Flashpoint2.com updated?

[theavonlady 2]

I think u guys complain too much. If you want a Africa campaign then do it yourself.

And that is why you are a meathead

Then it should say so under his forum member name.

[Colossus 2]

This flashpoint2.com is better then the last one.

I almost got gusbumps    just thinking on OPF2.

And what is this ? Animals !! Cool !

This is getting better and better (and more realistic)

I MUST HAVE A DEMO SOON !!

Sadly we have to wait a whole year for this

Quote[/b] ]Winter 2004/2005 (!)

[Blink Dog 0]

Blink Dog, casting all political beliefs aside, can you name for me a military situation anywhere in the world today that is nearly 1/10 as exciting and chock full of scenario possibilities as the current war on terror?  

Whether you like it or not, the U.S. has embarked on a military adventure involving the most cutting edge of equipment and tactics, against a seasoned and determined enemy and in all possible theatres of operation, with a whole host of international actors wrapped up in both sides.  What could be more exciting than that?  What too, could be more intriguing from a mass marketing standpoint?

BIS is out to sell games, period.  They are going to go where the market wants them to go.  That means offering an exciting and unparalleled product that appeals to modern game buyers sensibilities.  We have a ton of unrealistic and crappy 'Nam and World War II games flooding the market.  What we do not have is an ultra-realistic, modern-day combat simulation.  At least not yet.

My own two cents:

I think it will be three threatres and three eras.  Vietnam and Southeast Asia.  Europe in a fictional Cold War 80's setting, and Africa and the Middle East in a modern day war on terror setting.

Don't forget that BIS has expanded from the team that put out OFP1.  More employees means faster and more versatile work, especially considering they have a pretty good blueprint to start working from.  OFP1 layed the groundwork, OFP2 is simply a lot of well needed and long desired polish.

Yeah exciting

If you were to accurately and realistically fight battles in a War on Terrorâ„¢ mission you would have so much support available that it would be the quickest and most unexciting mission you could possibly have. A good enemy is one that has a chance in hell of fighting back.

I wouldn't use another current day real world war for the basis of my game. I would use a fictional one, it worked for them in the past why not keep to the same formula. The cold war had a balance between the two sides, east vs. west, Nato vs. Warsaw pact, USA vs. Soviet Union. I was hoping that they would do a campaign based on the Czech uprisings in 1968 as the European portion of the campaign origionally announced.

[Schoeler 0]

Yeah exciting    

If you were to accurately and realistically fight battles in a War on Terrorâ„¢ mission you would have so much support available that it would be the quickest and most unexciting mission you could possibly have. A good enemy is one that has a chance in hell of fighting back.

I wouldn't use another current day real world war for the basis of my game. I would use a fictional one, it worked for them in the past why not keep to the same formula. The cold war had a balance between the two sides, east vs. west, Nato vs. Warsaw pact, USA vs. Soviet Union. I was hoping that they would do a campaign based on the Czech uprisings in 1968 as the European portion of the campaign origionally announced.

C'mon now. There is more to the war on terror than high altitude airstrikes. Think about all the specops actions in the mountains in Pakistan. The urbabn raids that you never see or hear about. The fighting in the Phillipine jungles and in South America. And, while it wasn't a part of the war on terror until recently (thanks Georgie), the influx of terror groups into the Iraqi quagmire has made life for American servicemen a nightmare. So far, the opposition seems to be able to inflct casualties on a pretty equal basis. There are a lot of scenario possibilities spinning off of that war. Just use your imagination.

[Blink Dog 0]

Still not convinced, if they do go with the War on Terrorâ„¢ campaign than it's a cheap, uncreative sellout. If they create a fictional modern campaign, like if the Soviet Union never collapsed and Guba is running things than that would be acceptable.

[Hoochie 0]

Quote[/b] ]So far, the opposition seems to be able to inflct casualties on a pretty equal basis.

Uh... right.

Blink Dog is right, War on Terror is no good for a game like OFP, based around large scale military conflict. They seem to be following the terror angle, I just wonder if they'll fictionalise some Arab country to blow the shit out of or if they'll maybe do a US lead Western invasion of North Korea allied with China, West vs group of random Arab countries but then you'll have to include Israel, probably even more politically sensitive than including Iraq.

They'll probably just make up a conflict, and use the terror angle to sell it. Actual game may have very little to do with WoT *crosses fingers*, after all, all we're seeing is an initial flash mock-up.

