Ofp2 set in vietnam

[TaNK_Em 0]

I hope Korean War...

[Sudan 0]

you know i was really hoping for a medieval setting. hope on a horse ride into battle, horse gets killed hop off whip out your sword, grab a spear of the dead guy. imagine similar engine more overcast days, and highland look to it, you got catapaults, battering rams, all first person view. trojan horses, they'll never see ya coming no magic or bs like that, just real weapons real physics, and men in tights. horses to rape, women to pillage......................ahhh it would be great.

[SpeedyDonkey 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"> horses to rape, women to pillage......................ahhh it would be great. <span id='postcolor'>

Oh dear... Well im glad you didnt say donkeys.

[Tamme 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Azatoth @ April 26 2003,04:28)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">NAM - dead for side balance ...

What have NVA ? 95% have only AK47...<span id='postcolor'>

Actually AK47 was one of the best rifles in its time these days the AK74 is even better. In Vietnam the M16 was in its early stages a crappy weapon because it was full of faults. My english isn't that good, but it had something to do with a gas exhaust mechanism (somebody who knows correct me if im wrong) that malfunctioned causing the weapon to jam. The Vietnamese didn't have any fancy stuff like that in their AK's but the guns worked. If I had to choose between an AK74 or an M16A2 i'd take the AK. The more simple a weapon the better it works.

[Antichrist 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tamme @ 26 April 2003,13:21)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Azatoth @ April 26 2003,04:28)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">NAM - dead for side balance ...

What have NVA ? 95% have only AK47...<span id='postcolor'>

Actually AK47 was one of the best rifles in its time these days the AK74 is even better. In Vietnam the M16 was in its early stages a crappy weapon because it was full of faults. My english isn't that good, but it had something to do with a gas exhaust mechanism (somebody who knows correct me if im wrong) that malfunctioned causing the weapon to jam. The Vietnamese didn't have any fancy stuff like that in their AK's but the guns worked. If I had to choose between an AK74 or an M16A2 i'd take the AK. The more simple a weapon the better it works.<span id='postcolor'>

Well we know that AK47 was better rifle at the time! But how happy are you going to be playing in MP as Vietcong with AK's only?

[Tamme 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Well we know that AK47 was better rifle at the time! But how happy are you going to be playing in MP as Vietcong with AK's only?  

<span id='postcolor'>

Well I think that BIS is going to make all kinds of fun stuff for VC to balance things out. Anyways I like to play against americans for a change. Theres too many games that allow you to play only as americans, and what annoys me the most is that they're always the heros riding on their white horses and russians, vietcong or any other faction is evil, which is not true. Besides I love the way AK sounds

[Guest DKM-jaguar]

I chose to vote for a more modern campaign. I dont want to depend on someone from outside making a high quality campaign addon, becuase the majority of addons are not good enough to play as your main game setting. If BIS made it so that the campaign as present day, then let modders make a camapign in nam, fine. But i just wont rely on a "mod" to make my favourite campaign becuase the majority wont have the skills.

[Schoeler 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Antichrist @ 26 April 2003,16:40)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tamme @ 26 April 2003,13:21)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Azatoth @ April 26 2003,04:28)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">NAM - dead for side balance ...

What have NVA ? 95% have only AK47...<span id='postcolor'>

Actually AK47 was one of the best rifles in its time these days the AK74 is even better. In Vietnam the M16 was in its early stages a crappy weapon because it was full of faults. My english isn't that good, but it had something to do with a gas exhaust mechanism (somebody who knows correct me if im wrong) that malfunctioned causing the weapon to jam. The Vietnamese didn't have any fancy stuff like that in their AK's but the guns worked. If I had to choose between an AK74 or an M16A2 i'd take the AK. The more simple a weapon the better it works.<span id='postcolor'>

Well we know that AK47 was better rifle at the time! But how happy are you going to be playing in MP as Vietcong with AK's only?  <span id='postcolor'>

The Viet Cong could be poorly armed, but the Main Force VC units and the NVA were more than a match for the U.S. The NVA had artillery, mortars, 122mm rockets, SA-7's, heavy machine guns, tanks etc..

Of all the scenarios, excluding air power, Vietnam is more evenly balanced than any other I can think of.

[Eviscerator 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (mrukas @ 25 April 2003,21:41)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">if their gonna make NAM out of it, they better make sure they include the AH-56 Cheyenne <span id='postcolor'>

As far as i know the AH-56 never made it into combat as its contract was cancelled prior to production as the AH-1G was seen to be cheaper...

[Eviscerator 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tamme @ 26 April 2003,13:21)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Azatoth @ April 26 2003,04:28)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">NAM - dead for side balance ...

