. The problem was that the United States government would not allow our soldiers to fight to the maximum extent of their capabilities. For instance, they were not allowed to be as destructive as they could have been. Also, the chain of command was plagued with problems. A United States patrol once encountered an enemy armor column headed toward a friendly infantry position. They reported it to the brass hat in charge, but he instructed them to remove all references to the tank column from their report. His reason was that he had already sent his report to his boss saying that the area was clear, and he didn't want to look dumb. Moreover, he refused them permission to take out the column, even though they were in a position to do so. The result was the deaths of many men who would not have died had the officer not been so pathetically selfish and stupid.

[PFC_Mike 2]

I still think that Infidel's comments on the plot in OFP:R are good. As for afghanistan, one must remember that the Soviets were unafraid of civvie casualties or being "too destrutctive"

[Gollum1 0]

The Soviet armed forces more advanced than the U.S military!? I´m not an American but ROFLMAO!!!

And I don´t believe Taimashu is American either, with that spelling

[Ruud van Nistelrooy 0]

Russia's military may not be as good as america's, but keep in mind america's military is only good to the general public because every now and again we see it doing the business against poverty stricken countries. Yes, witness the glorious might of the US army as it takes on a 60 year old airforce consisting of 12, yes 12 Afghan spitfires and a hijacked jumbo jet with a machine gun in the cockpit, as well as a tank force that has like, 4 nicked WW1 tanks. Result - wow!! we like, totally killed all the afghans, our army must be the best the world, damm, god bless america. The only reason the american army is soooo amazing is because all the other most powerful armies in the world got wiped out in WW2. Its very well known, or should be, that Russia produced technology that would take on anything american, but didn't see the light of day due to various funding problems. Today, they have some solid equipment, some amazing equipment, and some naff equipment. America has loads of quality equipment, but most of this is useless, just there to act as a funds sponge. Like, why do you need an F-22 when NATO tactics involve taking out all aircraft on the ground? or when the only people america will ever realistically fight will be countries which no one has ever heard of until they get blamed for something, because, america can't realistically take on Russia even though their army is being dumped on, like it or not. Russian equipment does its job - provide a simple, cheap solution, while also providing quality if the money is there, that will be more than able to take on a large proportion of the worlds armies.

Who cares if america's army is better, that doesn't mean anything because realistically, america wouldn't take on any remotly powerful country in a toe to toe battle would they?

Vietnam was a complete failure by the american army, accept this rather than going ''well, russia did worse in Afghanistan''. I mean, what does it matter? Apparently russia's army is a piece of shit anyway while america's is capable of destroying the entire universe. Therefore - Afghanistan was like, Russia getting raped by 1 guy, america's was a massive gang bang with about 20 convicts all taking turns

[Hit_Sqd_Maximus 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Ruud van Nistelrooy @ July 27 2002,19:26)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Who cares if america's army is better, that doesn't mean anything because realistically, america wouldn't take on any remotly powerful country in a toe to toe battle would they?<span id='postcolor'>

If the US had to take on a powerful country, they would. But why waste the money and resources? if they absolutely must take on russia, I dont think the Russians would stand a chance in the long run.

[Ruud van Nistelrooy 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Hit_Sqd_Maximus @ July 27 2002,20:51)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Ruud van Nistelrooy @ July 27 2002,19:26)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Who cares if america's army is better, that doesn't mean anything because realistically, america wouldn't take on any remotly powerful country in a toe to toe battle would they?<span id='postcolor'>

If the US had to take on a powerful country, they would. But why waste the money and resources? if they absolutely must take on russia, I dont think the Russians would stand a chance in the long run.<span id='postcolor'>

They wouldn't touch russia, not just because of the nuclear threat, but because its a developing country and the US would love to exploit it economically and get a hold of its various resources and stuff. If the US actually invaded Russia they'd lose too much equipment and wouldn't be able to hold the place, plus they'd need shedloads of help from Europe which means the whole of NATO would be dragged into something that could potentially lead to major european cities being attacked by the russians, while america wouldn't have to deal with that. Politically america wouldn't touch Russia, but if they ever did, i doubt they'd find it easy, and by doing so would risk a lot of american lives (imagine if there was some kind of unholy alliance between the russians, chinese and various Terrorists groups - would america be so willing to take on countries that could be a major, major help to a lot of people who hate america? eg Osama). Even getting a substantial enough force in russia would probably give the americans a reason enough to ditch the idea, because Russia have some of the best air defense systems in the world, you can't just go in a drop bombs onto their orphanages and hospitals because they'll easily fuck up bombers. Russia has ICBM's, a large airforce and a few subs putting carrier groups under immediate threat (and exactly how can america get air dominance without carrier groups?), and then, even if america does come out on top they'll still risk nuclear annihilation, some tooled up terrorists and massive instability in asia and europe, plus a completly fucked up military with 200 million dollar jet fighters to be replaced, american casaulities would likely be so high that the public will want out of the war so bush wouldn't even consider it if it put his position at risk.

Germany and Britain had the most powerful armies in the world once, then one big war came about and now they don't have very big armies at all. Americans are so arrogent and so power crazy i doubt they'd even consider losing their method of maintaining all kinds of power over the world in a single war. America without an army would mean more problems for america, like not being able to prevent terrorism, protect economic interestes and of course the massive cost of replacing all the overly expensive and elaborate equipment (that is if they actually can afford to produce all the fighter jets, subs, troops, tanks, nimitz' etc... who knows, maybe if this ever does happen we'll see the americans with 'piece of shit' military hardware just like the russians have)

[FW200 0]

yup i second ruudje!!

The us think that they are the best and everything......

That is why i love russia...

[Placebo 29]

This has gone OT now which is where it can go.