[m21man 0]

How about WoT missions from the OPFOR perspective ?

[Schoeler 0]

How about WoT missions from the OPFOR perspective ?

Hey what'd'ya know, a man with an imagination!

Currently in Iraq, the opposition inflicts 2-3 KIA a day. The U.S. isn't killing nearly that many insurgents as they have to conduct peacekeeping operations. This would make for some pretty tricky scenarios in OFP2. Conducting house to house sweeps for insurgents, never knowing which door being kicked in has a firefight or boobytrap waiting behind it. Patrolling streets and villages just waiting for that first rpg round to impact. I swear, you guys must be really dull in the creativity department if you can't see the mission possibilities here. You could play both sides and never get tired of playing the campaign.

[blackdog~ 0]

It would really suck to be randomly blown up by roadside bombs

[Friedchiken 0]

Well, couldn't we have a Korean War conflict? Even though N Korea is a developing country (please don't point at the oxymoron) they put ridiculous amounts of attention into the military. And not all S Koreans are nerds these days. I read that the border guards are pretty hi-strung as well.

Plus Asian countries put up vicious fights (especially Vietnam). The firepower and the war philosopies that follow the Asian world would completely rock the American campaign. To bad Japan couldn't be involved. Their constitution makes them sitting ducks in such a conflict.

[hellfish6 7]

Plus Asian countries put up vicious fights (especially Vietnam).  The firepower and the war philosopies that follow the Asian world would completely rock the American campaign.  To bad Japan couldn't be involved.  Their constitution makes them sitting ducks in such a conflict.

I think that if the balloon went up, Japan would get involved in the air and sea, but maybe not with land forces. South Korea is vitally important to Japan, and a communist-controlled peninsula armed with long range missiles and WMDs would pose a serious threat to Japan and her sea lines of communication.

[Friedchiken 0]

Hmm, probably.

I mean, the (japanese) Army/Marine branch commited 99% of the atrocities (going into the details entails a good banning, lol in a dark way) during WWII. And a Korean War is self defence...

Kim Jong may be a madman but that doesn't mean the Koreans (both sides) would show stupidity when kicking each others butts. The "Night Patrols" by both sides show how both countries violate the border daily (though not in a serious way).

[m21man 0]

Quote[/b] ]It would really suck to be randomly blown up by roadside bombs

Then play on the OPFOR and detonate the bombs .

[ozanzac 0]

How about WoT missions from the OPFOR perspective ?

Hey that'd be great!

I reckon the game would sell like gangbusters, especially amongst those against the american military adventures of late.

Shit, if the marines can come up with Virtual Battlefield Systems, I'm sure some terrorist group or someone from the axis of evil can come up with Virtual Terrorism Systems.

Too long has the field of virtual reality military training been dominated by westerners. It's about time a level playing field was extended to all fighting in todays conflicts.

Nice thinking BIS, are you sure your not in the Carlyle Group  

Edit: After a little deep thought, Wow. If you really let your mind go. This could potentially be the most politically incorrect (or correct) game of the 2000's. Probably not the best sought of game for the OFP engine, but bloody hell. I'll tell you what, if someone were to market a game like this, with a dash of 'Calvin and Hobbs' type of imagination, it'd be a worldwide hit and could actually be used to enlighten some people about political blunders in the past, and why terrorists even exist at all.

Go figure.

I wonder if Michael Moore wants to enter the domain of gaming?

[Friedchiken 0]

well, I think political incorrectness would be damaging part for the game but I still think that would be interesting.

The problem is that in many conflicts is that children are used to help terrorism wars many times.  They place bombs, inform on the "opfor" and in some of the most extreme cases shoot the guns from the hip because they are so small.

I've read someone writing on this forum that they believe children shouldn't have anything to do with a wargame.  The reality is that underdog fighters in developing areas resort to many things and breach many moral codes like opium smoking (though many warlord clans in Afganistan do refrain from such basic taboos).

But yeah, I would be interested in such an OPFOR campaign if it was done in a mature and realistic way.  Definately if the opfor was North Korea    Their mountians are beautiful!

EDIT:: Shoot, I was going to talk about how many fighters are fighting for things like "honor" and how many are avenging lost property and dead family members. Some of the guys actually make some sense. But of course we still have to mow them down because they want to drive us out of you-know-where

[Gollum1 0]

Yeah exciting    

If you were to accurately and realistically fight battles in a War on Terrorâ„¢ mission you would have so much support available that it would be the quickest and most unexciting mission you could possibly have. A good enemy is one that has a chance in hell of fighting back.