What have NVA ? 95% have only AK47...<span id='postcolor'>

Actually AK47 was one of the best rifles in its time these days the AK74 is even better. In Vietnam the M16 was in its early stages a crappy weapon because it was full of faults. My english isn't that good, but it had something to do with a gas exhaust mechanism (somebody who knows correct me if im wrong) that malfunctioned causing the weapon to jam. The Vietnamese didn't have any fancy stuff like that in their AK's but the guns worked. If I had to choose between an AK74 or an M16A2 i'd take the AK. The more simple a weapon the better it works.<span id='postcolor'>

The M16A1 fixed many of the faults of the M16 (which was billed as a 'self-cleaning weapon' ), the M16 also used poorly made ammunition, which fouled the barrel badly, which caused stoppages, however the M16A1 changed most of this and as it was introduced in 1967 (and if the '68 on the dial on the site is anything to go by) then the M16A1 should pretty evenly match the AK-47, if used with the 30 round magazines which were also introduced in '67. And the NVA/VC had a huge variety of weapons, a 'short' list:

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Weapons:

(Bolt Action Rifles)

Mauser K98  

Mosin Nagant M91-30  

Mosin Nagant M38  

Mosin Nagant M44 (Chicom Type 53)  

(Semi-Autos)

Russian Tokarev SVT40  

Russian SKS (also Chicom Type 56)  

(Subguns)

Russian PPsh-41 (also Chicom K50)

Russian PPS-43  

French Mat-49  

US Thompson .45 Cal.  

US Grease Gun .45 Cal. (also Chicom Model 37)  

(Auto Rifles)

M14

M16

German MP44  

Russian AK47 (also Chicom Type 56)  

Anti-Tank/Vehicle:

Russian PTRS41  

Russian PTRD41  

RPG-2 (also Chicom Type 56)  

RPG-7  

LMGs:

Russian DP, DPM (also Chicom Type 53)  

Russian RP46  

Russian RPD (also Chicom Type 56)  

German MG34  

Chicom copy of Danish Madsen  

Chicom copy of Czech ZB-26  

French 1924 Chatellerault 7.5mm  

Crew Served Weapons:

Russian SG43  

Chicom Copy of Maxim MG 08  

Russian Maxim M1910  

Russian DShk 12.7mm (or Chicom copy)  

US .30 Cal  

US M2 .50 Cal  

Grenades:

Russian F1  

Russian RGD33  

Russian RPG40  

Russian RG42  

Russian RPG43  

Russian RPG6  

PAVN long and short handled stick grenades  

US M26  

Japanese type 98  

and many more....  

Pistols: (Officers only, VC?)

Czech M1927, 1950 7.65, M52 7.62

German P38 9mm  

Russian Marakov 9mm  

Russian Tokarev TT-M1933 (and Chicom copies)<span id='postcolor'>

I also absolutely agree with Schoeler, Vietnam is one of the few truly balanced conflicts, any East vs West cold war scenarios are pretty stupid unless bis go down the same route again with a 'rogue' leader, as any battle will escalate too quickly into nuclear war...even if it was a rogue leader, its pretty likely that they would have some kind of nuclear weapon in their arsenal, be it mobile launchers or nuclear artillery shells...

Or if it was some other conflict, say... the invasion of Grenada, its all over too quickly, its unbelievably one sided, if they went into modern conflicts they would have too much CQB which we all know ofp does badly, and also the one sided-ness

World War 2 is one of the only other conflicts that had enough fighting, was pretty even and had no chance of escalating into nuclear war, and im sure people dont want to go even further into the past...I would much rather it be Vietnam and it be realistic, the ofp campaign to me was just not entertaining, it was fiction, to me it was like a fairytale, and people may say Vietcong has already cornered the 'Nam market, but Vietcong isnt half the game OFP2 could be, imagine all the aesthetics of Vietcong but with all the extras of the OFP engine, being able to ride from one battle to the next in the back of a huey instead of being confined in a 1x1km map, being able to call in close air support, artillery, reinforcements (all possible with addons in OFP1, so imagine what it will be like in OFP2)

All in all, i for one am pleased its Vietnam, i hope BIS blow the competition out of the water...

[-CCCP-Stalker 0]

You all say that if it'll be NAM we'll have a crappy game balance. !!BUT!! what do we have now ? T80 with an armour of my front door and moving fortress M1A1. The best gub model M16 and a crappy AK which looks like a stick. Shaking like hell V80 which is the most stable chopper due to the double rotor and mighty AH64. Most of west models and textures are really good. But look at east ones... And let's look on official updates. What have east received ? V80, RG-6, BMP-2 and Bizon. What west have ? THIS IS A BALANCE

[Eviscerator 0]

I think we're saying that if it is Vietnam it will be balanced, maybe not technologically, but the terrain and numbers are in the favour of the NVA/VC, even saying that, as someone else mentioned the NVA were supplied by Russia and China and therefore had a lot of top of the line equipment...