I wouldn't use another current day real world war for the basis of my game. I would use a fictional one, it worked for them in the past why not keep to the same formula. The cold war had a balance between the two sides, east vs. west, Nato vs. Warsaw pact, USA vs. Soviet Union. I was hoping that they would do a campaign based on the Czech uprisings in 1968 as the European portion of the campaign origionally announced.

C'mon now.  There is more to the war on terror than high altitude airstrikes.  Think about all the specops actions in the mountains in Pakistan.  The urbabn raids that you never see or hear about.  The fighting in the Phillipine jungles and in South America.  And, while it wasn't a part of the war on terror until recently (thanks Georgie), the influx of terror groups into the Iraqi quagmire has made life for American servicemen a nightmare.  So far, the opposition seems to be able to inflct casualties on a pretty equal basis.  There are a lot of scenario possibilities spinning off of that war.  Just use your imagination.

Christ!  I totally disagree with you Schoeler.

War on terrorism is an INCREDIBLY low-intensity conflict compared to any scenario involving two countries (or NATO-USSR...drool), all those spec ops you speak of, they MASSACRE the opposition, you might as well play Soldier of Fortune 2, for crying out loud!

How are you going to fight on the other side? Woohoo, my team of 20 managed to wound 2 Americans before an airstrike wiped us out.

The only way you could create a belieavable opposition is to creat a Brotherhood of NOD-type force (from C&C).

Goodbye realism!

There are already a complete assload of anti-terrorism spec op games, Delta Force series, Rainbow Six series, America's Army, SOCOM, the list goes on...

I agree with Blinkdog.

Edit: It would completely negate the idea of OFP.

[Friedchiken 0]

Call me redundant, but I still think fighting in Korea would be an awsome take on the war on terror.

Imagine, the Americans become really stupid and invade the north with aid of the south and get beat back by the enraged patriots of communism. There is a rediculous variety of terrain from snow to desert. And even though North Korea is starving, their military has been long over-pumped with misplaced funding, making the opposition brutal

[Gollum1 0]

N.Korea, part of the war on terror?

So all U.S enemies = terrorists?

Maybe you didn't mean it that way.

[Friedchiken 0]

No, N korea isn't a terrorist nation.

The citizens will attest to that.

PS: What I mean was that it would be a way to exploit the current fevors but as a surprise, North Korea would put out such a huge fight that they would kick the US's butts.

It would put out moral that arrogance is self-destructive.

Maybe the end is that there would be another stalemate, supported by other nations but the only reason why the US will survive in the game is that european and asian countries help out politically and economically.

My country would then eat assloads of humble pie

(sorry for the wierd take, I'm a 2nd generation immigrant)

[Blink Dog 0]

A North Korea senerio would be better, china might come to north Koreas aid or decide to swallow up Taiwan while the Yanks are fighting in Korea. The terain would also make air and armour support less of a factor in the battles and that in turn would create a natural game balance.

A really cool senerio would be the Russians move into Estonia and the Finnish government retaliates to aid their Estonian brothers, the Swedes smelling a easy and cheap victory decide to side with the Russians and invade Finland.

Meanwhile in Canada I become dictator, kick Mats Sundin out of the country and bar him from playing hockey and send JTF2 on missions to blow up Ikea stores. Sweden then sends a naval taskforce towards Canada forcing the U.S to destroy the task force in classic Tom Clancy style while a small group of drunken Finnish hunters manage to burn Stockholm to the ground.

[ralphwiggum 6]

while a small group of drunken Finnish hunters manage to burn Stockholm to the ground.

i support this scenario.

[cozza 24]

Nothin in stockholem anyway. I think

Burn it too the ground. Send the city of Snow to the fire hell.

[earl 0]

My grandfather served in the drunken finnish hunter legion.

[Judge Rabbi 0]

There should be an option to slow the text down...well if there is one then I missed it. I can't read that fast!

[Gollum1 0]

Nothin in stockholem anyway. I think  

Burn it too the ground. Send the city of Snow to the fire hell.  

The City of Stockholm

English option up to the right

And you might as well call New York the City of Snow, since...it does snow both there and in Stockholm in the winter.

Heh, sorry for the OT.