[GuyKorn 0]

I think OFP2 will have two Campaigns, It says Historical and Modern. It thinking that The historical willl be Vietnam and that the Modern will be Afganistan or even Iraq. but in any case they mention two things Historical and Modern so tehre has to be two campaigns, and i think it would be swet if there was a Vietnam war Campaign cause it would show how powerful OFP2 engine will be and how new and better it is then the previous OFP with dense jungle area, LArge battle feilds, large military groups. Then in Afganistan it will appeal to the peopel of how up-to-date the game is and the modern weapons now. If OFP2 becomes this, which i wont be suprised if BIS does, OFP will become one of the most popular and fun games out there cause it appeals to such a big group.

[zverushka 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">NVA were supplied by Russia and China and therefore had a lot of top of the line equipment...

<span id='postcolor'>

BWAHAHAHA!

If you love me, you'll kill me.

First of all, Russia didn't supply the vietcong or NVA, second the Chinese didn't have much that could be considered top of the line equipment, no offense to any chinese here.

The most advanced small arms they (the NVA) got were chicom type 56s, which had a wire stock that could (IIRC) be folded for easier carrying, as southeast asians and chinese are usually shorter in height and smaller in general than most people of the nations of the warsaw pact.

I would have killed for a balkans game, but unfortunately, I think there isn't much hope.

BIS needs to stop being so predictable. In CWC, we were fighting the big bad ruskies babbling in the language of oatmeal, in OFP2, I expect we'll be fighting the small, but nevertheless evil NVA cackling in their evil language. Will we have another general guba? I think yes.

The two wars I wanted for OFP2 would be the serbo-croatian war or the yugoslavian civil war in general, or the war in afghanistan in the 1980s between the SU and the mudjaheds.

These wars, having no tangible US involvement, will let the players have an idea that neither side is really bad. In CWC, they were focused on killing boris and ivan so much, they were like little pixels on the screen. Just a standard shooting game, killing the bad guys. In OFP2, the same will happen. However, most americans have no opinion about wither the croats or serbs or bosnians or russians, or afghans are "bad" or "good", and will let them see the digital people as real people, rather than the "bad guys." This will create a better atmosphere. They should create a campaign for both sides to amplify the effect.

One thing that also creates atmosphere is burning things. You know, in all that war footage of modern wars, there is alot of smoke. Smoking trucks, smoking tanks, smoking houses, and frantic people yelling in tongues while running through it. I saw a little bit of footage of pre 9/11 northern alliance troops running across a quick stream to a burning village, with a burning truck in it. Fire and smoke really creates an image of war and destruction, instead iof cardboard tanks crumbling and smoking for 5 seconds, there should be a tank with the turret knocked off in a blaze of flames and smoke. AI should not be able to magically see through the smoke.

Smoke should also be able to be seen very far, and they should program the particles so they clump up in the air.

If a grenade blows in a house, there should be a certain chance that the house will ignite because of the flammable objects there.

Animations should be better, hands should be far higher poly too.

[Eviscerator 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (zverushka @ 26 April 2003,22:55)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">NVA were supplied by Russia and China and therefore had a lot of top of the line equipment...

<span id='postcolor'>

BWAHAHAHA!

If you love me, you'll kill me.    

First of all, Russia didn't supply the vietcong or NVA, second the Chinese didn't have much that could be considered top of the line equipment, no offense to any chinese here.

The most advanced small arms they (the NVA) got were chicom type 56s, which had a wire stock that could  (IIRC) be folded for easier carrying, as southeast asians and chinese are usually shorter in height and smaller in general than most people of the nations of the warsaw pact.<span id='postcolor'>

The Chicom Type 56 was just a chinese copy of the AK-47, the only difference being the wire stock you mentioned, however Russia did indeed supply the North Vietnamese which then trickled down to the VC...

However, by 'top of the line' i was talking vehicles, they had Shilkas, SA-6's, T-55's, Mi-4's, Mig-21's, BTR-60's...Which at the time were some of the best available.

Just a quick link i grabbed after searching on google ( http://vn.vladnews.ru/Arch/2002/ISS310/News/upd21_2.HTM ), as you'll see one of the paragraphs outlines the russian role...

"The Soviet Union played a crucial role in the Vietnam War, assisting Ho Chi Minh's forces with supplies, arms and 22,000 military advisers. Soviet aid was loaded onto ships in Vladivostok, and local sailors were among the war-dead."

Searching around google will find more mentions of it, this link here ( http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/pocket_money.htm ) mentions an operation to mine North Vietnamese ports to prevent Soviet shipping from getting through, another paragraph highlighting the Soviet presence:

"The 72-hour delay arming time on the initial mines laid at Haiphong was up at 120900H Vietnam time on 12 May. Nine ships at Haiphong had taken advantage of the grace period to depart the port. Twenty-seven ships remained. Both Soviet and Soviet-bloc ships headed for Haiphong at the time had diverted to different destinations, thus avoiding a direct confrontation with the mine fields."

So i think its safe to say that the Russians did indeed supply the NVA/VC.

[MLF 0]

alot of the AA guns where manned by russian crews, and if you think russia did not get involved your misinformed as Evis has said

[furia 10]

I have voted to make the sim on fictional islands instead Vietnam. I do enjoy very much Sebnampack 2 and plenty of good maps are done on it but I think that would be too restrictive on terms of gameplay.

Vietnam had a well equiped US force where Vitenamese forces rely more on numbers and have poor equipement.

Whatever the set up we must make both teams are leveled on terms of weapons and capabilities.

Maybe a Vietnam mode along an island could be incorporated on the game but just as an adition, not making it the game base.

[Azatoth 0]

Offtop

Signature test

[theavonlady 2]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Azatoth @ 28 April 2003,08:09)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Signature test<span id='postcolor'>

Shouldn't that be "I don't support Vietnam in OFP2"?

[ralphwiggum 6]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (theavonlady @ 28 April 2003,07:47)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">9--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Azatoth @ 28 April 2003,089)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Signature test<span id='postcolor'>

Shouldn't that be "I don't support Vietnam in OFP2"? <span id='postcolor'>

everyone not know to speak english gud.

now please get back on topic.

[Antichrist 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (theavonlady @ 28 April 2003,07:47)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">9--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Azatoth @ 28 April 2003,089)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Signature test<span id='postcolor'>

Shouldn't that be "I don't support Vietnam in OFP2"? <span id='postcolor'>

Not really!

[hollywood 0]

I'm not particularly fussed whether or not it's Vietnam based (chances are I'm gonna buy it anyway), however I have my doubts that it will be...after all for a fictional conflict played out over a number of islands BIS could do far worse than go for SE Asia.

[RonW 0]

Hello:

Well, here is my 3 cents!!

1) Vietnam is ok, but I would prefer a modern (circa 2004 to 2010) fiction conflict. Ofshoots on the War on Terrorism would be good.

2) I have Vietcong by Take2 Interactive and WOW what a game, VERY immersive game and I highly recommend it.  Small maps compared to OFP, but it does has the OFP "feel" to it. The single player campaign is amazing!! Which brings me to point three....

3) There seems to be a number of Vietnam game products that will be hitting the market in the next couple of years....does this constitute a flood? Only time will tell and will be based on sales.

Can the market support another Vietnam based game? Whatever they decide, I will buy OFP2. OFP was one of my fav games largely due to the single player campaigns and the support by the modding community. MP was merely ok, but satisfying. Unfortunately (or fortunately depending on you point of view), Counter-Strike (Half-life; 80k to 121k players) IS online gaming and publishers will be hard pressed to attract that crowd. Yes, I understand that most people plan more than one game, but the stats clearly shows CS as the online gaming community. I'm sure OFP2 will do very well, but more sales means OFP3.

Thanks,

S_Hunter

[GhettoP 0]

I wouldn't really mind Vietnam, but if it is, it better be pretty damn good. Make it just like it was fighting in jungles and mainly it being a "helicopter war." I prefer a fictional, modern conflict, that is because I like modern weaponry more. I really enjoy World War II games, but I don't think this engine is meant for LARGE scale battles. Vietnam had a lot of small units patrolling jungles and such, which would be perfect for OFP2. I just hope it doesn't turn into a campaign of patrol, get ambushed, retreat, repeat. I guess this war would be very balanced if it was in OFP2, but during that era, if we fought the war we wanted to, we could have completely blown away the NVA and VC, but since it wasn't fought that way, it turned out to be very balanced. The US won every battle in the war though, but this game would not have to be about the battles, but about smaller battles, maybe with special operations forces of some type. As long as we get good jungle landscapes and better realistic gameplay, I will be fine with the Vietnam era as OFP2.

[haunted 0]

Mybe BIS saw the battlefield as being rather empty in OFP. ie, instead of eney units moving up as a team, they were just scattered in parts of a map (this is obvious on the first mission of CWC).

So maybe BIS are trying to sort this by adding VC in their weight of numbers, after all, the jungle is a hard place to keep formation, if the NVA had them at all (feel free to prove me wrong) BIS could keep the scattered units, but have more of them, and this would compensate for the weight of NVA/ VC numbers and their lack of formations.

ps. I know the russians moved in teams and in formation, but play the first Cold War mission and you'll know what im talking about.